Sitting of 28 July 1964

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

  INCOME TAX
  THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malawi) Order, 1964, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

  INCOME TAX
  THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Northern Rhodesia) Order, 1964, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

PORT OF LONDON BILL
Lords Amendments considered;
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments:—
And objection being taken to further proceeding, further consideration of the Lords Amendments stood adjourned.
Lords Amendments to be further considered Tomorrow.

SAINT GEORGE HANOVER SQUARE BURIAL GROUND BILL
Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
Bill read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
Read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.
WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL [Lords]
Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL [Lords]
Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they take into account the collapse of the survey-rig erected in connection with the works proposed in the Bill and the effect such collapse may have had on the evidence so far submitted to them.—[Mr. Webster.]
PETITION

  Fladbury Railway Station
  Sir P. Agnew: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the leave of the House, I should like to present a Petition from the Councils of the Parishes of Fladbury and Hill and Moor in the Rural District of Pershore in the County of Worcestershire and signed by 521 residents in those parishes.
  The Petition is addressed to the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled and shows that British Railways, as part of their plans for the reorganisation of the Oxford—Stratford-on-Avon—Worcester railway line, propose to withdraw all passenger services from and to and to close the station at Fladbury.
  Your humble Petitioners do not consider that the alternative bus services suggested are an adequate substitute for the regular train service which they now have, and they will suffer great hardship if Fladbury Station is closed.
  Wherefore your humble Petitioners pray that the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled will direct British Railways to reconsider their proposals and make Fladbury Station an unmanned halt instead of withdrawing all passenger services and closing the station.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  MEMBERS (JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND BRIEFS)
  1. Mr. A. Lewisasked the Attorney-General whether he will publish in HANSARD the names of hon. Members of this House who have since January, 1952, been appointed to legal appointments; what these appointments were in each case; what salary and expenses were drawn or paid; and what legal briefs

  Member of Parliament

  Appointment

  Remuneration

  The Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn Simon

  President, Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division

  £8,000 p.a.

  The Hon. Mr. Justice Nield, C.B.E.

  Recorder (Judge of Crown Court), Manchester, 1956–60.

  £4,500 p.a., 1956–59 and £5,250 p.a., 1959–60.

  The Hon. Mr. Justice Howard

  Chairman, East Suffolk Quarter Sessions, 1952–60.

  350 guineas p.a.

  Chairman, West Suffolk Quarter Sessions, 1952–60.

  350 guineas p.a.

  Recorder, Southend, 1958–60

  £750 p.a.

  High Court Judge, 1961

  £8,000 p.a.

  The Hon. Mr. Justice UngoedThomas.

  High Court Judge, 1962

  £8,000 p.a.

  His Hon. Judge Sumner, O.B.E., Q.C.

  County Court Judge, 1961

  £4,400 p.a., 1961–63 and £5,300p.a., 1963 to date.

  His Hon. Judge Ingress Bell, T.D., Q.C.

  County Court Judge, 1960

  £4,400 p.a., 1960–63 and £5,300p.a., 1963 to date

  R. M. Bingham, Esq., Q.C., M.P.

  Recorder, Oldham, 1960

  £300 p.a., 1960–62, and £200 p.a. and £25 a day, 1962 to date.

  E. Roderic Bowen, Esq., Q.C., M.P.

  Recorder, Merthyr Tydfil,1953–60.

  £140 p.a., 1953–57 and £240 p.a.,1957–60.

  Recorder, Swansea, 1960

  £200 p.a., 1960–62 and £200 p.a. and £25 a day, 1962 to date.

  Chairman, Montgomery County Quarter Sessions, 1959.

  £100 p.a., and £30 a day.

  F. Petre Crowder, Esq., Q.C., M.P.

  Recorder, Gravesend, 1960

  £100 p.a. and £20 a day, 1962 to date.

  Deputy Chairman, Hertford County Quarter Sessions, 1959–63.

  £1,500 p.a.

  Chairman, Hertford County Quarter Sessions, 1963.

  £700 p.a. and £30 a day.

  C J. A. Doughty, Esq., Q.C., M.P.

  Recorder, Brighton, 1955

  £500 p.a., 1953–59, £750 p.a., 1959–62, and £200 p.a. and £25 a day, 1962 to date.

  Sir John Foster, Q.C., M.P.

  Recorder, Oxford, 1956

  £300 p.a., 1956–62, and £200 p.a. and £25 a day 1962 to date.

  Edward L. Gardner, Esq., Q.C., M.P.

  Deputy Chairman, East Kent Quarter Sessions, 1961–62.

  £31 10s. 0d. a day.

  Deputy Chairman, Kent County Quarter Sessions, 1962.

  The Rt. Hon. Sir John Hobson, O.B.E., T.D., Q.C., M.P.

  Recorder, Northampton, 1958–62

  £200 p.a.

  Deputy Chairman, Bedford County Quarter Sessions, 1957–58.

  £400 p.a.

  Chairman, Bedford County Quarter Sessions, 1958–61.

  £600 p.a.

  Chairman, Rutland County Quarter Sessions, 1954–62.

  £100 p.a.

  H. E. Hooson, Esq., Q.C., M.P.

  Deputy Chairman, Flint County Quarter Sessions, 1960.

  £30 a day since 1962

  Deputy Chairman, Merioneth County Quarter Sessions, 1962.

  £30 a day

  have been awarded to hon. Members during the same period.
  The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the judicial appointments made since January, 1952. Particulars of briefs delivered to hon. Members are readily available only in respect of the period beginning on 1st January last year. During that period, a total of 60 briefs have been delivered on my nomination to 25 hon. Members.
  Following are the particulars:

  Member of Parliament

  Appointment

  Remuneration

  F. Elwyn Jones, Esq., Q.C., M.P

  Recorder, Swansea, 1953–60

  £200 p.a.

  Recorder, Cardiff, 1960

  £900 p.a., 1960–62 and £300 p.a. and £30 a day, 1962 to date.

  Niall MacDermot, Esq., Q.C., M.P.

  Recorder, Newark-on-Trent, 1962

  £100 p.a., and £20 a day

  Deputy Chairman, Bedford County Quarter Sessions, 1961.

  £30 a day

  The Rt. Hon. Sir Peter Rawlinson, Q.C.

  Recorder, Salisbury, 1961–62

  £131 5s. 0d. p.a.

  The Rt. Hon. David Lockhart Mure Renton, T.D., Q.C., M.P.

  Recorder, Rochester, 1963

  £100 p.a. and £20 a day

  Deputy Chairman, Essex County Quarter Sessions, 1964.

  £30 a day

  W. L. Roots, Esq., T.D., Q.C., M.P

  Deputy Chairman, Dorset County Sessions, 1960.

  £30 a day

  W. T. Wells, Esq., Q.C., M.P.

  Deputy Chairman, Hertford County Quarter Sessions, 1961.

  £1,500 p.a., and £30 for each day's sitting above 40

  COURT JUDGMENTS (CHANGES OF ADDRESS)
  2. Dr. Alan Glynasked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation making compulsory the registration of any change of address in civil proceedings where a judgment has been made by a county or high court until such judgment is satisfied.
  The Attorney-General: No.
  Dr. Glyn: In thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that helpful reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the Law Reform Committee of the Law Society has already endorsed the provisions of a Bill which I introduced whereby this procedure should be introduced into magistrates' courts? Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree, therefore, that it would be a good thing if he were to introduce it in magistrates' courts and see how it worked and later, possibly, see whether the provisions could be extended? I am fully aware that it is a matter for the Home Office, but, at the same time, will not my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that this is a principle of the law on which the Law Officers of the Crown must eventually give a decision?
  The Attorney-General: I was, of course, aware that my hon. Friend had introduced a Bill and I was also aware that the Law Society had supported it in relation to proceedings in magistrates' courts. I should, however, point out that already, in maintenance and affiliation order proceedings in magistrates' courts, there is an obligation, enforceable by criminal sanction, to notify changes of
  1206
  address. Whether that should be extended is entirely a matter for the Home Office and for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  DAGENHAM GREYHOUND RACE TRACK (POLICE INQUIRIES)
  3. Mr. Kitsonasked the Attorney-General if he will instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to make inquiries into the fraudulent conspiracy of a group of persons at Dagenham Greyhound Race Track on 30th June, with a view to bringing proceedings against them.
  The Attorney-General: No. It is for the police, and not for the Director of Public Prosecutions, to investigate allegations that offences have been committed. I understand that police inquiries into this matter are in progress.

  DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS (LEGAL AID)
  4. Mr. G. Thomasasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the hardship caused to people who are libelled and who have not the means to take legal action to clear their name; and whether he will take steps to allow free legal aid in such cases.
  The Attorney-General: So far as my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is aware, hardship is very seldom caused to people who cannot afford to bring proceedings for defamation. In his view, the disadvantages of extending the

  1207
  Legal Aid Scheme to defamation proceedings outweigh the advantages.
  Mr. Thomas: Is the Attorney-General aware that to most people their good name is the most precious thing they possess and that it is possible for newspapers to cite the individual concerned and to take liberties which they would not take if he had the money with which to defend himself? Is the Attorney-General further aware that there was a recent instance in which the Western Gazette, a Pembrokeshire paper, grossly libelled a young B.B.C. correspondent in Wales and that, because the man cannot find the large sum of money that is necessary to defend himself, he has to put up with the libel? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman regard this as monstrous?
  The Attorney-General: I recognise that there are balances of convenience and inconvenience on both sides and I recognise that this is a difficult question. On the Second Reading of the Legal Aid Bill, my predecessor, the present Lord Shawcross, supported, I believe, the exclusion of legal aid for libel cases on the ground that it was a form of action which is open to great abuse and, moreover, it is a most precarious and risky form of action. It would be extremely difficult for legal aid committees to select those cases which should and those which should not have legal aid. Only one case of hardship has been drawn to the Lord Chancellor's attention. I was not aware of the case in Pembrokeshire. As I say, there are balances both ways. I recognise the difficulty, but, on the whole, my noble Friend thinks it better not to spend public money on this form of action.
  Mr. Thomas: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice—[An HON. MEMBER: "What a hope."]—that, all being well, after the General Election, I propose to raise this matter again.

  HOMOSEXUAL OFFENCES
  Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Attorney-General why the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised chief constables to refer to him all cases involving homosexual offences between
  1208
  consenting adults in private for decision as to prosecution.
  Mr. Abseasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the lack of uniformity in the practices adopted by police authorities in the prosecution of homosexual offences committed by consenting adults in private, and of the extent to which blackmail is precipitated by the existing law; what is the nature of the guidance and advice recently given by the Director of Public Prosecutions to police authorities; what are the circumstances which have led to such advice being given; and whether he will make a statement.
  The Attorney-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions told chief constables on 10th June that he would be grateful if they would report to him for advice any cases in which they are contemplating proceedings in respect of homosexual offences between consenting adults committed either more than 12 months previously or in private. The suggestion that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be consulted was made with a view to obtaining greater uniformity in the enforcement of the law. There is no question of any general change in prosecuting policy or law enforcement or of any restriction on the exercise by chief constables of their discretion to prosecute when they think fit.
  Mr. Robinson: Is the Attorney-General aware that those of us who support the Wolfenden recommendations will welcome a small step forward, but will he tell the House why this modest reform, first put forward more than five years ago and rejected by his predecessor and twice by the present Foreign Secretary, has suddenly been adopted? Will he also tell the House why nobody troubled to tell the Home Secretary about this?
  The Attorney-General: The first point is that the proposal was not rejected previously. The position was that in previous Bills that were put forward, it was proposed that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be needed for a prosecution. That is not now the position. Since 1958, the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised chief constables and asked them to consult him about stale cases of homosexual offences—namely,

  1209
  those more than 12 months old—and those in respect of which there is a blackmailing aspect. The new Director of Public Prosecutions, who took office in May, thought that, in addition, it would be more satisfactory, to obtain uniformity, if chief constables also consulted him on the cases of consenting adult males in private. This is all that has happened. I quite realise that some hon. Members would like to see the law changed, but I cannot change it by practice, and the duty of the Law Officers and of the Director of Public Prosecutions is to enforce the law.
  Mr. Abse: Is it not the case that the proposals now being made or the administrative action that is now being taken were in terms, precisely what I put forward in a Bill which was killed on a Cabinet decision two years ago? Does not the Attorney-General think that he owes it to the House to give the reasons, whatever they may be, which have precipitated this decision? In particular, why has a hole-in-the-corner method been adopted in this matter, welcome as it may be, to end, I trust, stale cases? Why is it being done in this form when only the Press is given the information and neither the Home Secretary nor the House is provided with information except in these terms? Is it not high time that this House was kept informed so that suspicions and rumours which are running through the country could be shown not to be the case?
  The Attorney-General: The position is quite plain. It is the statutory duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to advise chief constables about cases which he regards as of importance or of difficulty. I think that nobody would disagree with the view of the present Director of Public Prosecutions that these additional cases, in addition to stale cases and the blackmailing ones, are questions of importance and of difficulty. It is entirely within his responsibility to decide whether to advise chief contables on these matters. I have a power by which I can give him directions that anything which he has said should or should not be done. I certainly do not intend on this occasion to exercise that power, because I concur in what he has done and I do not think that it should be altered.
  1210
  The hon. Member has raised questions of rumours. As far as I know, on 10th June neither the Director of Public Prosecutions nor I was aware of any rumours at that time in relation to the Sunday Mirror. Certainly, the Director of Public Prosecutions had nothing of that sort in mind when this was done.
  Sir T. Moore: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that many hon. Members, and a vast number of people outside, are eagerly awaiting the implementation of the Wolfenden recommendations of homosexual reform? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Following on what was said by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that this step which has been taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions in our view marks a very hopeful step forward?
  Hon. Members: No.
  The Attorney-General: I am aware from the reception of that supplementary question that there are different views on the subject, and the last thing that it would be proper for either the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions to do would be to try to alter the law behind the back of Parliament by practice, and that is not what is being done. Anybody can form any opinion he pleases as to the implications of this step.
  Miss Bacon: Can the Attorney-General say whether anybody told the Home Secretary, and, if not, why not?
  The Attorney-General: The answer is "No", and I think that the Home Secretary has already said that. The Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible to me. He is not responsible to the Home Secretary. This is a matter within the ordinary discharge of the statutory duties of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  Sir K. Thompson: In view of this controversy, will my right hon. and learned Friend state categorically whether or not the law in this matter has been altered in any way whatsoever?
  The Attorney-General: The law has certainly not been altered. It is not the position that every case that ever comes to the attention of the prosecuting authority has to be prosecuted. There is

  1211
  some discretion. It is a very difficult discretion, and it is thought that it is better, for the purpose of uniformity throughout the country, that the Director should be consulted, although chief constables will remain the prosecuting authority in each case.
  Mr. Bellenger: In view of the doubt, and perhaps a certain amount of suspicion, in the minds of hon. Members as to the ultimate effect of consulting the Director of Public Prosecutions, will the Attorney-General undertake to give to the House at some later date a list, not, of course, quoting names or giving details, of the number of cases where chief constables have consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the result of his advice to them?
  The Attorney-General: I shall certainly consider how and when I can conveniently give it, if it is available, but, not having had notice of the question, I cannot say what is the exact position at the moment.

  ROAD ACCIDENT VICTIMS (DAMAGES)
  Mr. Mappasked the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to the introduction of new legislation to deal with accident consultants who tout victims of road accidents by means of signed agreements involving payments of a high percentage of any damages that may be recovered.
  The Attorney-General: I do not consider that legislation is needed for this purpose.
  Mr. Mapp: If I send the Attorney-General the correspondence that I have had with Messrs. Wheeler Morgan and Company, Assessors, of High Holborn, who lack legal advice, will he, in conjunction with the Law Society and reputable insurance organisations, consider cold-shouldering this form of commercial exploitation of people who have suffered street and other accidents? These should not be matters for commercial exploitation, and I hope that the Minister will do all that he can to cold-shoulder this kind of operation.
  The Attorney-General: I hope that under the provisions that are now made
  1212
  for legal aid the public generally will think it more convenient to get professional qualified advice rather than unqualified advice, but that does not necessarily mean that one ought to legislate against what may on occasions be helpful advice, and it is certainly the view of Lord Gardiner, who is interested in law reform, that champerty and maintenance and that sort of thing ought to be abolished as a medieval practice, in which event this could be done by anybody, including those who are unqualified.

  LEGAL AID SCHEME
  Mr. Boardmanasked the Attorney-General if he is aware of the dissatisfaction of litigants with the operation of the Legal Aid Scheme; what action he proposes to take to meet this; and if he will make a statement.
  The Attorney-General: I am not aware of any widespread dissatisfaction with the Legal Aid Scheme. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, the Law Society and I receive very few complaints. If the hon. Member has anything particularly in mind, I should be glad if he would let me know.
  Mr. Boardman: Is the Attorney-General aware that there have been a number of cases in which legally assisted persons, having been awarded damages and costs, have had the utmost difficulty in recovering even the amount of their own assessed contributions, the damages and costs having been gobbled up by the lawyers? In view of the fact that in its implementation the Act is turning out to be State aid for lawyers instead of litigants, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look into this scandalous waste of taxpayers' money?
  The Attorney-General: If I may say so with respect, I do not think that that is a very fair way of describing the legal aid scheme. There were 130,000 applicants for legal aid last year, of whom 94,000 received assistance. Legal advice was also given to 61,000 people, and I should have thought that, on the whole, the Legal Aid Scheme had been of great benefit to a large number of people. The scheme is kept constantly under review by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

  1213
  There is an annual report to Parliament in pursuance of the 1949 Act, and the Law Society and the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee keep all complaints under review from time to time.
  Mr. Boardman: Will the Attorney-General look at this matter in so far as costs are involved where people are trying to recover small sums of money? It is in these cases that the abuse occurs.
  The Attorney-General: I shall be delighted to consider any particular cases which the hon. Gentleman cares to send to me.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Overseas Aid
    Mrs. Castleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the £175 million of overseas aid given by Her Majesty's Government in 1963–64 was returned to this country in the form of debt-service payments, repatriated compensation payments, export earnings due to Export Credits Guarantee Department loans, and debt settlements with United Kingdom firms, respectively.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): During 1963–64 we received £14 million in capital repayments of aid loans and £18 million in interest. There is no record of the extent to which compensation payments are returned to this country, nor is it possible to say how much of our expenditure of £50 million on loans under Section 3 of the Export Guarantees Act consisted of additional export earnings. Of the total aid expenditure of £175 million in 1963–64, £5½ million was made available under inter-Governmental re-financing agreements which enabled firms in developing countries to meet their obligations to British firms.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that of the £175 million that we gave in aid in 1963–64, a total of about £110 million to £120 million returned to this country in the form of debt repayments, repatriated compensation payments, export earnings due to tied loans, and all those other factors mentioned in the Question? Does not this show that the burden of aid on the balance of payments has been exaggerated, and that this should therefore
    1214
    not be advanced as a reason why the Government should not immediately increase their overseas aid to I per cent. of the national income, as they have been urged to do by the United Nations?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that the burden has been exaggerated, and I think that we are living up to the target. The fact that people spend the money we lend them on buying British goods does not make it any less aid.

    Personal Savings
    Mr. Duffyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were personal national savings for the second quarter of 1964, expressed as a percentage of personal disposable income; and how this figure compares with the corresponding period of 1961.
    Mr. Maudling: I regret that figures for the second quarter of this year are not yet available. In the first quarter of 1964, personal savings are estimated to have been nearly 13 per cent. of personal disposable income compared with about 10½ per cent. in the corresponding period of 1961. Within these totals, National Savings accounted for 2·4 per cent. of disposable income in the first quarter of 1964, compared with 2·7 per cent. in the first quarter of 1961.
    Mr. Duffy: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he regards this increase as satisfactory against the general background of economic expansion in the country? If not, what does he propose to do by way of stimulating it, other than by the very dull, moderate, and unimaginative proposals contained in his Budget statement of this year?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that the results are very encouraging. Whatever the hon. Gentleman's view about the nature of our measures, the record of savings in these years is one of the great achievements of the Conservative Government.
    Mr. W. Clark: Would my right hon. Friend give the figures for 1951 compared with the first quarter of this year? In addition to giving the percentages, can he give the actual figures?
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot give the figures. They would cause too much pain to the Opposition if I did.

    National Incomes Commission
    12. Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will ask the National Incomes Commission to review the incomes of those groups, such as civil servants, falling within their terms of reference, whose incomes, after tax, are on average lower, in real terms, than in 1938, and to make recommendations.
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.
    Mr. Grimond: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that to have some policy on incomes in the public sector is now a matter of pressing urgency? They are being continually left behind. Some of them have a lower income in real terms than before the war. We are failing to get recruits for the public service, and this really is a pressing matter. Why will the right hon. Gentleman not refer this to the National Incomes Commission?
    Mr. Maudling: It would not be proper for a general reference of this kind to be made to the National Incomes Commission. I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman said. The principle of fair comparison, to which I attach the highest importance, as I think the House is aware, guarantees to the public service that their pay moves and advances with comparable jobs in outside industry.
    Mr. Grimond: Surely that is not so. It has lagged behind. Although this may be an admirable principle, it does not answer the purpose. It is true that they have not kept up and they are well aware of the fact.
    Mr. Maudling: I also read the articles in the Economist, but they referred to the years before Priestley and pay research. We are now working on a system of fair comparisons; and if we are to compare the present system with that which operated before the war we must take into account the great advantages derived by people from the social services, for which they pay in taxation.

    Coinage
    Mr. Clive Bossomasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider introducing a 4s. or 5s. piece in place of the present 2s. 6d. coin.
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.
    Mr. Bossom: As this country is gradually moving towards the adoption of
    1216
    the decimal system, could not we have 100s. or £5 as the unit of currency? This formula would save hundreds of thousands of pounds. If it is worked out, could not the half-crown piece be discontinued? Then we would need only to get rid of the threepenny and sixpenny piece later on. In the meantime, will' not my right hon. Friend consider this proposal? Can he tell us whether the Government will make a statement on the findings of the Halsbury Report, and what action will be taken?
    Mr. Maudling: These are very interesting suggestions, but they go rather wide of the original Question.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of the reduced value of money since the Government came in in 1952, is not this a most desirable—indeed, an essential—proposal?
    Mr. Maudling: The half-crown stood up to the party opposite.

    British Forces, Germany (Cost)
    14. Mr. Benceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of British costs of the British Army of the Rhine is met by German purchases of arms from Great Britain.
    Mr. Maudling: No proportion is specified in the agreement which was recently reached. The Federal German Government state that it is their intention to offset the foreign exchange costs, in so far as possible, by military, civil and offshore expenditure.
    Mr. Bence: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the German Federal Government have bought any Bloodhound missiles? If they have, can he say whether any of the £4 million rebate that Her Majesty's Government have received will be passed on to the German Government?
    Mr. Maudling: That is an ingenious supplementary question, but I do not know the answer to it.
    Mr. Callaghan: Why have the Government introduced this crucial difference from the arrangements made last time? I see that no target figure is set for offsetting the cost of British troops in Germany by the purchase of our equipment by the Germans.
    Mr. Maudling: We thought that this was a better arrangement. There is no target figure and there is no limit. The German Government will offset the cost to the fullest extent possible.
    Mr. Callaghan: In view of the fact that the Germans found very great difficulty in meeting the target last time, and met it only at the last moment by way of some arrangement with Nigeria, will the right hen. Gentleman tell the House how it will be possible for us to maintain a target equivalent to last time, even though no figure is set?
    Mr. Maudling: As the hon. Gentleman has said, there is no target. The point is that the German Government have agreed with us to offset the cost, without a limiting figure, so far as it is possible for them to do so, and the two Governments are co-operating in getting it done.
    Mr. Benceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total annual cost of maintaining British troops in Germany in foreign exchange.
    Mr. Maudling: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on 9th June.
    Mr. Bence: That is unfortunate, because I do not know the answer to that Question. But is it not disgraceful that we, who are maintaining a British Army in Germany for the protection of Germany and the Continent of Europe, should have to pay for it in foreign currency? Should not the Germans accept payment in sterling, and not burden us with the necessity to pay foreign currency, which we have to find?
    Mr. Maudling: The acceptance by the Germans of payment in sterling would be the same as payment in foreign currency.
    Mr. Callaghan: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why he has made such a bad bargain with the Germans? The Americans and the French both get the full cost of their troops in Germany offset by German expenditure, whereas we have only an unspecified agreement whereby the Germans agree to do as much as they can do. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why this should
    1218
    be so, in view of the serious effect on our balance of payments this year?
    Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Gentleman will study it, I think he will find that our agreement is based on the agreement which the Germans made with the Americans.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is a permanent agreement or merely one for another 12 months, after which we shall again be going cap-in-hand to the Germans, as we have done over the last 10 years, asking them to honour an obligation which they obviously have no intention of meeting?
    Mr. Maudling: There is no question of our going cap-in-hand to the German Government. As to the duration of the agreement, I should need notice of that question. The purpose of the agreement is quite clearly in line with that of the agreement which the Germans have made with the Americans.
    Commander Courtney: in view of the profitable expansion of German trade in South-East Asia, would it not be a good idea if the German Government contributed towards the cost of British forces in Malaysia?

    Property (Valuation for Rates)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are taken when valuing property for rating to find out which properties have had central heating installed since the previous valuation; and whether, having regard to the fact that some properties are revalued without account being taken of such installations, he is satisfied that the present methods of valuation take sufficient account of the differences between one ratepayer and another in this respect.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Green): Central heating installations and other improvements affecting rental value are taken into account when they come to the valuation officer's notice; for example, on inspection of the property or because of information received from the rating authority. I agree that it is desirable that the valuation officer should have some further source of information on this point and a question about it will be

    1219
    added to the statutory rating returns for the purposes of the next revaluation.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a very dangerous thought behind this Question, namely, that if one is to be penalised for putting central heating into an ancient building there will be a positive incentive to allow such places to rot and decay?
    Mr. Green: There is no question of penalty involved. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, agree on reflection that if we are to have valuation for rating purposes it must be based on equity as between one citizen and another.

    Entertainments (Income Tax Deductions)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of entertainments deducted for Income Tax purposes in the most recent year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Green: I am afraid this information is not available.
    Mr. Dempsey: Can the Minister give me some idea of the definition of "entertainments" under the Act? Can he say what proportion of the money is used for the purpose of subsidising strippers, and night club workers, for instance? Is he aware that these premises provide not only entertainment but ladies of easy virtue? Should not taxpayers be protected against this sort of abuse? Can he state here and now whether he is satisfied that expenses for entertainment purposes are not exaggerated?
    Mr. Green: I cannot answer from an expert point of view most of the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised. Perhaps he will accept this as an answer: to be allowable for tax purposes expenses must be incurred for genuine business reasons. These are subject, in the first case, to the normal processes of audit, and in the second, to the scrutiny of the inspector of taxes.

    National and Local Expenditure (Review)
    19. Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the progress being made in the Government's review of the relationship between national and local expenditure; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wadeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's review of the relationship between national and local expenditure.
    Mr. Maudling: Progress is satisfactory, but I am not yet in a position to say what proposals will emerge or when the review will be completed.
    Mr. Smith: When the review is completed, will my right hon. Friend take action as quickly as possible on the recommendations in view of the continuing but admittedly necessary increase in the rates burden? When the time comes, will he consider publishing some of the conclusions which are reached?
    Mr. Maudling: I will certainly consider that when the time comes. We do not want to waste time. One of the important things will be to have consultations with local authorities.
    Mr. Wade: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is over seven months since the decision to carry out this reform was announced by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and that if no conclusion is to be reached until the Allen Committee has reported—and since this Committee does not report until the autumn—it means that there will be no major changes before the new rate demands go out in April next year? At this rate of progress I shall have grown a long white beard before there is any rating reform.
    Mr. Maudling: I do not know whether that is a threat or a hope on the part of the hon. Member, but to effect any reform in the rating system will involve legislation, and consultation with local authorities. Therefore, it is bound to take a considerable time.

    Members (Car Journeys)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for hon. Members using their own cars for journeys to and from their constituencies to be paid the cost of a first-class return rail ticket.
    Mr. Green: The present scheme allows Members to claim for the cost of the petrol needed for travel by the most direct route. I would suggest that consideration of any changes in this

    1221
    scheme should be deferred until the Committee on the Remuneration of Members of Parliament and Ministers of the Crown has reported.
    Mr. Hayman: May I ask the Minister whether he will take account of the fact that an hon. Member can get a free voucher for first-class rail travel between Westminster and his constituency and equally in respect of air travel, but if he uses his own car he merely gets the cost of the petrol? Does the hon. Gentleman consider that fair? Would he ask his right hon. Friend to request the Committee sitting under the chairmanship of Sir Geoffrey Lawrence to consider the whole question?
    Mr. Green: The appearance of the hon. Gentleman's Question and my Answer in HANSARD will achieve the real purpose which the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that the ordinary commercial rates for running motor cars are about 6d. and 9d. a mile, that hon. Members get only 2d. a mile and that the first-class fare is the very minimum which in equity could be offered to hon. Members?
    Mr. Green: I think that the same reply applies to my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

    Income Tax (Savings Bank Interest)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will amend the notes issued with Income Tax return forms to avoid possible ambiguity about the nature of the interest in Post Office Savings Bank accounts required of married women to qualify for £15 tax exemption in addition to that of their husbands.
    Mr. Green: As I said when writing to my hon. Friend about the case I assume he has in mind, I do not think the present notes are ambiguous; but the Inland Revenue will consider whether they can be improved.

    Income Tax Act, 1952 (Section 212)
    Mr. Leaveyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation to amend Section 212 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, so that
    1222
    educational establishments as defined in the Act will include establishments where mentally handicapped children receive education not presently recognised as such under the Act.
    Mr. Green: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion for legislation, but there would be difficulties in relaxing the requirements of Section 212 in relation to a particular class of children.
    Mr. Leavey: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Does not he agree that the present interpretation leads to somewhat unfortunate anomalies, in that genuine education applies, but in many of these cases only the lower forms of benefit can be drawn, as he will be aware? Will he look at the unfortunate anomalies which arise?
    Mr. Green: I accept that anomalies can arise in these matters. My hon. Friend will agree that we must always appreciate the difficulty that in curing one anomaly we may create more. I have noted his suggestion and it will be considered.

    Post Office Savings and Investments
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the worth of £100 sterling placed in the Post Office savings account in 1951 at present-day values, after allowing for the depreciation in the £ sterling and the accumulation of interest rates; whether he will give the annual change since 1951 in a £100 investment, allowing for the £'s annual depreciation and the accumulation of interest; and whether he will increase the present rate of interest.
    Mr. Maudling: Taking June, 1951, as the starting point, £96 12s. The answer to the last part of the Question is "No, Sir".
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Chancellor aware that since October, 1951, the only thing that has remained static is Post Office Savings Bank interest at 2½ per cent. In view of his enrapture with his figure of 3½ per cent., may we ask the Chancellor to consider increasing the Post Office savings figure by at least 1 per cent.? Surely people who have Post Office savings are entitled to some encouragement when they find that other interest rates have increased?
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. For a long time the policy has been to keep the interest rate level. Other interest rates have fluctuated both up and down. The Post Office provides facilities for the easy withdrawal of savings which are valuable, and the first £15 of savings are tax-free, so that I think there is a reasonable return.

    European Central Banks (Sterling)
    24. Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been made with the European Central Banks during the last six months for them to increase their holdings of sterling or otherwise assist the £.
    Mr. Maudling: None, Sir.
    Mr. Grimond: May we take it that no assistance of any kind has been requested or given by the European Central Banks?
    Mr. Maudling: One cannot always disclose all the operations of the Exchange Control, but I am prepared to say—as I said—that the answer is, "None, Sir." In fact European holdings of sterling have been falling, not rising.

    Arts Council (Advisory Panel Chairmen)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what is the practice of the Arts Council in appointing the chairmen of the advisory panels; and what is the length of service of the present chairmen.
    Mr. Maudling: The Arts Council's practice is to appoint as chairmen of the advisory panels members of the Council with particular knowledge of the subject concerned. Appointments are for one year at a time. Of the present panel chairmen, two have now served for 2½ years each, one for 3½ years and one for 10½ years.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in view of the development of taste and alterations in all the arts in the modern world, it would be more in line with good business to have articles of association which made the Arts Council change its chairmen of panels at specified periods? Is he aware that certainly some of the chairmen of
    1224
    panels have been associated with decisions which have been very unhappy in themselves and that it would give greater confidence if the panels did not have so much control and the Arts Council was not guided or controlled by its panels?
    Mr. Maudling: As I have said before about other things, I think that this is the sort of matter which we must leave to the Arts Council.
    Dame Irene Ward: Not at all.
    Mr. Maudling: We have confidence in its conduct of its affairs and we must not interfere in its decisions in matters of this sort.

    INVENTIONS
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Prime Minister if he will set up a Department under a new Minister for the purpose of encouraging, promoting, and financing inventions, especially by persons with limited means; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): No, Sir. One of the functions of the National Research Development Corporation, which operates with capital provided from public funds, is to assist the development of private inventions which would not otherwise be sufficiently exploited.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Prime Minister aware that the mechanics of this process are unsatisfactory and very circuitous? Does not he realise that his own Government do not provide a single halfpenny, as a Government, towards this end? Is he aware that by the discouragement we give to inventors with limited means, we are driving them out of the country into the arms of our competitors all over the world? Is not it time that this process was halted and the ingenuity of British people retained for the good of the British nation?
    The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact in answer to a Question today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade makes a statement about the plans of the Government for extending the scope and scale of the work of the National Research Development Corporation. If the hon. Gentleman will look at that he will be more satisfied than he is now.
    Sir J. Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work of the Institute of Patentees and Inventors which handles problem such as that raised by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey)? Does he realise that this organisation plays a valuable part in the exploitation of inventions and would he examine the possibility of the N.R.D.C. making available some financial help for this very efficient body?
    The Prime Minister: I know of the part played by the body to which my hon. Friend refers. I will take note of the suggestion that it may be given some funds.

    SOUTH AFRICA (SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to coordinate the activities of Ministers responsible for complying with the Security Council resolution of 18th June in the immediate provision of education and training facilities for non-white South Africans; and what finance Her Majesty's Government are proposing to earmark for this purpose.
    The Prime Minister: Clause eleven of the Security Council Resolution of 18th June invited the Secretary-General of the United Nations to establish a programme for the education and training abroad of South Africans.
    Her Majesty's Government have not yet been approached by the Secretary-General nor have they been given any information about the proposed programme. No question of Ministerial co-ordination or of additional finance therefore arises.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the Committee of Experts of which Sir Hugh Foot was the rapporteur attached great importance to the establishment of a United Nations South African education and training programme as one of the peaceful methods of preparing South Africa for democracy? Is it not also a fact that the Scandinavian and many African Governments have already been giving assistance to young South Africans in exile in order to enable them to take up university scholarships and other training facilities? Why will not the British
    1226
    Government take some initiative in this matter? What do they intend to do to carry out the promises we have made about fighting apartheid in South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is talking of the Security Council Resolution and there the initiative must come from the Secretary-General. We have a programme of our own in this country about which, from the nature of her question, I do not know whether the hon. Lady is aware. In 1963–64, 22 scholarships of one year or more were awarded by the British Council to South African post-graduate students, and 12 bursaries for a shorter term were given to candidates with lower academic qualifications. So we have a plan of our own at the moment.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Question refers to non-white South Africans? Is he aware that the vast majority of the cases he has quoted related to white South Africans and that this discriminates against Africans in South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: The programme has been altered and of the remaining 18 scholarships 10 have gone to white students and eight to non-white students and of the 11 bursaries eight have gone to non-white students. More bursaries are yet to be announced which will also go to non-white students.

    STANDING ORDER NO. 117
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Ministers will exercise their powers under Standing Order No 117 to make the appropriate representations for an earlier meeting of this House to discuss any item of policy which they may propose during the forthcoming Recess which has not been previously reported to the House.
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will make representations that Parliament should be recalled under Standing Order 117 for two weeks in early September.
    The Prime Minister: I think we can rely on the usual arrangements which my right hon. and learned Friend the lord Privy Seal will have in mind tomorrow

    1227
    when the House comes to deal with the Motion for the Summer Adjournment.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I welcome his assurance and also the assurance that what he has just said will be confirmed tomorrow by the Leader of the House? May we have a further assurance that the project for a mixed-manned force, whether canvassed by the United States or advocated by the Secretary of State for Defence, will not meet with any commitment or decision during the Recess and until Parliament has had an opportunity of debating this subject?
    The Prime Minister: We have not made up our minds and are unlikely to make up our minds—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because we want to understand all the facts. So does every other member of the N.A.T.O. alliance want the full facts before us before we make up our minds on the matter.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Prime Minister agree that it would be a good idea to have a week or a fortnight of debate in this House in early September to discuss questions such as that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)? Does not the Prime Minister recognise that there will be a smell of blood in the air at that time—blue blood particularly—and does he not recognise that in addition to this question there is an economic crisis looming up, as his matchstick exercises will have convinced him? In view of those circumstances, would not he agree that it would be in the public interest to have at least a week to debate these issues?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think we had better go into the business of blood. For a long time the Douglas's and the Hamiltons had a feud in which a great deal of blood was shed in Scottish history. On the whole, the Douglas's came out as the winners. I think it very unlikely that we should be ready to discuss in Parliament such matters as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) mentioned. A decision on this matter is very unlikely for some months to come.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the Prime Minister take it from me that the one thing I deprecate is any shedding of blood during a General Election and that we ought to
    1228
    debate matters of policy like the gentlemen we are?
    The Prime Minister.

    COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING (WHITE PAPER)
    Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will lay a White Paper before the House containing the text of the Final Communiqué of the recent conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, together with the text of memoranda laid before the conference on the creation of a Commonwealth Secretariat, on economic and educational cooperation, and on other similar matters.
    The Prime Minister: I am arranging to lay before the House a White Paper containing the text of the Final Communiqué of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting. It would not be proper to publish the texts of the memoranda laid before the Meeting, since these were confidential working documents. But the House will of course be kept fully informed of the progress made, in consultation between Commonwealth Governments, in implementing the various new initiatives which were considered at the Meeting.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am obliged to the Prime Minister for that Answer. Would he consider that the real strength of the Commonwealth, which is a democratic institution, depends on the support of its peoples and that if, with the consent of other Commonwealth Prime Ministers, he can tell us more about the new development for a secretariat and other matters that will be of great value to this House and to the public?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The communiqué has of course appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT already, but I thought that it would be for the convenience of some hon. Members to have it as a separate paper. Therefore, I am arranging for a White Paper to be published.

    INDIA (SUPPLY OF FRIGATES)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister what answer he gave to the official request of the Indian Prime Minister for the supply of frigates to India.
    The Prime Minister: I have received no such request from the Prime Minister of India, The Government of India have been negotiating with a British firm in connection with their project to manufacture "Leander" class frigates in India. We greatly value these commercial and Service links. The Government of India have estimated their requirements of foreign exchange for this purpose at £13·66 million, spread over 10 years, and have asked Her Majesty's Government to assist in the financing of this project.
    So far as direct Government financial assistance is concerned, we are already giving considerable economic and military aid.
    Mr. Chavan was going to discuss this with us during his visit to this country in June. Unfortunately his visit had to be postponed because of Mr. Nehru's death. He will now be coming later this year.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Does that reply mean that the Prime Minister is now willing to grant the credits which India requires to buy these supplies? Is it not deplorable that these negotiations have had to go on for so long and as a result India has had to look elsewhere for such supplies? Is the Prime Minister aware that this is not the only example of where a Commonwealth country has endeavoured to obtain supplies from this country and has been fobbed off for quite a long time?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member uses the expression "fobbed off" I had better take the opportunity to tell him what we have done. In December, 1962, we offered £19 million worth to India and more than £14 million worth has already reached India. In August, 1963, we offered further military aid. The equipment to be supplied has been agreed with the Indians and is on order. In May, 1964—two months ago—we offered more military aid and discussions as to the type of equipment to be supplied are now in progress with the Indian Government. Over the last six years military and economic aid from Britain to India has amounted to something over £200 million.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did not the late Mr. Nehru and other Indian leaders express their gratitude to Her Majesty's
    1230
    Government in the United Kingdom for the very prompt and generous military assistance given to India in her time of need? Are not Questions of this kind thoroughly damaging to good Commonwealth relations?
    The Prime Minister: We try—and I think we have succeeded—in consultation with the Indian Government, to give them the type of military aid they want at the time. Up to now we have been engaged with the danger of a land attack on India. If the priority should change we would consider it just as we have considered military aid before.
    Mr. H. Wilson: While welcoming the Government's acceptance of our proposal for lend-lease aid—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—our proposal for lend-lease aid which the Government all the time rejected—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] —they rejected it—is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this request for frigates has been going on now for 18 months? In view of his repeated insistence that full employment can be based only on exporting frigates, can he say why it has taken 18 months to reach this decision and whether we may now feel, the matter having been raised on the Floor of the House, that there is some hope of India getting them?
    The Prime Minister: The kind of aid and the priorities have depended on the threat to India and what the priorities should be. The threat was a land attack up to now. If the Indian Defence Minister wishes to change the priorities we shall of course consider this matter of frigates if that is their desire.
    Mr. Wilson: In view of the haste which the right hon. Gentleman has shown in supplying frigates to non-Commonwealth countries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"]—will he say what kind of an attack, whether by land or sea, he envisages for Spain?
    The Prime Minister: The frigates for Spain were a matter of straight trade. The question which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned raises the matter of the whole balance between economic and military aid which this country gives to India. This is quite a different matter, and, as one of my hon. Friends said, it is a red herring which the right hon. Gentleman has tried to draw across the issue.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Question No. 13, addressed to the Prime Minister. You will see that this is a Question which the Prime Minister has accepted as being within his responsibility and that it is down for Answer today. In the past, the Chair has always ruled that when a Question is on the Order Paper, and is due to be answered, the Minister concerned may ask for permission to answer it. Should it not, therefore, be the Prime Minister who asks for your permission to make this statement, as he has accepted this Question?
    Mr. Speaker: I received notice that the Minister of Aviation desired to make a statement.
    Mr. Milne: On a point of order. I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which I raised with you last night—a matter of urgent public importance relating to the activities of Fiesta Tours Ltd. I have received no reply to that request. May I have your guidance as to when I may raise this matter?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not understand this except that the hon. Member sought leave to ask a Private Notice Question. I felt that I could not allow it. That is all that I can say about it.

FERRANTI LTD. (LANG REPORT)
The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Julian Amery): Sir John Lang has now reported on the circumstances of the Ferranti Bloodhound I contracts. This report will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon. In the light of Sir John Lang's findings, my Department reopened with Ferranti Ltd. the question of a refund to be made to the Government by the company on these profits.
Ferranti Ltd. has offered to refund a total of £4¼ million. Its offer has been accepted and discussions will now take place with regard to the discharge of this liability. The correspondence relating to this will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
1232
I should like to thank Sir John Lang and his colleagues for their efforts, at my request, to make this interim Report available before the end of this Session.
Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when Sir John Lang reported? Is he further aware that his statement today is nothing like as informative to the House as was the Daily Express last Thursday morning and the rest of the national Press this morning? Will he confirm Mr. Pincher's account that, in fact, a total profit of £5,770,000 was made on Bloodhound Mark I, or 82 per cent.?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the habit of the Ministry of Aviation leaking information to the Press has become a virtual torrent and is bringing the debates and discussion in the House into disrepute? In view of the scandal associated with this huge profit, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he proposes to accept Ministerial responsibility for it and, if so, what action he proposes to take?
Mr. Amery: I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his totally unfounded accusation of leaks from the Ministry of Aviation. Sir John Lang's Report was sent to us with a letter from him on 15th July and was, therefore, received in our office a little over a week ago. It has been published as soon as possible and I have given the House as soon as possible the information about the attitude which Ferranti Ltd. proposed to take towards it. I think that all other points will best be dealt with in our debate on Thursday.
Mr. Lee: On a point of order. In view of the fact that, by your Office, you are given the power to protect the House and its Members, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you would set up an investigation into the copious leaks on these issues which the Press have been receiving in the last few months so that the House and the country may know the source of this kind of information?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot do that. If the House resolved that I should, then, of course, the position would be different, but at present I cannot do it.
Sir J. Eden: Has my right hon. Friend yet formed an opinion as to what use will be made of the £4¼ million? For

1233
example, will it be earmarked to compensate those industries which have suffered substantial losses in defence and other contracts with the Government? Can my right hon. Friend say what is likely to be the effect on Ferranti Ltd. of this decision? Is it not vitally important that we should develop to our fullest capacity the electronics and computer industry in this country, and should it not get every possible support from us for the successes which it achieves, particularly in exports, rather than be singled out in this vindictive way by hon. Members opposite?
Mr. Amery: I am well aware of the importance of the electronics industry to the whole of this country's position in advanced technology, and we have no intention of penalising Ferranti Ltd. in any way. We have made this clear in our exchange of letters with the company. We have accepted, in the circumstances, the repayment which it has offered.
Mr. H. Wilson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel it right to pay a very handsome tribute to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the Public Accounts Committee, but for whose vigilance;, when his own officials were not vigilant, we should not have had this refund for the taxpayer of £4¼ million?
Mr. Amery: I gladly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Thanks to the activities of the Comptroller and Auditor General, a situation which could have been one of considerable loss to the taxpayer has been prevented from so becoming.
Mr. Lubbock: May I ask the Minister to treat this matter of the leak with the gravity which it deserves? Will he say what investigations he has so far undertaken into the sources of the leak? I entirely accept his assertion that the leak does not come from the Ministry itself.
Secondly, may I ask him what action he is taking, in the light of Sir John Lang's Report, to strengthen his technical costs department so that this kind of enormous error does not take place again in the future?
Mr. Amery: I hope that I shall be able to deal with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question at some length in the debate on Thursday.
1234
I have satisfied myself that there was no leak in the Ferranti case from the Ministry of Aviation.
Following is the correspondence:
21st July, 1964.
Dear Mr. Ferranti,
You will remember that during the period October to December 1963, we had several discussions about the profits made by your Company on certain contracts for the production of components for the Bloodhound Mark I missile system. When Sir John Lang was asked to carry out an inquiry into this matter, however, we agreed that any further discussion should be deferred until after his report.
This has now been received and I enclose a copy herewith. In the light of its observations I must ask you whether you are now prepared to make a refund to public funds in respect of the contracts covered by Sir John's report.
Yours sincerely,
R. G. K. WAY.
Sebastian de Ferranti, Esq.,
Ferranti Limited,
Hollinwood,
Lancs.
Ferranti Ltd.
Hollinwood,
Lancashire.
28th July, 1964.
Sir Richard Way, K.C.B., C.B.E.,
Ministry of Aviation,
Horse Guards Avenue,
London, S.W.1.
Dear Sir Richard,
Thank you for your letter of the 21st of July, 1964. As you know when this matter was first raised with me I said that we had never had any desire to make more than fair and reasonable profits on defence contracts, and that our aim has always been, and will continue to be. to perform those responsibilities which H.M.G. might choose to place with us in the most efficient and economical manner. I also indicated a readiness to make an "ex gratia" payment to settle the matter.
There are a number of factors to be considered in arriving at what would be a proper repayment. The contract was for the production of an entirely new type and design of weapon system of which neither we nor the officers in your Department had had previous experience. Exceptional inspection standards were demanded. An exacting time schedule was set. The work therefore carried special risks, but it was nevertheless completed on time and met the very high performance standards which the Department required.
We were able to achieve exceptional production efficiency by closing another department of our business and transferring its technical and production team to the Bloodhound work as soon as production could be started. When the Bloodhound work comes to an end we shall be faced with heavy terminal expenditure. Neither of these factors is taken into

1235
account in calculating the costs charged to the contract, but which nevertheless represent substantial expenditure which we have to incur.
The profit allowance by the Ministry of Aviation included in the contract price was £810,353, but, as you pointed out in your evidence to the Select Committee, contractors are entitled, and are expected to augment the profit figures allowed in fixed price contracts by achieving economies in the operating costs allowed for by the Department at the time when the prices are agreed. Whilst I cannot accept all the findings of the Lang Committe either so far as they concern my own company or the Ministry officials, I recognise that the profit arising on the Bloodhound I contracts was greater than we expected when those contracts were negotiated.
In order finally to dispose of all aspects of the Bloodhound I contracts between us we are willing to make a refund in respect of these contracts of a total of £4,250,000.
I would like to discuss with you arrangements for the discharge of this liability.
I would be grateful if you could assure me that there will be no discrimination against Ferranti Limited so far as future contracts are concerned in consequence of what has happened.
Yours sincerely,
SEBASTIAN DE FERRANTI.
28th July, 1964.
Dear Mr. Ferranti,
Thank you for your letter of 28th July, 1964.
I fully understand the points you make regarding the unique production problems
1236
which you faced in carrying out these contracts; and I recognise the success you achieved in overcoming them.
I am glad to know that in order finally to dispose of all aspects of the Bloodhound I contracts you are prepared to refund a total of £4,250,000 and I am ready to discuss with you arrangements for the discharge of this liability.
I can assure you that there will be no discrimination against Ferranti Limited in the allocation of future contracts.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) R. G. K. WAY.
Sebastian de Ferranti, Esq.,
Ferranti Limited,
Hollinwood,
Lancs.

BILL PRESENTED
  INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS PROTECTION BILL
  Bill to safeguard the position of independent schools in England and Wales, and to protect the right of parents to freedom of choice, presented by Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles; supported by Mr. Wall, Mr. Hendry, Miss Quennell, and Mr. C. Morrison; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 206.]

  SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL
  3.40 p.m.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I beg to move,
  That this House desires to take this opportunity of marking the forthcoming retirement of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Woodford by putting on record its unbounded admiration and gratitude for his services to Parliament, to the nation and to the world; remembers, above all, his inspiration of the British people when they stood alone, and his leadership until victory was won; and offers its grateful thanks to the right honourable Gentleman for these outstanding services to this House and to the nation.
  I move this Motion in the full confidence that it will be supported by every right hon. and hon. Member of the House, and in the knowledge that all who have ever served here with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford will feel that they share at once in the sadness and in the grandeur of this essentially parliamentary occasion, sadness because the right hon. Gentleman's long membership of the House is coming to an end, and grandeur because of the honour and the lustre which the parliamentary career of the right hon. Gentleman has brought to the House of Commons. Not least of the honours of which we are sensible is that it has so evidently remained a pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman in recent days to attend our sittings.
  Hon. Members may imagine how difficult it was to decide how adequately to record our thanks for this lifetime of service, but those of all parties who met to consult together were soon agreed that whatever was to be done must be something in keeping with the history of the House and in keeping with its character as the representative forum of the nation and as the House of Commons.
  We have chosen, by common consent, a method of trying to convey our thanks adopted by the House on 1st July, 1814, in respect of the Duke of Wellington. I feel that this precedent in itself will give the right hon. Gentleman pleasure, appealing to his vivid sense of the sweep of history.
  Today is not the occasion to review the services of the right hon. Gentleman, those which he has given both to the
  1238
  House and to the nation. For anyone at any time that would be a daunting task. If I were to begin to undertake the tale of when the right hon. Gentleman was first elected to the House I should be intimidated, for it is from the year 1900, with only but a short interval, that he has been a Member of the House throughout the progress of this century.
  I myself first remember his speeches from his place in the corner seat below the Gangway in the 1930s when he was seeking to catch the ear of Parliament and the country and to give urgency to the preparations for the war which he himself had long foreseen was due to come. Then we knew him as the Prime Minister in war, exercising the unparalleled authority with which he commanded the House at that time through all the adversities and through the triumphs of the battle until victory was ours and his. At all times we remember him, whether as back bencher. as Minister, or as Prime Minister, for the inimitable style with which he has always adorned our debates and our proceedings, with that extraordinary gift of words, compelling in their simplicity, which made an appeal to the hearts of millions and gave them leadership which was inspired.
  In this place the right hon. Gentleman went through and took us through the whole range of the emotions. He has loved the parliamentary fight and I think that his opponents would concede that he has won most of them. I never remember an occasion, though, however dramatic and alarming—as was sometimes the case—the parliamentary storm might be, when the magnanimity and humanity of the right hon. Gentleman has not taken charge. Time and again I have seen that ferocious frown turn to the smile with which he has acknowledged the quality of a worthy opponent, and time and again it was like the sun coming out from behind the thunder cloud, with all its healing power.
  The right hon. Gentleman is a man of the strongest principles and holds very strong ideas, but he is essentially broad minded, and everybody has felt and known that he has felt the people with his heart. He said on one occasion:
  "My views represent a continual process of adjustment to changing events".

  1239
  It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has found the ultimate wisdom which so often eludes lesser men.
  But today it is enough and it suffices to unite in saluting one of the most famous personalities that this House has ever known and one of its most faithful servants. Therefore, when a few of us are selected by the House to go and convey the respect and the gratitude of every right hon. and hon. Member in it, I hope that we may say that everybody in the House today will always be filled with pride that we have had the right to call the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford our colleague and our friend.
  3.47 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: The terms in which the right hon. Gentleman has moved this Motion are acceptable to the whole House and will be welcomed by all of us. Although occasion demands that this Motion should be commended to the House by the three party leaders and by two other very senior Members of the House, we are speaking today not as representatives of parties, but as Members of the House united by a common bond of admiration and affection for the most distinguished and best-loved of our fellow Members.
  Winston Churchill—and I do not fear to be ruled out of order, Mr. Speaker, because in this last week of this Parliament I am relying on the quality of selective deafness of which you informed us in the first week of this Parliament—is a man who, in his own lifetime, has become a legend. By far our oldest colleague in years and in terms of service to the House, he has deservedly earned the unique tribute which the House unites to pay him today.
  When, last March, some of us proposed that the House owed a duty, not to the right hon. Gentleman but to itself, to mark his retirement in a special manner, all of us received countless letters from all over the country, from members of all parties and of none, welcoming the idea and many of them suggesting means which this tribute might take. Some, proposing a national tribute not related specifically to Parliament, might well be considered separately. It is our privilege today, as
  1240
  fellow parliamentarians, to commemorate what he has done in Parliament and for Parliament and here in Parliament for the nation.
  In the talks we had with the Government, and after some painstaking research, we suggested the idea of reviving a very old custom of the House based on a Notice of Motion of a vote of thanks. Until the present century—and the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned a previous case—such Motions were fairly frequent, being for the most part addressed to generals and admirals in respect of military successes. But such Motions addressed to Members of the House are much less frequent and the last of which I can find any record was in 1700. I quote from the Journal of 17th March, when the thanks of the House were given to
  "Sir Edward Seymour, Baronet, a Member of this House for the great service he hath done the Publick in detecting the Bribery and Corruption, which hath been practised in the Elections of several Members to serve in this present Parliament."
  What we are honouring today is a very much greater and more long-standing service to Parliament and the nation. For this reason, this Motion today is unique—as the man whom we are honouring is unique.
  We commemorate on the eve of his retirement the right hon. Gentleman's services in peace and in war. We honour him as a great parliamentarian, a great orator and debater who shares only with David Lloyd George and Aneurin Bevan, I think, the honour of being one of the three greatest orators of this century. In a life of public service which spans almost two thirds of a century—from his entry as the young Member for Oldham to his retirement now as Father of the House and right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford—he has, as the Prime Minister said, never shirked the controversial or the unpopular. When this House, 20 years ago, debated the reconstruction of this Chamber he drew attention to its oblong, bilateral shape and derisive of mere continental semi-circular constructions, spoke of the awesome journey involved in crosisng the Floor of the House, because he had crossed it twice.
  The right hon. Gentleman was a controversial figure and he will want to be remembered as a controversial figure. As

  1241
  a young Liberal he denounced his Conservative opponents in a phrase which to this day remains a classic of anti-Conservative literature. Equally, his financial policies inspired the most savage of Maynard Keynes's satires in "Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill". As a Conservative, he took equal delight in castigating his Liberal and Labour opponents.
  As the Prime Minister said, in the late 'thirties he cared not for friends or party loyalties as he spoke frankly of the dangers he saw. Yet in our darkest hour, in 1940, he was the choice of the nation. History may dispute whether it was the courage of those of his own party who registered their own historic vote in that debate of May, 1940, or the refusal of the then Opposition to serve in any Government of national unity headed by another which led to his call to office.
  Whatever historians may decide, the choice was the choice of the British people. It was his resolution, his unswerving faith in victory, his historic decision to appeal to our people for the spirit of sacrifice which he knew his leadership could evoke—it was these transcendent qualities which, backed by loyal and dedicated colleagues of all parties, brought up through to victory.
  I said that he has become a legend. Many of us were brought up on the legend of his early struggles. My own father was his sub-agent in North-West Manchester in 1908, when, under the barbarous system which required that a newly-appointed Cabinet Minister must resign and seek re-election, the right hon. Gentleman lost his seat. My uncle was his constituency chairman, a strong teetotaller. He recalls how the right hon. Member for Woodford, with tears streaming down his face, sought consolation for his defeat in two large whiskies—which my staunchly teetotal uncle had to pay for.
  The war-time years produced a crop of stories about the right hon. Member for Woodford, some of them apocryphal, but all told with endearment. Some are known to be true. There is the one about his famous rebuke of the pedantic civil servant, when he wrote, "This is nonsense up with which I will not put". I remember during our darkest days, as a member of the Cabinet Secretariat, an
  1242
  emergency call in the small hours from President Roosevelt. The President had decided to release the 50 over-age destroyers for our use—given certain conditions. A colleague of mine was duty officer and had to decide whether to awaken the Cabinet Secretary and, after consultation, took the not inconsiderable risk of awakening the Prime Minister.
  The President stated his condition—if Britain were defeated in the war the ships were to make for Canada. The Prime Minister, who was barely awake, and not in the best of tempers, produced a ready answer, "Yes, if that happens, the destroyers will sail for Canada, but the contingency of defeat is one more likely to befall our enemies than ourselves." Few at that time would have been so ready, so confident, even in the full light of day.
  Inevitably, admiring ingenuity has conferred on the right hon. Gentleman legendary epigrams and aphorisms which, true or not, we would all like to think that he coined. I treasure particularly the story of his remarkable interview with the then General de Gaulle, who had claimed for the Free French Forces the blocked gold held on the French account by the Bank of England, when the General asked the right hon. Gentleman to intervene. The story is that the right hon. Gentleman replied—and I apologise for my French, which is rather like the right hon. Gentleman's, "Mon cher Général, quand je me trouve en face de la vielle dame de Threadneedle Street, je me trouve tout a fait impotent "I know it should have been "impuissant".
  As war gave way to peace his single-minded dedication to victory gave place to growing controversy about his views on post-war planning. There is a delightful story about a Cabinet meeting when your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, the then Minister of Town and Country Planning, submitted a learned memorandum on town and country planning, establishing the best of the Scott, Uthwatt and Barlow Reports. It was one o'clock and this was the eleventh item on the agenda. The Prime Minister is reported to have said, "Ah, yes, I know, town planning, densities, broad vistas, open spaces. Give to me the romance of the eighteenth century alley, with its dark corners, where footpads lurk." "Shakes" Morrison, instead of taking this as an

  1243
  endorsement of his paper, which he was entitled to do, wearily took it back for further consideration, and town planning was held up for seven months.
  This Motion today honours a fellow hon. Member of wide achievements, the Cavalry officer who escaped from a Boer prison, the author of "Lord Randolph Churchill", of "Marlborough", of the "History of the English-Speaking Peoples"—favourite reading for many of us—a Nobel prize winner for literature, an Academician. It honours a youthful reformer who piloted the Employment Exchanges Act and Unemployment Insurance Act through this House. It honours the warrior of the Dardenelles and of Sidney Street, it honours a controversial ex-Chancellor, a man who could write history and who could make history, a leader who, in his unconquerable faith in our people and in the ultimate victory of our cause, could yet enrich our language with the magic of speeches which will be remembered and treasured for all the years our literary heritage may endure.
  For all these things we honour him today, but as parliamentarians we are conscious of something beyond, and I for my part speak as one of many present on both sides of the House who are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the kind, almost old-world courtesies going far beyond the normal calls of parliamentary comradeship. If Winston Churchill could write his own epitaph it would be simply this, "He was a good House of Commons man."
  3.59 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: Today, we say goodbye as a Member of Parliament to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). He has played a great many parts in the House of Commons. He has on occasions been very angry with the House of Commons. He has been ignored by the House of Commons. He has been howled at by the House of Commons. He has received almost unparalleled adulation from the House of Commons, and in over 50 years he has held the highest offices and been present on the most august occasions in the House of Commons. He has also had a book thrown at him in the House of
  1244
  Commons, and a point of order has been taken against him for attempting to vote in his pyjamas. But he has never attempted to patronise or belittle the House of Commons.
  This is no occasion for sentimentality. We are here to celebrate one of the greatest careers of our history. But few people can have failed to be moved when, day after day, the right hon. Gentleman comes into this House and takes his seat below the Gangway. Few people can fail to be moved by the meticulous care which he takes to pay his respects to this assembly, in which his whole life, almost, has been spent.
  At this time, when so many people, with a rather superior or world-weary air, speak contemptuously of the House of Commons, of the whole rough system of party politics on which the House of Commons thrives, it is good that we should praise a famous man who, in the middle of great wars and great crises, has never failed to come here and give an account of his doings before the motley collection of Members of this House who represent the people of Britain. In no other assembly that I know of do those who wield the highest power come to it and answer Questions in person, Questions sometimes wounding, often petty, but which are collectively one of the great foundations of our liberties.
  The right hon. Gentleman was not only a Member of the House of Commons and a great statesman. He was through and through a politician. Here again, let those who, for one reason or another, deride politics and refuse to dirty their hands with what they consider a frustrating or dishonourable service, consider the career of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford. We are told that when vast projects are undertaken democratic politics must go by the board. Yet the right hon. Gentleman led this country through one of its toughest crises by commanding the assent of the people and by making no inroads on the democratic rights of the people other than those which they accepted themselves. At the highest point of his career he accepted summary dismissal at the nod of the people.
  The right hon. Gentleman has had an enthusiasm for politics which, with characteristic magnanimity, he has

  1245
  showered upon two of the older established parties and one of his own invention. What has made him so great a politician is not only this enthusiasm, his thirst for power and his appetite for the rancour and the asperity of political debate and, indeed, his humour, but his capacity to derive arguments, even on minor matters, from his view of great and enduring principles. He points the whole of his immense ability on whatever he has in hand.
  Lastly, he has always wanted Britain to be not only great, but happy, and he wanted everyone to share his pleasure and his triumphs. The tribute that we shall pass today is, as has been said, of a type often offered to great captains like Marlborough and Wellington, and today, surely, we salute a great captain at the end of a long and glorious political campaign.
  4.4 p.m.
  Sir Thomas Moore: Many honours have come to me in my time. Possibly a few of them have been earned, although I must confess that I think the vast majority have been completely unearned and undeserved. But the greatest honour of them all is the one that I receive today, in being allowed to participate, on behalf of my fellow back benchers, in the tribute to our greatest of men. That is something that I shall treasure during the remaining years of my life.
  Greatness, strength, high purpose and magnanimity are rare to come by, but as this is a special occasion may I say that we have come by them all in our right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). It has always been an excitement to hear him, it has been a constant joy, especially for the Strangers' Gallery, to watch him. It has been a terrific inspiration to all those of us who have been privileged to serve with him in this House—myself for 40 full years. That inspiration will be with us always. Now the House will seem strangely empty. Indeed, I think that the country will feel sort of empty, too, and that the people will miss hearing that reassuring voice which always gave them comfort in times of trouble.
  But there is another to whom our thoughts turn today, that gracious lady who has been his inspiration and who
  1246
  has so loved and cherished him through all their years together. So I would include her in these final words: may God continue to bless them and give them both many years of healthy and happy retirement—and still together.
  4.7 p.m.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: It is a privilege of which I am fully conscious to join in the tribute to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), voiced so eloquently by the right hon. Gentlemen and the hon. Member who have preceded me. However, I must freely confess that there were occasions in the past, way back to the year 1906 when the Parliamentary Labour Party was first formed, and onward during the years, the 'twenties and the 'thirties, when it would have been regarded as a heresy to have heaped praise on the right hon. Gentleman. That would undoubtedly have incurred the displeasure of my Labour colleagues. Indeed, it might have led, if not to expulsion, to the withdrawal of the Whip.
  In those days the right hon. Gentleman attacked the Labour Party with remarkable severity. Whether it was justified is a matter upon which, on this occasion, I dare not comment, but with the passage of time all the ascerbities, the acrimony, the aversions and dislike have vanished and are replaced by admiration for the varied and brilliant qualities of the right hon. Gentleman, and even by our affection.
  I have had the fortune to have experienced association with many distinguished Parliamentarians. I recall the scintillating oratory of Lloyd George, which could electrify the House. I recall the shrewdness of Stanley Baldwin, the rare debating quality of Bonar Law and Lord Hugh Cecil, and the dignified utterances of Mr. Asquith, and, coming nearer to the years in which we live, the un-flappability of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Mac-millan). But, distinguished as those Parliamentarians were, none of them—I say this with the utmost respect—could transcend the brilliance, the courage, the forthrightness and the remarkable qualities of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford.
  Sir, I had the opportunity—if the House will forgive my referring to the

  1247
  matter—of sharing in a broadcast on television last night. I ventured to make a remark which, perhaps, will bear repetition. I said that the right hon. Gentleman is no ordinary Member, but is one of our greatest institutions: the Throne, the Church, Parliament, the Press, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford.
  I recall him in times of peace when, I must admit, he acted according to his temperament, his training and environment—according to his fashion, about which, perhaps, we had better not comment on this occasion. But I also recall how, during the Second World War, he crystallised, in majestic phrases, the resolution of the whole nation; and that will remain as a memory in the hearts and minds of those who were associated with him at that time.
  In his impending retirement, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will enjoy peace and contentment—that, I believe, is the wish of all of us—in which he may reflect on his past glories and the appreciation and devotion of his countrymen.
  4.11 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: As the oldest of the very few Members of this House who served in both Administrations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) t ask the indulgence of the House to say a few words in support of the Motion now before us.
  In a sense, there is little more that can or that need be said. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) have paid eloquent and moving tribute to the greatest Member of Parliament of this or any other age.
  As they have reminded us, there is no parallel for the extraordinary career of the colleague and friend whom we are honouring today. There have been great administrators in times of peace, with long records of power, like Walpole. There have been great leaders of the nation in the hour of peril and the hour of glory—Chatham, Pitt, Lloyd George. There have been others who have nearly equalled—though none has
  1248
  actually surpassed—this immense span of parliamentary and public service—Palmerston, Disraeli, Gladstone.
  There have, no doubt, been debaters and orators of equal resource and power, though few with that gift of puckish, rather mischievous, humour which so endears him to us all. Yet, looking back on the long history of the House of Commons, we can recall no man who has combined, in his single person, these qualities and these achievements.
  The life of the man we are today honouring is, in this sense, unique. The oldest amongst us can recall nothing to compare with it. The younger ones among you, however long you live, will never see the like again.
  All those who have spoken have rightly emphasised, among my right hon. Friend's characteristic loyalties, his affection for the House of Commons. Through so many years, through so many elections, through so many turns of Fortune's wheel, through so many Parliaments, he has stayed with us in the House of Commons and we love him for that.
  I would only add a few words on a personal note. I have shared with my right hon. Friend some 40 of the 60 years of his membership of the House. For many years I have had the privilege of his friendship and worked with him in one way or another in many different circumstances, in office and out of office, in good times and in bad. I served in both his great Administrations in war and in peace, for a period of nearly 10 years. I have enjoyed, during the years of his retirement and my responsibilities, his generous encouragement and wise counsel. I have, therefore, seen my right hon. Friend for many years at very close quarters, at moments of frustration and disappointment as well as at those of satisfaction and achievement.
  Failure and success are, in their different ways, equal tests of a man's character. My right hon. Friend has overcome both triumphantly. These twists and changes of political fortune were not mere accidents. They were the very fabric of his life. Like the prophets of old, he saw into the future with uncanny prescience both before, during and after the war.

  1249
  So we honour the whole man—what he has done, what he has tried to do and what he is. If I were to try to sum up his true character I can think of no words more appropriate than those which he has himself written on the fly-leaf of each volume of his "History of the Second World War".

  "In War: Resolution

  In Defeat: Defiance

  In Victory: Magnanimity

  In Peace: Goodwill"

  The author called these words "Moral of the Work". In fact, Sir, they are the story of his life.
  Question put and agreed to, nemine contradicente.
  Resolved,
  That this House desires to take this opportunity of marking the forthcoming retirement of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Woodford by putting on record its unbounded admiration and gratitude for his services to Parliament, to the nation and to the world; remembers, above all, his inspiration of the British people when they stood alone, and his leadership until victory was won; and offers its grateful thanks to the right honourable Gentleman for these outstanding services to this House and to the nation.
  Committee appointed to wait upon the right honourable Gentleman to convey to him the thanks of the House.
  The Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Wilson, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Sir Thomas Moore and Mr. Shinwell.—[The Prime Minister.]

  PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS (NATIONAL SAVINGS)
  4.19 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Tiley: Mr. Speaker, it is with great humility, pride and thankfulness that I am here in your presence to beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that the savings of the people in any part of the National Savings movement shall not be used for the purpose of extending nationalisation or the State control of industry, without an Act of Parliament.
  The scenes which I have just witnessed reminded me of the feelings I had almost five years ago when you, Mr. Speaker, in a very great moment of privilege and kindness, called me to make the first speech in this Parliament following the last General Election. With that experience in mind, I am very glad
  1250
  that I have followed the tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), because it is better on these occasions to be taking round the whisky and the cigars than serving the hors-d'œuvres.
  I do not apologise for introducing the Bill and exercising a back bencher's privilege, even at this late hour in this Parliament. The House may be interested to know that I have, with the help of the Library, ascertained from its staff that in this Parliament, since 1959, 111 Ten-Minutes Rule Bills have been introduced, 35 by Members on this side of the House, 75 by Members of the Official Opposition, and one by the Liberal Party. Of all those 111 presentations, only six have received so far the Royal Assent. Truly, in this field,
  "To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive"
  and, whether late or early in the Session, the path is a difficult one. We can only seek to cast our pearls before the Front Benches and hope that someone will act eventually on our brilliant ideas.
  The Bill I seek to introduce is an important one, because it defends a vital principle of trust. It is an act of good faith to the millions of our people who have contributed to the success of the National Savings Movement. Over 32 million of our people have accounts at the Savings Banks. Over 17 million of our people own National Savings Certificates. There are over 3¼ million people who belong to industrial savings groups.
  I want to draw the attention of the House to the growth of personal savings since the war, a growth which is truly impressive. I am not saying that it is high enough, but the growth is an impressive one, and especially so during this Parliament. In 1950, the personal savings of our people increased by £122 million. In 1960, personal savings increased by £1,418 million. In 1963, the last complete year, the increase had risen to £1,953 million. In this year—1964—it is expected that they will increase by £2,000 million. These are remarkable figures.
  The figures of growth in the National Savings Movement are just as impressive. In 1951, the net increase in National Savings was £1 million. In 1963, the net increase was £315 million. Since 1951, those savings have risen by over £1,750 million. In June this year the amount

  1251
  standing to the credit of National Savings Certificates, Defence Bonds, Development Bonds, Premium Bonds, Post Office Savings Bank accounts and amounts in the Trustee Savings Banks totalled £8,043 million.
  I wonder whether people realise the tremendous growth of savings. I wonder whether they have yet assimilated the tremendous impact of this saving on our life in these islands. These moneys are at the disposal of the Government. No wonder, therefore, we get more houses, more schools, more hospitals, more roads and less taxes.
  Great credit is due to our people for these figures. Nowadays, it is fashionable to decry material progress. The phrase "having it good" is not in itself fashionable. Here is a virtue which is growing in the material progress of these years, the great virtue of thrift. There was an age when only the few saved—the "very few", as Disraeli said. But our people are in these modern days accepting the responsibilities of the spreading of wealth and the spreading of incomes. They are investing in the future.
  This is all the more creditable in an age of spending. We are merely invited to save, but we are almost bullied on all sides to spend. The real credit for this progress belongs to our people, not to us. They are the creators, the builders, the producers. Politicians merely create the correct climate for these advances.
  I wish to pay a tribute to those in charge of the National Savings Movement. This is one of the brightest gems in our national life, and hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to see it grow. All people contribute—rich and poor, young and old, men and women of all parties, and men and women of no party. Nothing gives me personally greater pleasure than when I see each year Her Majesty graciously honouring ordinary people in the streets and in industry for their service to this great movement.
  So far, this great movement has always been free of party strife. It always has been, and I want to keep it so. People tell us to keep party politics out of health, pensions and education. Nearly all those who are standing on the sidelines of life in this country and never take any active part in our life here and in politics tell us to do this. It is very
  1252
  difficult to keep party politics out of the main questions of the day, but my Bill would help to keep this great movement free from party motives.
  If the Opposition ever come to power, we are promised more nationalisation. It is certain that the majority of our people are opposed to it. There are doubts created in all our minds in an economic sense on how nationalisation would be financed. We are promised, also, that national superannuation funds will be used for share buying in private industry. At the time of the last General Election it was admitted that national savings might be used for that purpose.
  I want to keep the party strife and the bitterness that would follow all these questions out of the National Savings Movement. I want to keep risks out of it, too. This movement is the sheet anchor of our ordinary people in the field of saving. There is no risk of loss of capital, and we can receive our money whenever we need it, without difficulty. There are enough avenues of risk about investment. Let us preserve this one in toto. It would be wrong for any Government to change all this trust by using the savings movement for further nationalisation or for the State control of industry. The doubts created by those suspicions would harm the National Savings Movement.
  My proposed Bill would be quite fair and quite simple. It could not prevent this happening, but at least it would make it impossible for it to happen without the House discussing it, so that the whole public would know what was transpiring.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tiley, Sir D. Kaberry, Mr. W. Clark, Mr. Jennings, Mr. N. Pannell, and Mr. Hiley.

  PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS (NATIONAL SAVINGS)
  Bill to provide that the savings of the people in any part of the National Savings movement shall not be used for the purpose of extending nationalisation or the State control of industry, without an Act of Parliament, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 207.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Committee Tomorrow.

  HOUSING AND RENTS
  4.31 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the hardship to tenants and dislocation of housing programmes, caused by the operation of the Rent Act, 1957, and the failure of that Act to justify the claims made for it; and notes with concern the inadequate progress made, under Her Majesty's present Government, towards the demolition of slums and the provision of homes at reasonable prices or rents.
  Although we debated housing less than a fortnight ago it is entirely proper that we should take up the subject again, if only because we find that, despite the rigidities of our party system, we extract something from the Government by having housing debates. In the debate on 16th July we extracted from them a statement about the use of a piece of land in South-East London for which the London County Council has been waiting for over a year. In what was commonly called the "Rachman debate", held about this time last year, we extracted the appointment of the Milner Holland Committee and an announcement of policies, some of which were enshrined in the Housing Bill that has recently become law—
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I would say that the setting up of the Committee of which Sir Milner Holland's chairmanship was on that day announced had, in fact, been announced by the Government several months earlier, in two housing White Papers.
  Mr. Stewart: I think that the Minister did bring to that debate the actual membership of the Committee. However, he will remember that it has frequently happened that the Government have said they would do something and we have had to hurry them up afterwards. We got a
  1254
  further stage towards the Milner Holland Committee by that debate.
  I think that the Minister will not deny the proposition that we get something out of the Government by having these debates. I agree that it is not very much, and it comes several months after it should have come, but it is always quite an achievement to get even a few drops of blood out of a stone. I am hopeful, therefore, that at some stage in this debate we shall hear, once again, that the Government have at last decided to do something we have been telling them to do for the last two or three years. If that happens, it will be in line with our housing debates.
  In our Motion we have referred to the Rent Act. There are a very large number of facets to the whole housing problem and it would be a waste of time to try to cover them all in a single speech opening a debate, and I therefore think that one should, in successive debates, make a selection of topics. That being so, I want to put, first, emphasis, though not sole emphasis, on the problem of the working of the Rent Act.
  Our Motion begins by deploring the hardship to tenants caused by the operation of the Act. I do not think that it will be denied that hardship exists. We had the figures of London's homeless given in the debate of 16th July, and we are having personal cases brought to our attention all the time. A middle-aged lady constituent visited me quite recently. Her lease is running out, and she is to be asked to pay a rent that will eat up half of her small income. That is the kind of thing that hon. Members representing the great cities find happening to them week after week. I see that even the Government Amendment admits that there is hardship, although it ascribes it to somewhat different causes.
  Then there is the fact that with the operation of the Rent Act there is the activity known as Rachmanism, which can vary from the most atrocious behaviour to a number of quiet but unfriendly pressures all the time on the controlled tenant to get him out. That activity continues, and must continue, because it is so enormously profitable, if one has a controlled tenant, to get him out and get vacant possession.
  In that field, the Government are almost creating a new industry. I recently

  1255
  saw this advertisement in the Estates Gazette:
  "Controlled tenancies. Vacant possession obtained by expert staff specialising in this field."
  I have made inquiries of the firm inserting the advertisement, and I am assured that its members proceed in the most correct and legal manner, often seeking out ways in which, possibly, a controlled tenant can buy a house. But we know very well that there is a very different kind of expert staff that specialises in the field of getting vacant possession of controlled tenancies. That abuse continues, and will continue as long as the Rent Act continues. I do not doubt that some of my hon. Friends will give further examples of hardship during the debate.
  Our Motion refers, next, to the
  "… dislocation of housing programmes caused by the operation of the Rent Act …"
  This is important, because it might be argued that the Rent Act was a kind of nasty medicine the nation had to take—a medicine that was no doubt unpleasant for some people, but which would help to cure the housing problem. Yet I have here a report from an official of a moderate-sized county borough who describes the growing number of cases in the area of his authority faced with eviction about which the local authority has to act.
  Having given the figures, he says:
  "It can be seen, therefore, that there is a vast increase on the problem which is absorbing many of the dwellings which would otherwise have gone to the long standing cases on the housing waiting list. The impact is so severe that it may even endanger some of the slum clearance and redevelopment schemes which are in progress."
  There is the experience of a local authority; the Act is not only causing hardship, but is making the problem still more difficult to solve.
  A similar aspect of the matter has been brought to my attention recently from Liverpool. There are in Liverpool a number of areas that will be coming forward to be dealt with under the slum clearance procedure. Many of the inhabitants in those areas are decontrolled tenants; the decontrol having occurred by there being a new tenancy since 1957—these are not well-off people.
  Anyone who knows Liverpool will have no great difficulty in saying in what
  1256
  parts of the town slum clearance orders are likely to be made in the very near future. Anyone who knows about slum clearance knows also that if some one is living in such an area at the time the order is made, he is quite properly regarded as having a right to be rehoused by the council.
  What does the landlord do in such a situation? He points out to his tenants—perhaps not in the bluntest of words, but leaving the meaning quite plain—that, really, they are quite lucky to be living in an area that will probably be a slum clearance area soon, because it gives them the right to be rehoused by the council. He adds that they only enjoy that right by his good favour: that he could give them four weeks' notice and get them out of that area altogether—unless they are prepared to pay for the right to stay there, and pay as much as he can screw out of them. He can point out to them that if they will not pay he will not have much difficulty in finding someone else who will. That enables the landlord to extract a sort of key money for dwellings which he does not even provide himself, but which are to be provided by the council. That is why our Motion speaks not only of hardship, but of the dislocation of housing programmes.
  We also refer to the failure of the Rent Act to justify the claims made for it, and I would remind the House of what some of those claims were. There was the claim of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that, as a result of the Rent Act, supply and demand for houses would be made equal within a year of the passing of the Act.
  There was the claim of the right hon. Gentleman, now the Home Secretary, that uncontrolled rents under the Rent Act would be very unlikely to reach a figure of more than two and a half times the gross value on the old valuation of the property. Yet we have had the Government refusing to sanction compulsory purchase orders when rents four and a half times the gross value have been demanded from tenants. There was the further claim of the same right hon. Gentleman that the Rent Act would bring more rented property on to the market. I notice with interest that in the Government's Amendment today

  1257
  that claim is dropped. The only claim which they make now is that it retains them in the pool for letting.
  The bold claim that it would bring more on the market has been dropped in favour of the more modest suggestion that at least as a result of the Rent Act the number of properties available for renting is not dwindling as fast as otherwise it would have done. But even that is not supported by the survey which the Government themselves made. This showed that there were 320,000 decontrolled houses in 1957 and two years later one-quarter of them had ceased to be available for renting unfurnished. They vanished from the market and one in 12 stood empty, the landlord judging from the general state of the market that it would pay him to hang on for a higher price. Not only has the Act not brought more on to the market it has not succeeded in keeping houses in the market.
  There is the further criticism of the Rent Act that it degrades the standards of landlordism. I have said before, and I say again, that there are many landlords who want to do their duty by their tenants and by the property and they have presented to them all the time the fact that it is much more profitable to do neither and that the landlord who bullies his tenants makes more money and makes it quicker than the landlord who behaves reasonably. That is the lesson of the Rent Act.
  As to its effect on repairs, the Government will argue possibly that the working of the certificate of disrepair may have helped in the repair of properties still remaining in control, but what is the position of the uncontrolled tenant when the property needs repair of a kind for which he could go to the sanitary inspector? He knows that if he goes he will receive four weeks' notice, or if it is a lease that the lease will not be renewed. This is a factor working against the repair of decontrolled houses all the time.
  I stress this because I have observed from the Daily Telegraph, in its articles about Tory policy, that the line of Tory thinking is to abolish the housing problem by abolishing rent control and subsidies and paying a housing allowance to people who cannot afford the resulting rents. It will be apparent that if we pay housing allowances without rent control
  1258
  we may enable landlords to put up rents even higher, and we will be shovelling out public money which will go to the landlords instead of to tenants. If the Government are thinking on these lines they must also think on the line of extending rent control. Any such policy would be in direct defiance of a pledge which the Minister gave in the House, oddly enough just before the Greater London elections. That was a pledge that this Government, even if it were in a position to do so in the next Parliament, would not extend rent decontrol by making an Order under Section 11 of the Act.
  The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that we still have anxieties about this. I remind him and the whole party opposite that at the General Election of 1955 a most explicit pledge was given by the Conservative Party that it would not introduce legislation leading to a general rise in rents. The Minister was a candidate at that election and was, therefore, as bound by that pledge as anyone else in his party, yet coming later to the House at a by-election he managed to vote for the Second Reading and Third Reading of the Rent Act without turning a hair. This is the right hon. Gentleman and this is the party who now put down an Amendment accusing other people of ambiguous promises. I agree that there was nothing ambiguous about the promise given in 1955 and nothing ambiguous about the complete betrayal of it afterwards. This is why, after the right hon. Gentleman's pledge, controlled tenants still have anxieties on this matter.
  I turn from the Rent Act to the question of the adequacy of housing policy in general, because it will be quite rightly said that necessary as an extended measure of rent control is as an immediate measure, the long-term cure must be the provision of more houses and the provision of different kinds of houses broadly in proportion to people's needs. Let us notice the position to date on that. For several years, up to the end of last year, in round figures we were completing in Great Britain 170,000 dwellings provided by private enterprise and 130,000 by public enterprise. That was the position for several years, including 1963.
  Two years ago, in 1962, I expressed the view that we ought to be building 400,000

  1259
  a year rather than 300,000 and that probably we should be providing 200,000 by public enterprise and 200,000 by private enterprise, which would have meant an absolute increase in our building of both kinds. The Government White Paper appeared last year and that put forward a figure of 350,000 with a later possibility of 400,000. This sequence of events was rather surprisingly described by the Minister as the Opposition accepting the Government's target. In fact, it was the other way round, but let that pass.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Public Building and Works pursued the story in a speech on 17th March when he spoke of 200,000 houses to be provided by private enterprise and 150,000 by public enterprise, and since then we have had more optimistic estimates. Let me put the line which the Government seem to be taking in the Amendment today. They are arguing that if we work towards, as I believe we should, a total of 200,000 dwellings a year provided by public enterprise that means that it is intended to cut down the number provided by private enterprise. I would say that the moral of that is that total building must be stepped up to such a figure as will enable us to have 200,000 dwellings a year provided by public enterprise.
  I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. He, in his Amendment, assumes that we stick to a total figure of 400,000, but what about those to be built by housing associations under the 1961 Act? At present, the number is zero. Presumably, it will increase to something. The Minister has recently informed local authorities in a circular that building by housing associations will not compete with building by local authorities. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman sticks to a total of 400,000 houses, that can be achieved only by reducing the number which otherwise would be provided by ordinary private enterprise. The rather over-ingenious arguments which the right hon. Gentleman tries to turn against us apply to his own position, but it is an unreal argument because there is no reason why we should regard 400,000 as a limit fixed for all time. Nobody's policy, neither that of the Opposition nor of the Government, can stand up if that
  1260
  assumption is to be made. We must regard 400,000 as the first milestone to be reached, and I do not underestimate the difficulty of reaching it.
  It seems unwise for us to pretend to be able to predict the future more than we can. All our estimates of population are based on hypotheses. Our judgment of the rate of obsolescence is partly a matter of opinion, and on the other side of the balance sheet our judgment of real capacities of industrialised building must at present be hypothetical. I shall not pursue the matter of figures further, because I am sure that if I mentioned a further figure the Government, after a suitable interval, would say that a figure something slightly higher was the Government's target, and it would not give us any more houses.
  I want to develop the question of the comparative importance in the whole picture of public and private enterprise housing. We know that at the moment, with few exceptions, housing provided by private enterprise means housing for sale, and housing provided by public enterprise means housing to let. I see an hon. Member shaking his head. I said that there were exceptions, but the vast majority of the houses provided by private enterprise are provided for sale.
  I do not think that we should start off by saying that there is a positive virtue in owner-occupation or a positive virtue in being a tenant. The aim of policy should be to create a situation in which as many people as possible have a genuine choice of which they want and which best suits their need. At the moment, we have, on the one hand, people whose incomes, character and the rest would make them good owner-occupiers and who want to be owner-occupiers, but cannot get there because of the size of the first hurdle, the deposit, legal costs, and so on, that has to be surmounted. That is one problem. On the other hand, we have people who never really wanted to be owner-occupiers, but who had to buy the houses in part of which they live as a way of keeping a roof over their heads. That is not desirable, either.
  If it is the Government's view, and their Amendment seems to imply this, that we must press on with providing houses

  1261
  for sale and the councils can fill in what is left of the total target, I would draw to their attention the fact that if we put on the market more and more houses built by private enterprise for sale, they must match that by making it rather easier for some of the people who want to become owner-occupiers. That is the point of the proposals that have made, which the Minister has tried to play about with, as I explained in the debate on housing last time, for assistance to the would-be owner-occupier whether he is making his purchase with help from the local authority or through another channel. I repeat that that is the Labour Party's policy. It is necessary, if we really want more owner-occupation, to pay account to the group of people who would make good owner-occupiers, if we could help them over the first hurdle.
  There are several other things which we might do, but which, for reasons of brevity, I shall not outline now, except to say that if the Government are anxious about owner-occupiers it is a pity that they did not give facilities to more than one Bill introduced by some of my hon. Friends to protect house purchasers from jerrybuilding. That would be a desirable step if the Government's policy is to lay emphasis on building for owner-occupation. On the other side of the picture, I want to develop the argument that both the absolute amount and the proportion within the whole of council house-building ought to be increased.
  If we take the amount of house building by local councils in recent years and deduct from that the number of houses needed for people from slum clearance schemes, and for people whose homes must come down for other reasons, a proportion is only one-bedroom dwellings. I do not deny the need for those—they are very useful—but none of those meets the need of most of the people on the council housing lists, the average-sized family who have not enough room. Only a few thousand houses a year are built to help satisfy the need of that kind of person, and that is why council after council, whatever its situation and political colour, is having to say, "The amount that we can do to help people on the ordinary waiting list is still pathetically small". It is those I have in mind
  1262
  when I say that we ought to step up the amount of council house-building.
  Here, I am echoing something that was said two years ago by the hon. Member for Solihull (Sir M. Lindsay). In the debate on 2nd May, 1962, he said:
  "I am perfectly certain that greater priority must be given to building more council houses…."—[OFFICIAI. REPORT, 2nd May, 1962; Vol. 658, c. 1061.]
  That is by no means a misrepresentation of his whole speech, which was a very harsh attack on the Government for not paying enough attention to this part of the housing problem.
  The other reason that I stress the importance in the whole housing programme of more council building is that if we are serious about slum clearance we have to recognise that a higher rate of slum clearance obliges us to provide more council dwellings. Some of those which are cleared from slums will become owner-occupiers, but it is, in general, true that the average income of slum dwellers is lower than the average income of other members of the population and the proportion of them, therefore, for whom we must provide rented accommodation will be greater.
  What is happening about slum clearance? The Minister will have seen the Report of the Town and Country Planning Association which points out that in the compiling of official statistics of slum clearance it is the habit to count a slum once when it is included in an Order and again when it is actually pulled down, so that the total figure of apparent demolitions is not quite in accord with the facts. There was some argument between the Ministry and the Town and Country Planning Association as to the exact size of this error—that it was perceptible was not in dispute. I notice that the Town and Country Planning Association seemed to be more shocked by this than, perhaps, some of us in this House who are more accustomed to the unreliability of some of the Government's claims would tend to be.
  At any rate, allowing for this I do not believe that the real rate of slum clearance has been above 60,000 dwellings a year. What do the Government think is necessary? The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor once put forward the view that every year 160,000 dwellings reached that degree of

  1263
  obsolescence when they ought to be pulled down. Even if one regards that as an excessively high estimate, it is clear that if we take a figure of 60,000 slums pulled down every year, and then ask how many dwellings become slums by the mere passage of time, that is the figure about which there is room for argument.
  Starting with Lord Hill's total of 160,000, and even scaling that down, we are left with the fact that the net demolition of slums—the extent to which the number we pull down each year exceeds the number that is created each year by the passage of time—must be alarmingly small, and if we divide that number into the total number of slums now existing which once again is well above as is well known, the official figure, the date at which we would clear all the slums recedes further into the distance even than fulfilment of the Government's 10-year Hospital Plan.
  I have mentioned the quantitative problem of the building of houses and the comparative importance in that problem of the public and private effort. But we must notice a point at which there has been growing anxiety. Almost every speech by members of the Government in recent months has included a more optimistic estimate of the total number of houses that will be completed this year. I hope they are right, but, as we are all very well aware, the houses, in the end, have got to be built with something, and most of them still, despite the introduction of modern methods, are built with bricks. I know that one of the colleagues of the Minister has the main responsibility in that field, but I cannot believe that the Minister will have come to this debate without arming himself with the best information that he can get about building materials and, in particular, about the brick shortage, of which there has been so much comment.
  I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the following points. First of all, the survey made by Cubitt's—and no one would suggest that they are alarmists or unreliable students of the matter—describe the present shortage of bricks as the most severe for a decade. Next, an inquiry made in the West Riding of Yorkshire showed that 90 per cent. of builders in the area said that they were
  1264
  short of bricks and feared that their work would be held up. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Faver-sham (Mr. Boston) has recently conducted an inquiry in his constituency and there have been similar disconcerting results. I notice, too, that the Economist, which, two months ago, took a very sanguine view of this problem, had an almost panicky note in its last issue and points out, as, indeed, does the Monthly Digest of Statistics, that the stock of bricks is now down to about 100 million or about one-sixth of what it was a year ago.
  Against this we must set the recent comment of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works, who, incidentally, I am glad to see here. As I understood his comments, it came down to this, that there was admittedly a severe run-down of stocks but that this would be dealt with by the plans for the expansion of production. That, of course, is what we all hope to be correct. What we should like to know, certainly in view of the rate at which the run-down of stocks is going, is this: will the effects of plans for the increased production of bricks be felt in time to prevent an actual hold-up in building? It is very important that we should know that, and the Government should not be tempted, if they are not certain of the facts, to make an over-optimistic estimate.
  Mr. Philip N. Hocking: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the figures that he has given are for the whole of the brick-making industry? In other words, do they cover all classes of bricks, or has he referred only to those which are in short supply, such as the cheaper makes? It is possible at present quite easily at a high price to get hold of supplies of bricks in some of the areas which he has mentioned where people complain of being short of bricks. I refer to locally-made bricks. It is not possible to get hold of the cheaper Fletton bricks which are used in housing construction. Do the figures that he has mentioned cover the whole of the brick industry, or only the cheaper variety?
  Mr. Stewart: They are given as covering the whole of the brick industry. After all, that is what they are intended to cover in the Monthly Digest of Statistics. I do not think that the

  1265
  Minister will question that fact. I do not think that the figures relating to brick stocks are restricted to the cheaper bricks. I am glad to hear that it is possible to relieve the general shortage by local supplies, but I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I say that we both want a fuller and more authoritative statement from the only people who have the information, namely the Government.
  We know very well that, looking a bit ahead, if anything like the present level of house-building is to be maintained there has got to be an expansion in the actual production of bricks, in the brick industry as well as in the building industry. That will apply, too, to those branches of industry which produce other building components. We are faced with a major expansion in one section of the country's economy. If we are to ask the industries concerned to do that, we must give them—the Minister of Public Building and Works emphasised this—the certainty of large and long-continuing orders.
  That is the clue both to the expansion of the industry and to the increased use and methods of industrialised building. Unless the industry can be certain that the the Govenment's pesent statement about housing figures is not just pre-election talk, but presages a long-planned expansion over a period of years, we shall not get the response from them and we cannot expect it.
  The Minister has explained the fact that we built fewer houses in 1963 than in 1953 by saying that when the Tory Government first came in, they gave housing great priority but after that it dropped off. Is it to be that story again? If it is, I do not think that we can get the expansion from the brick and other industries concerned, and I do not think that we can get the development of industrialised building that we want.
  I want to make this point clear at least to the Minister. This is part of the significance of what we have been saying about interest rates for house building. Some local authorities are following the advice of the Minister of Public Building and Works and are trying to plan their housing programmes well ahead. I spoke to an official of one such authority not long ago. He explained how they were thinking in terms of three to five years ahead. I
  1266
  said, "What will be the situation if, during that period, interest rates rise against you?" He said, "Then we shall be in a very perilous position".
  This is an argument that the Minister must consider and that he has never tried to answer before. He blusters away trying to split hairs on what we have said about interest rates and so on. The point about interest rates is that not only does special action by local authorities to improve them and guarantee a favourable interest rate help in some measure to make the houses cheaper in monetary terms, but the security that it gives to the industry makes it much more likely that we shall get the expansion and modernisation which in the end will make houses cheaper in real terms. That is what we all want.
  When we have argued about interest rates, the Government have always said, "You must not shield building from the risks of the economy". If we were in normal times, that might be a reasonable argument, but if we are saying to the building industry, "We demand from you great expansion and the increasing use of industrialised methods, some of them not yet well tried and some with risk", we must be prepared to offer the building industry a degree of shielding from the risks of the economy. We have tried to make it clear to the Government and they have never yet answered it. I hope the Minister will address his mind to it this time.
  I want to refer to the fact that houses have not only got to be built of bricks and materials. They have got to be built on something—on pieces of land. I understand from the Press that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman), if he should catch Mr. Speaker's eye, will have yet another spectacular example of land profiteering to give us. The extraordinary thing about these examples is that if a really malicious person on this side of the House—if there were such a person—sat down to invent an atrocity story about land profiteering and published it, he would probably find that it would be outdone the next day by something that had happened in real life. This kind of thing goes on and on—
  Mr. Hocking: The party opposite never has been up to date.
  Mr. Stewart: I agree that it is difficult for anyone to keep up to date with the rapacity of certain elements in our economy. The extraordinary thing is that apparently the Government believe in letting them get away with it.
  There are two points about land policy which I want to mention. One important element in dealing with the excessively high prices of land is a policy of greater decentralisation of employment. The Minister has pointed out that there are too many offices in London. Perhaps he will tell us today what effective action the Government intend to take. Would he, for example, consider saying that planning applications already granted for offices in London must be phased out over a period of time? If he does not do something like that, then I do not think that he will ever solve the problem of the over-congestion of London.
  The other aspect of the land problem on which I want to say a word is one about which we have often argued—the need for public action to get some part of the increased value of land, due to the fact that it is needed for development, into the public purse. In view of the phrase "ambiguous promises" in the Amendment, let us look at what the Minister has said on this subject. On 18th November, he said:
  "It is a corollary of regional planning and development that land planned for major development should be bought well in advance by a public authority …"
  Notice the phrase, "a public authority". I am not catching the Minister out on words, because he told the House that he was reading that passage because it was important that he should get it right. He said, "by a public authority". Presumably, therefore, it would not be an existing public authority, not a local authority but some body for this purpose.
  Mr. A. E. Cooper: There is nothing new in what my right hon. Friend said. This policy of local authorities buying land in anticipation of future requirements has been going on in this country for years and years and years.
  Mr. Stewart: As we shall see in a moment, that is not what the Minister had in mind. He said:
  "… well in advance by a public authority for disposal to private enterprise or to public enterprise …"
  1268
  It is at that point that local authorities come in, but the Minister is evidently postulating some other authority which buys well in advance and subsequently disposes either to local authorities or to private enterprise. Indeed, he goes on to say:
  "We may well have to devise new machinery for the purpose".
  Clearly, he is not thinking only of local authorities, nor is he thinking only of what is done in new towns, because a little later he said:
  "This is a case for extending from the new and expanding towns the policy of public acquisition of land ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 656.]
  This policy was to apply not only to new and expanding towns; it was to require a public authority, and he said:
  "We may well have to devise new machinery".
  One point which was not quite clear to me was this: what happens if we devise such a public authority and it says, in effect, to the owner of the land, "Your land will be needed for development very badly in a few years, and then, of course, you can command a high price for it. But if you sell it to us now. we shall be able to get some of the benefit for the public". What conceivable motive would the owner of the land have to sell? He knows that he has only to wait.
  The fact that there was something wrong was demonstrated by the Minister of Public Building and Works, who said that what his right hon. Friend had said involved no new departure. He said:
  "The point that my right hon. Friend was making was that the second generation of new towns and expanded towns will provide more scope for this activity."
  But the Minister had already spoken of extending this policy from new and expanding towns to other land. That argument would not do, either.
  Further, the Minister of Public Building and Works said:
  "My right hon. Friend definitely did not define the limits of our policy or say that there was need to create new machinery."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 755.]
  In fact, what the Minister said was:
  "We may well have to devise new machinery."
  I just refer again to the words in the Amendment "ambiguous promises".

  1269
  The Minister, with what grace he could, has retreated from the position which his hon., and right hon. Friends would not permit him to hold. He told us quite firmly in the debate on 5th June that the Government see no alternative to letting things go on as they are.
  I do not believe that the public will be satisfied with that answer. Our case in this debate and in our Motion is that the Government have pursued a policy which, through the Rent Act, has inflicted great hardship without remedying any part of the housing problem, and indeed has made some parts of it worse; that their policies in house building, having been inadequate for years, are now being subjected to a welcome but remarkably belated spurt; but that they have not properly considered the comparative needs of houses for rent and houses for sale; and that they still find themselves unable to free this programme from the enormous burden of ransom which the private landowner can impose upon it.
  5.16 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move in line I, to leave out from "to" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "all those affected by a housing shortage, caused by such factors as the growth in household formation, which can only be cured by building more houses; recognises that the Rent Act 1957, by encouraging the proper maintenance of privately rented houses and their retention in the pool for letting, has helped substantially to improve the overall housing position; welcomes the accelerating pace of slum clearance where it is most needed and the programme of house building now running at near the annual target of 400,000 houses; endorses the Government's policy of increasing the supply of houses and land for needs for all kinds as the best way of restraining the levels of prices and rents; notes that the Labour Party's proposals provide for no larger housing programme and imply a cut in building for would-be owner-occupiers; and believes that, against this background, ambiguous promises of lower interest rates would add not a single house and however implemented could do nothing but raise the price of houses more sharply ".
  The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has covered a wide span, and I shall seek to cover as much as I can in a reasonable time. First, since this is the last housing debate of this Parliament, I should like to give a few
  1270
  figures of the progress which has been made under successive Tory Administrations.
  Looking back to 1951, which admittedly was only six years after the end of the Second World War, we see that according to the 1951 Census there were 14½ million households in this country occupying 13¾ million dwellings. There was, therefore, a statistical gap of ¾ million dwellings—a shortfall between dwellings and households of ¾ million. We all know that for comfort in this country we need a significant statistical surplus. Merely to get equality between households and dwellings is not enough, because it gives one no choice and puts no discipline upon landlords to maintain the quality of their houses.
  During the 13 years which have elapsed since the 1951 Census, this country has experienced a population growth of 3 million. This population growth has been accompanied, because of prosperity, by a far more than proportionate growth in the number of separate households, manifesting itself in younger marriages and a longer expectation of life. Yet during the 13 years, successive Governments have kept pace with this growth and have overtaken the statistical—I repeat, the statistical—shortage.
  In June of this year, a month ago, there were 16⅔ million households occupying 17 million dwellings. Despite the growth in population and a much more rapid growth of separate households, a statistical shortfall of ¾ million dwellings has been turned over the 13 years into a statistical surplus—and I repeat that a statistical surplus is not enough; we need a significant surplus—of ⅓ million dwellings over the number of households.
  During the 13 years the number of local authority dwellings has grown from 2·5 million to 4·7 million while the number of houses occupied by their owners has grown from 3·9 million to 7·2 million. No one can say that during those 13 years substantial increases have not taken place in the number of local authority as well as of owner-occupied dwellings.
  The hon. Member for Fulham was right in quoting me as having said that housing was given top priority by the 1951 Tory Government. But he misquoted me when he went on to say that

  1271
  I then explained that housing dropped off. What I said was that during the 1950s first schools and then hospitals and roads were given the priority which originally had been given only to housing, industry and the supply of power. If I had to sum up in one sentence the effect of these 13 years on the housing of this country, I should have to say that, while a very great deal has been done, there still remains very much more to do because of the inherited obsolescence and because of the growth of population and of households.
  What are the limitations upon us in tackling the job even faster? The hon. Member for Fulham and the House know them very well. First and foremost, there is the problem of land—the sheer exhaustion of fresh land, particularly in the big cities, where the shortage is especially felt. As the House knows, the Government are tackling this shortage by a series of regional plans leading to a new generation of new and expanding towns. These regional plans will also lead to a substantial programme of land release by the planning authorities without damaging the major planning objectives. The South-East Study has been published and is now under negotiation with the planning authorities. The studies for the North -West and West Midlands will be published next year.
  The second limitation is the supply of labour, particularly skilled labour, in a fully-employed country where there must be some limit to the size of the building force and where, therefore, we are obliged to look to increased productivity by a largely static building force for the growth of output that we all want. We look to improved management, to rationalised traditional methods of building, and to industrialised building methods to save key labour and to enable a largely static labour force to produce more buildings. These will be helped forward by enlightened ordering procedures by clients, particularly in the public sector, where the largest single orders are placed.
  I am glad to be able to say that productivity in the house building section of the construction industries- and I emphasise that I am relating this to housing—has about doubled since 1948 and is rising significantly now. On the industrialised front, some long-standing
  1272
  British labour-saving systems of house building, both low rise and high rise, are in wide use. Some European multistorey systems—that is, high rise—are coming into use, and there is a great surge of British invention of new low rise systems, a good number of which show great promise and are being adopted in hundreds or even thousands by hard-headed local housing authorities. This year, we shall complete about 25,000 dwellings by labour-saving methods, not all of them new methods. Next year we hope that the figure will rise to at least 30,000 dwellings, and the year after to at least 50,000. After that we expect a steep rise again.
  I come to the figures of house completions this year. I have tried to be properly cautious in giving these figures because obviously, about halfway through the year, one must be very careful in predicting what the outcome of the whole year will be. I have already told the House that we shall complete at least 350,000 dwellings in Great Britain this year. As the year progresses, it is possible to come closer to a final figure. I can now say that it is safe to expect—and I am taking into account the difficulties with bricks—that there will be completed in Great Britain this year between 370,000 and 375,000 new dwellings. Of these, approximately 155,000 will be local authority and approximately 220,000 private enterprise. At the end of June there were 421,000 dwellings under construction, of which 226,000 were for local authorities and 195,000 for private enterprise.
  I can say on the basis of the figures of starts and the figures of dwellings under construction that, subject to major interruption, it is safe to expect that next year completions will be very close to the Government's 400,000 target. So that this year and next year together should see completions very nearly touching 800,000 new dwellings—closer to 800,000 than to 750,000.
  The hon. Member for Fulham rightly stressed that the building industry and the building materials industry need to foresee a steady programme in order to plan their essential investment ahead. I think that I can say that on the basis of this year's performance and the numbers under construction and starts we can foresee certainly 2 million new dwellings in the five-year period 1964–68.

  1273
  It is true that the price of houses is tending to go up. This reflects, to some extent, the eagerness and capacity to pay of a more prosperous house-demanding population. House prices, particularly the price which people are willing to pay for a house near to their work, tend to drag up land prices with them. The Government believe that the only way to abate the pace of the rise of prices is to end the shortage, and that is the Government's policy. Certainly the price of houses is not restraining the demand for houses.
  As I have indicated, the building industry is working at full stretch. It is the Government's intention to secure not just more houses but better houses. I am glad to say that the houses being built now are, in general, better houses, larger houses and better equipped houses, although I must agree that the figures which I have relate almost entirely to local authority dwellings. [Interruption.] I am making no imputation on the private enterprise dwellings, but I have returns of local authority dwellings and their size and cost. We are making good progress towards the adaptable better-heated houses, which makes sense for the future. Over the last few years local authorities have been building houses marginally larger on average, with £90 worth more equipment on average in each, mostly for central heating.
  However, the task before any Government is not just to build more and better houses but to deal as fast as is practicable with the bad houses, worn out houses, and the houses without modern facilities. Let me deal first with the task of improving the solid houses with at least 15 years' life which lack modern facilities—in other words, with the improvement campaign that has been running for some years. Of the approximately 3 million stock of improvable houses, well over $ million have already been improved with the aid of grant. We are improving houses at the rate of about 130,000 a year. It is the Government's intention to raise this rate to, as near as possible, 200,000 a year. As the House knows, the Housing Act which was recently put on the Statute Book gives local authorities powers systematically to improve their areas, using compulsion, if necessary, where persuasion has not been effective.
  1274
  There are, however, about 3 million or so houses which have not 15 years life ahead of them, which are not solid enough to be improved. For them, the only sensible future must be replacement. The most urgent need among these 3 million houses are the houses which are unhealthy to live in—the houses known as slums. These are the houses which medical officers of health certify as unhealthy to live in. They are, as it were, only the priority class of the 3 million houses which together cover slums and what we call twilight houses—houses not unhealthy to live in but not solid enough to be improved.
  The House would, I think, wish me to report progress, first, on the slum clearance position. The House will know that the largest proportion of the approximately two-thirds million known slums which are still standing are to be found, so far as England and Wales are concerned—the two-thirds million was a Great Britain figure, but I now come back to England and Wales—in about 38 towns and cities. When, two years ago, the Government invited those 38 local authorities to accelerate their slum clearance programmes so as virtually to clear all their slums, if practicable, within ten years, the local authorities together in aggregate submitted a programme of 34,000 local authority house completions a year as necessary to approach this task.
  I can now tell the House that the programmes put forward within that aggregate of 34,000 house completions a year by 29 of the 38 local authorities will suffice to clear all their known slums within ten years or less. A relatively small increase in their programmes will enable five of the remaining nine local authorities to clear all their slums within the ten years.
  The other four—Hull, Sheffield, Birmingham and Liverpool—will need a further major acceleration beyond their present programme to get near clearance of all their slums within ten years. We shall certainly co-operate with the five authorities to increase their programmes to clear all their slums within ten years. We shall do all we can to enable the four authorities with the most intractable problems, whose names I have just mentioned, to get as close as is practicable to clearing all theirs within ten years.

  1275
  The House will, however, wish to know how progress is being made in comparison with the 34,000 a year house completion target. At the end of June, 37,000 local authority houses were under construction in those 38 local authorities. I estimate that we need to have a few more under construction before those authorities can rely upon hitting the target of 34,000 house completions. I can, however, say that the 37,000 houses under construction compare with 26,000 houses under construction a year ago. At the moment, a further 11,000 local authority houses in those 38 local authorities have had their tenders approved but the building of them has not yet started.
  Progress with slum clearance is, therefore, accelerating fast towards the achievement of the ten-year programme in the 38 authorities where the slums of England and Wales are now mainly concentrated. Once they are done, however, there still then remain the 2–2⅓ million houses which are not slums but which are twilight houses and cannot be improved.
  Mr. John Hynd: The Minister has referred to the four cities, including Sheffield, which the Government will assist in a special effort to overcome their most intractable problem. Is he saying anything about the Government's ideas for this purpose?
  Sir K. Joseph: There is nothing new in this. The Government—I myself—have been in the closest touch with many of the authorities for two years or more about the problems. On some of the points, particularly land, where planning jurisdiction is involved, obviously I should not be able to speak since I have a quasi-judicial responsibility.
  I was saying that as soon as the slums are done we shall need to turn to the twilight area houses. It is relatively sterile to argue about the exact point at which houses cease to be slums and become twilight. The fact is that the country must face the need to replace probably 3 million houses, of which the urgent priority health task is to clear the two-thirds million remaining slums in Great Britain. As I have said, progress on that is accelerating fast.
  The time will, however, come before very long when some of these towns will
  1276
  have put an end to their slums and when their building resources will then be able to be switched to twilight area renewal. It will not make sense to pull down twilight houses that are by hypothesis not unhealthy, although they may be unpleasant, to live in while there is still an absolute shortage of dwellings. But as soon as the shortage has been overtaken—and the present rate of building should help to bring that about fairly soon—and as soon as any town has finished with its slums, we want to be ready for the twilight area replacement that will follow. To get ready for this, the Government have initiated pilot studies which are at present running in Rochdale and Bolton so that we can be ready with the administrative, legal, technical and financial framework by which twilight area renewal, a much more difficult task than slum clearance, will be able to be carried out.
  Perhaps at this stage, as this is the last housing debate of this Parliament, I may be allowed a personal comment. It was 21 months ago that I made my first speech as Minister of Housing. I was able then, on the basis of the solid work of my predecessors and of the preparations left by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary and by the noble Lord, Lord Hill, to say that
  "What we are seeking to do is … to accelerate the progress of most of the elements of the housing programme"
  so that we could
  "from about 1964 … start overtaking much more rapidly the backlog of shortages, the backlog of slums and the backlog of obsolescence, while keeping pace with the continuing large rise in population."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 323.]
  During that speech, I referred to many projects such as local authority consortia, dimensional standardisation, system building, the Government's intention to double and treble the rate of slum clearance in the worst affected towns, the need to increase both local authority and private enterprise building programmes and the need to review the pace of improvement grants and the pace of land release. I also warned that there could be no quick transformation and no easy solution.
  I think now, 21 months later, thanks to the preparation of my predecessors and of the opportunities which I have been given, that the trends of which I spoke have come to pass. The consortia now

  1277
  include 70 of the major housing authorities, covering one-quarter of the public house-building of the country. More and more system buillding is an established fact which is making a growing contribution. Preferred dimensions have now been brought to the attention of all concerned by a series of bulletins by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works and me. The Housing Act has made the changes in improvement procedure and powers. Slum clearance is accelerating where it is most needed. Land release proposals are being discussed with local authorities and, above all, the pace of building by local authorities and by private enterprise is growing, and growing fast.
  But all that having been said, there is still a severe shortage in the cities, above all in London. The Government, recognising the increasing pressure upon housing in London and the problems in an almost fully developed capital city with all its prosperity, with practically no fresh land and surrounded by a green belt, set up the Milner Holland Committee last year to give us a thorough analysis of the problems and the position of rented housing, both public and private, in London. I have given a pledge on behalf of the Government that when that report is published and the facts are known at about the end of this year, the Government will take any steps that are shown to be necessary—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Government will not be in office then.
  Sir K. Joseph:—to end any exploitation of tenants that is shown by that report.
  The answer which is constantly trotted out by the Opposition is the reimposition of rent control. I ask hon. Members opposite to accept that this might make things worse. The real problem is the shortage, which cannot be overcome in a built-up city like London by wholesale fresh building within London. We have to follow the far more laborious procedures set out in the South-East Study. The Rent Act, to which the hon. Member for Fulham referred in the first part of his speech, happened to coincide with, or to come just before, the turn in the population prospects of the country and a great increase, due to prosperity, in the pressures upon housing, particularly in London.
  1278
  The Rent Act, as the hon. Gentleman agreed, certainly succeeded in increasing the stock of accommodation to rent—albeit at a high price—compared with what that accommodation would have been had the Act not been passed.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I said that the Government's survey showed that the amount for renting had decreased after the introduction of the Rent Act.
  Sir K. Joseph: Before the Rent Act was passed, almost every dwelling that became vacant was sold by the landlord. It was not kept for renting. After the Act was passed, 80 per cent. of the dwellings—the hon. Gentleman said 75 per cent.; but at any rate it was of that order of magnitude—were retained for renting, according to the latest figures. The hon. Gentleman said that 25 per cent. of the dwellings were sold—meaning that 75 per cent. were kept for renting. That compares with the figure before the Rent Act of practically no dwellings kept for renting once they were empty.
  In a time of shortage there is a temptation for landlords to charge the market rent, but if there is rent control there is the same temptation on the tenants. We all know that before the Rent Act, when the shortage was far worse in London than it is now, it was the rent-controlled tenants who in many cases sublet their rent-controlled property at market rents. It was the same human motive at work as now, which the hon. Gentleman says leads many landlords to charge the market rent.
  The market rent, of course, is possible for those with above average earnings, but it is a dreadful strain on those with below average earnings and those with large families. That is why the Government have acknowledged that there is a need in London for a substantial increase in dwellings available for local authorities, and that is why it was such a pleasure, for us all, to announce that 1,000 acres at Woolwich would be available for public dwellings.
  The hon. Gentleman talked in a soft key after the loud trumpetings of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the problems of Liverpool. We read in the papers last week that the Leader of the Opposition had called attention to what he called Rachmanism in Liverpool. He was promptly disowned

  1279
  by local councillors and by Members of Parliament, and I should like to retail an anecdote. When I was in Liverpool last year at about the time when the Rachman trouble was very much in the public eye I was at a Press conference with the late respected husband of the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). I asked him, "Mr. Braddock, is there any Rachmanism in Liverpool?". He replied, "If anybody tried that in Liverpool it would be the landlord and not the tenant who would get hurt".
  I am sure that something like what the hon. Member for Fulham described is happening in Liverpool. It has happened in many cities. Landlords, fearing the early clearance of slum houses which they own, seek to exploit the position by extracting key money from tenants whom they seek to persuade that they will have a re-housing right. Many authorities have dealt with this by making it publicly known that they do not accept the obligation to rehouse tenants who have not been more than a certain time in dwellings cleared for slums. Liverpool has powers to seek permission to acquire, in advance of clearance, houses which are unfit so that it can be the landlord during the months before the clearance. It has not used these powers, but I would be willing to consider the matter sympathetically if it sought to use them if it was worried about this problem.
  Mr. M. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that we could restrict the right to rehouse people who had been there for only so long. But that does not deal with the fact that the landlord is in a position to say to the tenant, "You are here, and you may have been here long enough, on any standing, to qualify for rehousing. That is a very valuable right, but I can take it away from you unless you pay through the nose". What the right hon. Gentleman suggested does not alter that situation. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the remedy which he proposes can prove very expensive for a local authority.
  Sir K. Joseph: On the first point, if the publicity given by a local authority to the rehousing obligations that it will accept are wide enough, it will be an effective remedy. Secondly, many local authorities have found this problem and
  1280
  dealt with it, and I am sure that Liverpool could discuss this with the L.C.C. and others who have overcome the problem.
  Thirdly, the remedy that I suggested is one that one other local authority has adopted fairly widely. It is expensive only if the local authority insists on charging uneconomic rents, that is rents which are to low, because we are dealing with houses which, at the end of the day, are going to get no compensation for the houses themselves, but only for the sites, because, by hypothesis, they are slums. If a local authority can establish that they are slums and buys them ahead of clearance, it will have very little cost to recover by way of rent, except for the patching, for which there is a subsidy which has been increased in the recent Housing Act.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: On the question of the subsidy, surely it has been pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions that the subsidy is inadequate? It is only a small proportion of what is spent by a city like Birmingham, which operates the 1954 Act. This patching-up process costs Birmingham more than £1 million a year.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. That is not the net cost at all, because all the rent can be set against it. When I discussed the patching grant with Birmingham, I found that there was a matter of £1 or £2 in it. The grant has gone up to £8. Birmingham wanted £10 or £11 a year per house, but it made its calculation on the basis of rents which I thought were unnecessarily low. Nevertheless, the grant has gone up substantially and Birmingham is using it.
  After that brief review of the programme and progress, I turn to the Labour Party's proposal. I think that the hon. Member for Fulham is making very heavy weather of who quoted first the figure of 400,000. I have the references here. On one occasion he said that he thought that there was a need for 350,000 houses.
  Mr. M. Stewart: For England and Wales.
  Sir K. Joseph: On another occasion he said that he thought that there should

  1281
  be a target of nearly 400,000 for Great Britain. Anyone can say that he thinks there is a need for 500,000 houses a year. The point is at what stage does a party accept a figure as its target, as its responsibility to achieve? The hon. Gentleman spoke of need, but he never committed his party to a firm obligation to build 400,000 houses before the Government announced their 400,000 houses programme.
  The hon. Gentleman normally is accurate, conscientious, and diligent. He spoke of a pledge given during the 1955 election having been broken by my party. I asked one of my hon. Friends to look at the 1955 Manifesto. There is no mention in it of rents. I am not aware of this so-called pledge, and I must disown any broken pledge on the evidence given by the hon. Gentleman. If he cares to tell me afterwards to what he is referring, I shall look it up, but it is not in the Manifesto.
  Mr. M. Stewart: The pledge was given in a public statement by Lord Woolton. There had been allegations that Conservative policy would result in a general rise in rents. Lord Woolton said that that was untrue, and not a single Member of the Conservative Party disagreed with him. The right hon. Gentleman says that there was no mention of rents in the Tory Party manifesto at that General Election. In view of the fact that they had made up their minds that there was going to be a general rise in rents, why was not that mentioned in the manifesto?
  Sir K. Joseph: I do not know the background of the alleged statement by Lord Woolton. I only know that there was no reference, as the hon. Gentleman suggested there was, in the official Tory Manifesto.
  Mr. Stewart: No.
  Sir K. Joseph: I am not aware of any broken pledge, and I am sure that if there had been one I would have been aware of it, because the Opposition would rightly have made a great song and dance about it.
  Mr. James MacColl: The right hon. Gentleman has attacked the integrity of my hon. Friend and has indicated that he has suggested that there were words in the manifesto which he knew were not there. My hon.
  1282
  Friend never said that at all. He was talking about Conservative policy. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to say that the statement made by the Chairman of the Conservative Party organisation, officially speaking on behalf of the party, is in no sense regarded as binding on the party when it comes to office?
  Sir K. Joseph: I would accept that point, but I do not know the background of this matter.
  The hon. Member for Fulham sought to escape from the dilemma that he is in—his belief is that local authority dwellings should increase—by telling the House that 400,000 houses a year was not the end of the road. That may be so, but at the moment it is the target that both parties believe to be the sensible and realistic one for the immediate future. This year 220,000 owner-occupied houses will be completed within the 400,000 target. Next year, when we shall build very nearly 400,000 houses, on present conditions probably 230,000 owner-occupied houses will be completed.
  In the foreseeable future, for which parties can legitimately give undertakings, I think that the hon. Member will agree that an increase in the local authority component of the total programme to anything like 200,000 houses a year can be achieved in a 400,000 programme only at the expense of owner-occupied dwellings. What may happen as the resources of the country and the building industry increase is a different matter, but the realistic figure for the immediate future is 400,000, and it must follow that the hon. Member and his party must either disown their promises of increasing the local authority component or accept the need to cut back building for owner-occupation, presumably by building licences.
  But the interesting part of the hon. Member's speech was the small amount of time that he devoted to interest rates. We had all been looking forward to the settlement, or reconciliation, of the conflict between the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and the hon. Member for Fulham. The Sunday Mirror proclaimed that we should hear the full details of the Labour Party's policy for lower interest rates in this

  1283
  debate, but it appears that the conflict is still raging. Let me spell it out for hon. Members.
  Mr. M. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I answered his question fully in answer to an interjection that he made. He will go on saying "No". He will be as little worried about that as about Lord Woolton's pledge. We do not expect too much from him. But our view is that there should be favourable interest rates for local authority building, and that in so far as that cannot be achieved by general monetary policy it must be achieved by a specially favourable rate for local authorities. We regard it as essential for assistance to be given to owner-occupiers whether they are borrowing through a local authority or by other means. I said that again this afternoon. That is in no way in conflict with what was said by my right hon. Friend. He gave particular stress to the fact that the help given to owner-occupiers would not be in a form which would discriminate against building societies because that was the point about which his correspondent was particularly interested. That is the situation. The Minister did not say that. It seems that he will continue to misrepresent the situation.
  Sir K. Joseph: But the hon. Member completely misses the real difficulty. He is as evasive about what he calls a favourable rate as he is about the price which the famous or notorious Land Commission would pay for land. Let me spell it out for the House. In his speech at Swansea and in his speech at Leeds the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, after a lot of comment on the excessive cost of interest rates for housing, committed himself to a firm pledge that there would be access by local authorities to money at a reasonable rate of interest which reflected the power of the Government to borrow. To make his view more clear he referred in each case to the Public Works Loan Board. The advantage to a local authority of borrowing through the Public Works Loan Board is marginal—a matter of a quarter or an eighth of 1 per cent. It would mean about 4s. a month advantage. The right hon. Gentleman used exactly the same terms when he wrote to Mr. Breach on 7th April, 1964, about interest
  1284
  rates for house purchases. Again he stressed that a Labour Government would give local authorities access to money at Public Works Loan Board rates. No doubt that is accurate, but the advertisements of the Opposition, the speeches of the hon. Member for Fulham, and the article in the "Building Societies' Gazette" by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) interpreted these favourable interest rates in such a way as to give the impression that it would not be a quarter or an eighth of 1 per cent., but 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. advantage. Therefore this double impression is being given. The proposals have been responsible and limited when the Leader of the Opposition has referred to them, both in his speeches and in his letters, and they have been irresponsible and unlimited in the speeches of his colleagues and his party.
  It is quite right for my right hon. Friends and me to refer in our Amendment to the fact that these are ambiguous promises. I would add that they are conflicting promises and that they represent phony, false and bad advertising which hon. Members opposite are so quick to condemn. Whom should the public believe—the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in his categorical letter of 7th April, 1964, or his colleagues in the Labour Party? I saw in the Financial Times the other day that the Building Societies Association's chairman had said that there were rumours of second thoughts on the part of the Leader of the Opposition on this question. I was hoping that we should have this apparent conflict reconciled today, and that either, as in the case of education and the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), the right hon. Member for Huyton would disown his colleague, or would disown his own policy. We must wait and see, but I am sure that the public will want to know what they are to believe—the 4s. a month represented by the speeches of the hon. Member for Huyton or the impression of £4 a month given by the advertisements and by the hon. Member for Fulham.
  The hon. Member spoke briefly and with indignation about land prices. All I can say is that despite land prices we are getting a house building programme at record level—a building programme and other social and industrial investment running at record levels, with the building

  1285
  industry fully stretched. The Labour Party proposals would not make houses cheaper. If betterment is its sole aim, which I conclude is the case from an article in The Times yesterday written by the hon. Member for Fulham—which again avoided the key issue of the price at which the Land Commission would seek to buy land—the result of the proposal would be a colossal bureaucracy, severe delay at every stage of development, massive compulsory purchase, great bitterness on the part of those often of relatively modest means who were forced to sell at cut prices, and the conversion of all future owner-occupation into leasehold tenure, with rising ground rents. On top of that, it would not produce a single extra house.
  The fact is that the Opposition are like Canute's sycophantic courtiers. They are ignoring the forces at work. They are ignoring prosperity. They are ignoring the greatly increased demand for housing generated—particularly in the cities—by that prosperity. They are ignoring the near exhaustion of fresh land in the big cities. They are proposing the indiscriminate reimposition of rent control, with ambiguous promises about interest rates, which, if carried out, would increase the demand but would not increase the supply, and would drive up prices and make matters worse and not better.
  Mr. A. Lewis rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Sir K. Joseph: We are going to build more houses as we are doing now. The Opposition are not even suggesting that we should or that they would supply more houses.
  Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman has spent a great deal of time discussing either actual or alleged policies of the Opposition. Why cannot he spend some of the precious time at his disposal explaining to us what the Government would do?
  Sir K. Joseph: I think that in nine separate debates I have explained Government policy, which is to build more houses. All the houses being built are being snapped up even at present prices.
  I was saying that the heart of the impertinence of the Opposition Motion is that they are not even suggesting that they would, or that we should, at this
  1286
  moment be building more houses. All they are doing is trying to harness the understandable impatience of those still in bad housing without, in point of fact, even offering a single relevant advance on the Government's existing policy. I hope that the House will reject the Motion and accept the Amendment.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I think it significant that in the dying breaths of this long Parliament we should turn back to look at one of the great follies perpetrated in a previous Session by the passing of the 1957 Rent Act. The Minister attempted to create a shield to prevent him from being too hotly shelled by the Opposition by concentrating on our housing policy and therefore hoping he would escape from our censures upon his policy. I propose to turn the attack back and to look at what I believe to be one of the prime reasons for the lack of any social content to Government housing policy. I believe that the failure in a social context may be traced very largely to the 1957 Act, both because it physically decontrolled a large number of properties, with all the often tragic consequences which flowed from that; and also because the Act crystallised the basic philosophy of the Conservative Party in relation to housing as to so many other social objectives.
  Frankly, the 1957 Act was an administrative expression of the fundamental Conservative belief that commercial forces, if given their head, would provide a solution to the problem of providing accommodation for people. In other words, if the appeal is sufficiently strong to the pecuniary interests of landlords and landowners, the problem would be solved and we should have no more bother about providing physical accommodation for all the people.
  The Bill which became the 1957 Act was introduced by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in a very dogmatic and philosophic speech of the kind which, since then, he has had even more rein to deliver to the various assemblies which he addresses so frequently up and down the country. I do not know whether he speaks now on behalf of the Conservative Party, because I do not know to what extent the Conservative Party subscribes to his views. Now many people regard

  1287
  the right hon. Gentleman as a sort of Goldwater of the Conservative Party. Whatever may be the estimation of his character today he was in 1957 a servant of the Government and he gave voice to fundamental Conservative philosophy as may be gathered from the following statements made by the right hon. Gentleman on 21st November, 1956, when he was introducing the Bill which became the 1957 Act.
  I have enjoyed myself by refreshing my memory about what was said and the prophecies made in the debate on that Bill, not only by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, but also by the present Minister, who was then a back-bencher, and by other hon. Members opposite. The conclusion which I draw from those speeches, and which the public and the House may draw, is that never were more prophecies made which were so quickly proved to be absolutely false. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest, talking about the provision in the Rent Act for decontrol, said that it would enable houses to be let. He said:
  "They will be let at the market rent. The capital value of a house is the capitalisation of its market rent. The inducement to an owner to attempt to get the current value of his house by selling it will disappear. He will have the object of letting that house again as soon as possible. In future, the object of landlords will not be to get possession, but to avoid voids."
  Later the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I would once again emphasise to the House that in the vast majority of cases the object of the owners of these houses will be to ensure that they are not vacant of a tenant. If they are to get the value out of those houses, they will have to continue to let them at a market rent at which they can find tenants and they will have to bid for those tenants"—
  at that point someone shouted "Oh", and the right hon. Gentleman continued—
  "in what I have shown is a very large market indeed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1767–9.]
  I am glad to note that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) shouted "nonsense". The Minister was suggesting dogmatically that once the houses were let at a much more adequate rent, in the sense that there would be no rent control over a large number of houses, there would be
  1288
  adequate accommodation available for renting. As I shall show, that forecast is completely false.
  I am glad to note that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) is present in the Chamber. On the occasion of the debate in 1956 he said—I do not know whether he is still—that he was president of the National Federation of Property Owners, and that it would be pleased with the Bill. The hon. Member for Aldershot said:
  "The second main reason is that the Bill will be of great value in increasing the flow of houses which become vacant…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1797.]
  Again I shall show, as no doubt the hon. Member knows now, that that prophecy was false.
  I am glad to note that the Minister has now returned to the Chamber, because during that debate as a back bencher he went further than his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. He said:
  "It seems to me that this Bill will create a free market in housing accommodation which will give such a person ample alternatives"—
  here he goes much further than anybody else—
  "at cheaper rents, though possibly "—
  the right hon. Gentleman was frank enough to add—
  "not so much accommodation and possibly accommodation not in such a good condition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1820.]
  He believed that the Rent Act would lead to property becoming available at even cheaper rents. The present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations wound up the debate by saying:
  "Once the house is decontrolled, the landlord will obviously no longer have the same urge to sell as he has at present; and if he wants to sell he will be able to get full value without necessarily giving vacant possession."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 2060.]
  Every hon. Member on this side of the House knows that that statement was quite false and it was proved false within a few months of the passing of the Act. Thinking of what happened then, I am not referring only to Rachmanism but to the ordinary commercial exploitation of the market made possible by the passing of the Rent Act. An article in

  1289
  the Daily Herald today referred to the passing from the House at the end of this Parliament of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) by saying that this was the end of the age of amateurs. All I can say is that in the field of social policy and the administration of housing and the need for homes, it is a very good thing that the age of the amateurs is passing. When we have those who care and know about the problem it will be a welcome change for the people of this country.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my hon. Friend agree that it is policy that matters?
  Mr. Skeffington: Exactly. It is policy that matters, but policy, and the selection of policy and knowledge of the problem depends for the right solution on those who understand how the people live. The doctrinaire pronouncements of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and many other hon. Members opposite have led to a policy which has caused very considerable hardship to growing numbers of people
  What is the statistical result of the operation of the Rent Act? What in fact is the answer when one puts it against the prophecies that were made which I have quoted? The Central Office of Information made a survey in 1963 which showed that there are now 1¾ million fewer rented houses available than there were when the Labour Government left office in 1951 although of course more houses have been built since then. We know that as a result of the Act's decontrol 2 million houses have gone out of control and some of the 1¾ million will be houses which are no longer controlled and have been sold. In the counties of London and Middlesex last year, according to an Answer given by the Minister, 537,000 houses had been decontrolled since the passing of the Act. I should think that today the figure is nearer 600,000. Every year about 340,000 houses, as they become let to a new tenant or are sold, go completely out of control.
  So the prophecies that were made have been completely falsified by the statistics and not by statistics produced by hon. Members on this side of the House, but by the bodies to which I have referred.
  1290
  I want to relate those bald statistics to the actual human problems of people trying to provide accommodation for themselves and their families. The first evidence I refer to is again provided by an organisation which has nothing whatever to do with the Labour Party. It is the Family Service Units which made surveys only last year of the position in London. It found virtually no private accommodation in the capital for families of limited means. That is why in the county council area there are 6,000 homeless people who are having to be looked after by London County Council. Those inquiring on behalf of the Family Service Units visited no less than 78 estate agents in London. With only two possible exceptions they found in the lists of those 78 agents no accommodation for a family with children at a rent of under £6 a week. For most of the accommodation available £8 to £10 was asked.
  If one looks, as I have done in my own survey, at estate agents' lists not in the West End, in Chelsea or Kensington, but in the outer suburbs, one finds a large number of flats available all decontrolled but with quite fantastic rents and often there is the bracketed remark "No children". A man looking for a home for his family finds himself in an extremely difficult position. That is the first piece of evidence of what statistics mean in human terms which have proved how false were the prophecies.
  I refer to an article in The Times of October last year. It is headed:
  "Flat Finders Charged 10% of Year's Rent."
  This is how ordinary people are affected in Greater London when searching for premises. The article starts by saying that the special correspondent proceeded down a corridor which "smelt of cats", which was "dark and sleazy", and was
  "a curious entrance to a gold mine, yet a gold mine it must undoubtedly seem to the hundreds who troop down this corridor every week…."
  They found that they had to pay in the end £30 or £40 to get a list of addresses; that is 10 per cent. of the rent of the accommodation.
  The Times special correspondent went on to give some examples. I emphasise that he was not talking about luxury accommodation but accommodation for

  1291
  ordinary people, minor professional people, people in the Civil Service in the Greater London area. The article went on:
  "'I can recommend this', said the young man in one agency. His eyes gleamed sincerity behind the heavy horn-rimmed glasses. 'It's only just come in. A house in Highgate that has just been converted into three flats. All self-contained, three rooms, kitchen and bathroom on each floor. Very nicely decorated. Quite the best value on our books at the moment. It should suit you very well.'
  'How much?'
  'Only £6 10s. a week, sir. Oh, and £100.'
  'What is the £100 for?'
  'That's what the landlord is asking for the three year lease.'
  'Oh, I see.'
  'You would have to pay our commission as well, of course. That would be, let me see, about £34.'
  The young man smiled brightly, as well he might."
  In this case they were talking about a so-called self-contained flat of three rooms, kitchen and bathroom, but many are not in fact self-contained. This one had a bath in a room which, presumably, was called a kitchen because it had a gas ring, but that was the sum total of kitchen equipment. The article went on to say:
  "one agent's list of about 200 unfurnished flats in the £4 to £10 range shows 71 landlords asking sums ranging from £20 to £450 …"
  If one wants to get such accommodation one has to pay, and I have come across cases where even £600 has been asked. The article concludes by talking about a young professional couple, the sort of persons Conservative Party policy is meant to appeal to—young engineers or municipal employees. It says:
  "If they have children they will be very lucky indeed to find an unfurnished flat in a reasonable area at less than £8 or £9 a week and they will not get much luxury for that. Only those who can afford to pay £10 a week or more, exclusive of rates, and have a fair capital sum to put down as well, can afford to be at all particular."
  I have quoted this from The Times as a reasonably fair investigation made last year into the difficulties of those seeking accommodation in this great capital city and I add it to the one from the Family Service Unit.
  Of course, this is not the only evidence. The Evening News earlier this year had a title which said:
  1292
  "Vicars Join Rent Rackets Battle."
  It said:
  "The Rev. Frank Bull, vicar of St. Paul's, Herne Hill, says in his magazine: 'The conditions are absolutely ripe for racketeering and exploitation. There is little or no freehold land left in this neighbourhood, hence what comes to the market can command what price it likes. The result of this is to make luxury building the order of the day'."
  These are some of the number of houses for which the Minister claimed credit. The vicar said:
  "Reasonably-priced property to purchase or rent is almost non-existent."
  The Reverend Geoffrey Heal, vicar of St. Chrysostom's and St. Jude's, Peckham, wants to prevent
  "the exploitation of our grave shortage of housing by the property racketeer and speculative landlord".
  He says that there are many cases on the parish's own doorstep. The Reverend John Nicholls of St. Giles', Camberwell, says:
  "It is time something was done at Government level."
  The Reverend Ashby of St. Antony's, Nunhead, says:
  "We have had the same problems in my parish."
  These are cases from another part of the London area where the same sort of conditions are rife, and it is largely the result of the Rent Act.
  I quote a further example, taken this time from a more fashionable part of London, the Borough of Chelsea. Although not all the King's Road is regarded as fashionable. This is the case of Alexandra Mansions, and I give it because it is one of the cases in which the Chelsea Borough Council has endeavoured to come in and prevent tenants who have been there for many years being grossly exploited by constant increases of rents every time the property is sold or every three years if they were fortunate enough to stay on and get a new lease.
  The history of Alexandra Mansions is this. It was sold in 1960 for about £37,000. It then changed hands three times in a week. This is not luxury property. It is not the poorest property, but it is property inhabited in the past by professional people and those we think of as being in the more limited middle-income group. The premises changed hands three times in a week, as

  1293
  I said, the last sale taking place for £75,000, that is, double what the first purchaser gave at the beginning of the week. Of course, each landlord hopes in such circumstances that he can make a profit by putting up the rents. This is a direct consequence of the 1957 Act. It is no accident. One cannot put it all down to the growing number of households or the increase in the number of families with more children. It flows from the fact that there was no social policy in the Government's housing ideas from the very beginning.
  I sum up this part of my argument against the Government's case by quoting from part of the Rowntree survey by Professor Donnison which gives a complete answer to the case the Minister put today about the effect of the Rent Act. Again, this is not a publication which has come out of Transport House. It is the result of an investigation made jointly by the British Market Research Bureau and the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust.
  Professor Donnison says:
  "Six years ago many people hoped that the relaxation of rent restrictions, coupled with generous improvement grants, would rejuvenate the market for private rented housing, and enable landlords to provide good housing for tenants who could neither get a council house nor buy a home of their own."
  Broadly speaking, and putting it at its best—I am not referring to the extreme argument which the right hon. Gentleman advanced when the Bill was originally before the House—that is the case which the Minister put today.
  What did this investigation, which involved inquiries in many areas and about many houses, find?
  "Outside Central London private rented housing has continued to dwindle."
  The fact is that it has not increased. The idea advanced by the hon. Member for Aldershot, that the flow of houses would be increased, is completely negatived by the findings of this survey. It goes on:
  "Landlords have been reluctant to improve their property and have preferred to take their profits (or minimise their losses) by selling to owner-occupiers. Meanwhile in Central London, where rents have risen much more sharply, the improvement in their property has only been brought about at the cost of major changes in the kind of tenants it houses."
  Thus, we see that outside central London there is less rented property, and
  1294
  inside there are higher rents which mean that many of the original occupants have been driven further out.
  Sir Eric Errington: There may be some question about the level of rents in the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but he has stated that there is less accommodation available. He has himself given an instance of a house which was turned into three flats. If it had not been for the 1957 Act, that would have been impossible and one person, instead of three families, would have continued in the house.
  Mr. Skeffington: Taking that case at Highgate, there were three flats, but if one takes the whole situation as revealed by Professor Donnison, one must accept, unless one is quite blind to the facts, that there is now less rented accommodation. Evidence to the same effect is provided by the survey made by the Central Office of Information.
  The concluding passage which I quoted refers to the change in the kind of tenant. I believe that the Government completely underestimate the resentment felt by many people who, previously, have supported the Conservative Party at being driven from pillar to post in our great cities. Members of the Bar have said to me, "Have I to face, every three years, if I want to live in London, a new lease with another £100 or £150 added on to the rent?" Not all barristers become more prosperous as they get older; perhaps they do not want to go so far or to work quite so hard.
  The fact is that many people of all kinds are not only subject to having to pay, out of declining resources, perhaps, growing increases in rent unless some form of control is introduced, but, every three years, they very often have cause to wonder whether they will have any accommodation at all. The Government greatly underestimate the resentment felt by such people and the hardship to which countless thousands of deserving citizens at all levels are having to suffer.
  The other limb of the Government's prophecy which also has failed is this. They say that, if people cannot find rented accommodation because there are too many households with too many children coming along, they can go and buy. For a great many people, of course,

  1295
  this is no answer at all. I have on previous occasions quoted from what was said by Graham Don of the London School of Hygiene on this subject. In a lecture, after an investigation, he said that 80 per cent. of houses now being built were too dear for 90 per cent. of the population. We know from the survey published by the Co-operative Building Society that there is a gradual increase in the cost of houses. The heading to the article in The Times reporting on this survey was:
  "House prices up by £900 in five years"
  I shall not read the whole list, but one sees that both modern and old houses have risen greatly in every region. There has been a substantial increase in the South-East, for instance, where the rise was 60 per cent. The average rise for modern houses over the country as a whole, between the last quarter of 1958 and the last quarter of 1963, was 43 per cent., and for older houses it was 44 per cent. The two are, in fact, keeping pace with one another.
  Mr. Hocking: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the period over which these rises took place?
  Mr. Skeffington: I expect that the hon. Gentleman has seen the relevant bulletin published by the Co-operative Building Society which gives all the figures. I do not want to take too much time, so I am quoting from the report of it in The Times. The period covered was that between the last quarter of 1958 and the last quarter of 1963. In the Midlands, the hon. Gentleman's own area, modern houses were up by 37 per cent. and older houses were up by 38 per cent.
  As we on this side have said time and time again, people in the South-East of England—this is probably true for most parts of the country—cannot purchase their own houses unless they have a fairly substantial wage. Mr. Needleman, in the National Institute Economic Review, has come to precisely the same conclusion.
  On 10th February last, the Daily Herald published the results of a survey of houses for sale in the Croydon district. It gives the case of a young engineer whose wage was £833 a year. General inquiries of building societies showed this young man and his wife that
  1296
  they would lend up to three times his annual wages, which meant loan of £2,500. This couple were in a more fortunate position than some in having saved £500, so that £3,000 was their top limit.
  The Daily Herald listed seven examples of houses offered for sale in the Croydon district, one in South Norwood, one in Grange Road, Thornton Heath, one in St. Peter's Street, Croydon, one in Wolsey Crescent, New Addington, another in Thornton Heath and two more in Norbury. In all these cases, that couple could have bought a house four years ago or, perhaps, even two years ago, but now the prices were too high.
  We therefore say that the two prongs of the Government's case—that by the ending of rent control and freeing more houses more rented accommodation is available, with the alternative that people can buy houses—have failed for very many people who are certainly not in receipt of £20 a week, which is the minimum required in the South. Although wages and earnings are less in the northern part of the country and house prices are cheaper, this still means that a great proportion of the people cannot solve their housing problem by buying.
  Only when we have stepped up, as we would have stepped up in the last five years, the number of council houses being built—there has been a gradual deterioration in the number—and brought back some security of tenure and put some ceiling on rents and dealt with the land racket, shall we bring decent accommodation within the means of all who need it.
  6.31 p.m.
  Mr. John M. Temple: It is a privilege once again to take part in a housing debate. I welcome the fact that we frequently have housing debates, because I believe that good housing is the bedrock of a happy society. I should like to put on record a tribute from these benches to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I do not know of any Minister who has brought greater drive to his Ministry than my right hon. Friend. Throughout difficult times, he has tackled every problem which has faced him with a real degree of sincerity. I associate with that tribute my hon. Friend the Parliamentary

  1297
  Secretary, who has worked immensely hard at this tremendously important Ministry.
  My right hon. Friend has given some most encouraging figures about the progress of our housing drive. He has told us that, compared with the situation in 1951 when there was a statistical shortage of about 750,000 dwellings, there is now a statistical surplus of houses over households of some 300,000. That is a measure of the achievement of the Tory Government since 1951.
  My right hon. Friend has stressed the progress being made with slum clearance. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say that progress has not been fast enough, but it has been a great deal faster and the rate of house building has been a great deal faster than was ever achieved by hon. Members opposite when they were in power.
  I would say without hesitation that we as a party can claim to have encouraged the builders to deliver the goods, and now we have set out once again to increase our housing programmes. It is immensely satisfactory to find not only that we have set a target of 350,000 houses for this year—our targets are not just pie in the sky—but that our targets are almost immediately eclipsed by the actual number of buildings. I travel a great deal throughout the country and I am struck by the tremendous amount of building which is going on.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: As the hon. Gentleman travels throughout the country, will he tell the House about his own part of the country, Merseyside, and give us the figures for the improvements on Merseyside, and particularly in Liverpool?
  Mr. Temple: My right hon. Friend specifically referred to Merseyside and said that it had a particular problem of slum clearance. I accept that. I know Merseyside and Lancashire very well. They were in the forefront of the Industrial Revolution and hence in that area there is a backlog of a problem of slum clearance. I do not represent Merseyside myself, but I know the area well. This afternoon my right hon. Friend said that he was ready once again to consult the Liverpool local authorities with a view to accelerating the rate of slum clearance, as is necessary on Merseyside.
  1298
  In the Amendment we deplore hardship caused by shortage. It is right that we should deplore any hardship. I agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) that one must have a great deal of sympathy with those who do not have housing accommodation of which we can all be proud and of whom there are a number, but what we are doing is to take practical steps to do something about it. We have not cured the lot.
  In the last few years I have visited most of the world's major metropoli and have discussed housing problems in New York, Tokyo and Moscow. There are housing problems in all the world's major metro-poli. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said only recently that there was rent control in New York. On that occasion I drew his attention to the fact that while there might be rent control in New York there were far more homeless there than in London. This shortage is not confined to London alone.
  I cannot say exactly why there is this magnetism of the world's metropoli, but it undoubtedly exists. I cannot say why people living in the North and North-East should want to come to live in London. Nor can I say why people living in the hinterland of Tokyo should want to live in Tokyo. The fact remains that there is a central magnetism in the world's metropoli.
  That is why I welcome the fact that the Government are to tackle this matter positively and that in the South-East Study they are putting before planning authorities in the South-East a plan to provide counter-magnets in Bletchley, Newbury and the Southampton area. These will be towns of a significant size. I suppose that it is fair to make a personal claim in a debate of this nature and to say that some years ago in the House I advocated new towns with a population of 150,000, although I was then told that new towns of such a size were not a feasible proposition. Times have moved on and the suggestion which I dared to put forward at that time has now become part of Government policy.
  It is my custom in housing debates to be constructive rather than destructive and I shall start at exactly the same point as my right hon. Friend—the provision of land. The absolute shortage of houses

  1299
  and sites for industrial buildings is inhibited by the difficulties of the provision of the necessary land. The corollary is that planning must produce that land. I shall deal with planning and then suggest how we might build even more houses.
  My solution to the problem is to build more houses. If more houses are built of a rather superior quality, there will be more dwellings and people will be able to move out of one dwelling into another more easily. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington seemed to deplore the fact that some magnificent houses were being built. If better houses are being built, possibly more expensive, at least people are moving into them and so out of other accommodation. In other words, the total housing stock is increased.
  My right hon. Friend has laid before the House Cmnd. 2308 on South-East England, which considered the present position, but also very wisely considers that for a long time ahead. In paragraph 4 it says:
  "Further growth—probably at a higher rate so far as natural increase is concerned—is likely after 1981."
  A littel over a week ago, I had the privilege of visiting the great Shell Centre just across the River Thames from the Houses of Parliament. I was told that in its oil drilling programme the Shell Company looked 12 to 15 years ahead. If we are looking almost 20 years ahead in the provision of land, we are not looking at the problem any too early, for the time is here when we should look beyond 1981, accept the evidence of the statistics and realise that we are going to have a growing population until 1981, with an even faster growing population after that. It is essential, therefore, that we follow the advice in paragraph 17 of the White Paper that
  "Developers—whether meeting private or public needs—must be assured of a long forward supply of land for development".
  That is exactly what is reiterated in the Government Amendment tonight; a sufficiency of building land.
  I turn to the question of how this land must be provided, and in the right places, because this is no easy problem to solve. The Government have referred to the problem of regional planning, and
  1300
  I welcome that, because I see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) with whom I had the privilege of serving for nearly two years on a Committee, under his chairmanship, which produced a document entitled "Change and Challenge".
  That document advocated a regional planning system throughout the country. Since then the Government, from the centre, have been producing a series of regional plans and studies. They have produced them for North-East England, and Central Scotland, and the most imaginative plan of all has been that for the South-East of England. My right hon. Friend has promised a plan for the North-West and the West Midlands, but I am not absolutely convinced that those plans, produced from the centre, are enough. I suggest that they should be followed by a form of regional planning structure designed on the same basis as the river authorities, which, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will remember, we were debating in the early hours of this morning. Those authorities are being set up on the basis of having a bare majority of local authority members, while the rest of the membership is being drawn from the various aspects of national life which are closely concerned with the correct planning of our country.
  I was glad to receive an Answer to a Parliamentary Question from my right hon. Friend the Minister earlier this month. I had asked him what improvements and simplifications he was proposing for planning procedures. All who study these matters are concerned about both the complexities and the amount of time taken with our planning procedures now. I was glad when my right hon. Friend replied, in a long Answer from which I will quote only sections:
  "… I appointed a Planning Advisory Group which includes experts from local government and the professional field. The Minister of Transport and the Scottish Development Department are associated with my Department in this work."
  It goes on to say that they are looking at new concepts of planning and are trying to answer the criticisms, which often results in delays. My right hon. Friend went on:
  "We have to try and find a right balance between on the one hand modernising, simplifying and speeding up, and on the other, assuring

  1301
  to people their legitimate desire to have the opportunity to be heard … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July 1964; Vol. 699, c. 146.]
  This planning advisory group is a real step forward because there is no doubt that we will have to move more quickly than we have been in the planning sphere. These delays have been responsible for a lot of shortage in building land in the South-East.
  I have spoken of the shortage of building land. I have also mentioned industry. Urgent measures will also be called for to secure developable land for reservoirs and all sorts of other public enterprises. But from where is it to come? Without doubt, a great proportion of it will have to be given up by the agricultural community. It will, of course, be desirable for the least valuable agricultural land to be taken, but I submit that it is extremely important that we should encourage the maximum amount of good will between the town and country because there are suspicions in the farming world that the pool of farming land is to be decreased. One cannot help but confirm those suspicions, but it must be decreased in such a way as to make the minimum impact on our agricultural community and it must be handled in such a way that the farming community realises that fair and just compensation will be paid.
  There is a branch of the agriculture industry which has served the country well down the centuries I refer to the tenant farmers, many of them yeomen farmers. They have been farming their land for generations and it is no good saying to them that they can go out and get similar properties if they are dispossessed of their land. They may have to do just that, but I urge my right hon. Friend to say to the acquiring authorities that they must use their powers under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1963, with foresight and generosity. The position of the tenant farmers is something unique in British life and they deserve fair and generous treatment.
  I have referred to the possibility of some regional planning structure. We have all been watching the tremendous progress which has been made by the Standing Conference on London Regional Planning. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) is the chairman of that Standing Conference,
  1302
  which is a non-statutory body but which embraces county councils, district councils and all local authorities in and around the London area.
  That Standing Conference has brought about this understanding between the town and country which is so important. It has been a conference where the members of the county boroughs have been able to speak openly to the members of the county councils. It has been in this direction where we have often fallen down in the provision of building land because county councils are not the housing authorities. They have many other duties, but they are not the housing authorities in England and Wales. The authorities with the big problems are the county and big boroughs and if we can get something of this nature working in the other big conurbations it would be a real step forward.
  I said earlier that it would be important for us to encourage sub-regional or regional centres. That is an important aspect of our future planning. But, running alongside it, I was somewhat alarmed to read in the farming Press, which I study closely, that the N.F.T.J. as an alleviation of the housing problem, was suggesting that villages should be increased in population rather substantially. That suggestion wants looking at closely because whereas it might seem superficially attractive to increase the populations of villages significantly I do not believe that it would be a particularly good plan nationally.
  In placing urban communities alongside rural communities the urban adjunct to the village would always be wanting to get back to its urban life in the adjacent city. Again it would put an added strain on rural transport facilities, which are already provided to a minimal extent. Whatever happened, it would be bound to increase the amount of commuting. More serious, it would place great pressure on the social services of the country districts because, for example, education which is one of the most expensive social services. Only village schools would be available to cater for children up to the age of 11 or 12, after which those children would have to commute over long distances to get their secondary education. Hospital visits would also

  1303
  entail much travelling for people in these villages. The difficulties of adequate water supplies and refuse disposal, and the rest, would be considerable. Above all—and I speak now of one service that is little thought of but is one of the most expensive of all—the provision of satisfactory sewerage systems is becoming increasingly difficult and serious. Anyone who has studied this problem knows that the most satisfactory system is to have large sewerage works provided with all the technical equipment necessary. I do not think that our housing problem can be solved by an expansion of population on a vast scale in the villages; but that it can be solved by satisfactory "counter magnets", the expansion of towns, the creation of new towns and sub-regional centres, which the Government are at present trying to promote.
  Turning to the subject of more houses, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who is not at present with us, on being the first to suggest in this House a target of 500,000 houses a year. He has been followed recently by the Roskill Report, put out by the Town and Country Planning Association, on whose executive I have the honour to serve. The Government have made magnificent and practical progress; but the targets ahead may have to be larger than we have been tackling so far.
  The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) spoke of a shortage of bricks, and my right hon. Friend said that that matter was in hand but my own view is that we are at about the maximum output of traditional houses. My right hon. Friend said that the labour force could hardly be increased, although its output could, and that adds strength to the view that we are very near the ceiling of output, bearing in mind all the other building that is going on at the same time.
  If that is the case we may have to look to ancillary forms of house building, and I do not believe that to be out of the question. All the traditional houses we are building at the present time should be good houses, but I am not wholly satisfied that they are up to the standard of goodness that I should like to see. On 13th December, 1963,
  1304
  the House accepted a Motion which congratulated the National House-Builders Registration Council and called for legislation, if necessary. The National House-Builders Registration Council has a certification procedure under which the prospective buyer of a certificated house can be assured that both good workmanship and good material go into it. I believe that only a small minority of our builders turn out a shoddy job, but they can get the building industry an indifferent name.
  This certification system is making progress, but that progress is not yet sufficiently fast. I know that my right hon. Friend has consulted the National Federation of Building Trades Employers on the subject, and has spoken to the Registration Council. The coverage of the scheme was 10 per cent. in 1953, by 1963 it had risen to 26 per cent., and I believe that there has been further progress since then.
  In a debate at the end of last year, my right hon. Friend—and, I think, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—said that he would regard certification of 80 per cent. of our houses as satisfactory. If 80 per cent. were certificated the odd 20 per cent. would probably come in eventually, but I doubt very much whether, without some degree of compulsion, we shall get to that stage. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this matter extremely sympathetically because, while we certainly want more houses, we definitely want good ones.
  I have said that we are possibly reaching the ceiling of production of traditional houses and will have to look to certain ancillary possibilities, and the first that springs to mind is the industrial building programme. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works has just left the Chamber, but I would pay a tribute to the great dynanism he has brought to his Department. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing has spoken of a very steep rise in the output of industrially built houses, and I welcome that. I know that this programme of industrialised building is making immense progress, but I still believe that there are two ancillary forms of housing that could be encouraged.

  1305
  Earlier this month I went to the Royal Agricultural Society's show at Stoneleigh, in Warwickshire, where, in the building section, I saw a most splendid timber house. If people can live in frame houses in the United States of America and in other parts of the world where the climate is much more severe than ours, I believe that timber houses could make a significant contribution to solving our problem. Their appearance is extremely good—I have a photograph of one of them here. This type is called the Linton house, and I am able to invite any hon. Member to go to Stoneleigh to look over it. Building societies will make advances on these houses, which have an estimated life of at least 60 years. They are offered in a range of different external patterns, and both internally and externally they are very charming.
  One snag is that some local authorities are not being as helpful as they might be with regard to the byelaws that affect the construction of these houses. The houses are passed as satisfactory in every possible way, but I believe that local authorities have a considerable prejudice against them. Perhaps my right hon. Friend might be able to do something to overcome this prejudice and perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works might ensure that when his national code of building bye-laws is brought out, special reference is made to timber houses—
  Mr. A. Lewis: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman went all the way to Warwickshire, when he could have come to my constituency—just a few steps down the road—where we have had, for about 30 years, the Portal house, which was originally meant to last for 10 years. We still have them. We also still have the Nissen huts—hundreds of them. They, too, were intended to last 10 years, but they are still there. If the hon. Gentleman wants to live in a Nissen hut or a Portal house, I can export them to his constituency any time he likes.
  Mr. Temple: I seem to have acquired a rather dubious ally. I thought at the start that the hon. Member was with me, but now he has rather spoilt himself.
  There is another ancillary form of housing. I know that hon. Members on both sides have been invited recently by the National Caravan Council to visit the
  1306
  caravan parks near London. I believe that hon. Members opposite were taken to the Fangrove Caravan Park, as I was, and saw the possibilities of mobile homes in this country. This is a caravan park which it was a pleasure to see. I spoke to one postal official who had comparatively recently moved into one of these mobile homes and who said that he had exchanged it of his own volition for a very satisfactory traditional house. I do not argue that mobile homes will make a large contribution but I know that there are a great many retired people who are extraordinarily happy in mobile homes and if retired people could give up their traditional homes this would make room for other families to move into their traditional houses. I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will see that in his further surveys there is reference in development plans to land being made available for caravan parks and mobile homes because this can make a useful contribution to the housing problem and will not increase the demand on scarce building labour.
  It has been a privilege to take part in the last housing debate of this Parliament. I recognise the extreme importance of good housing to our community. I know that the provision of building land for further development is extremely difficult. The problem must be tackled realistically and swiftly, and this we are doing. Our planning methods could equally be modernised and simplified. I am satisfied that we are turning out more homes for the people and that they are good homes. I believe that our policies are delivering the goods, and I am certain that our goal as a party should always continue to be a property-owning democracy. When I read the policies of the party opposite it seems to me that if they should get into power they would allow people to own their houses, but they will not allow them to own the land on which those houses are to be built. No more owner-occupiers will be created by the party opposite. We should move into a land of "Land Commission leaseholders."
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: I will follow the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) in only one theme and that is in his reference to a property-owning democracy. The matter with which I propose to deal

  1307
  is concerned with that concept, and the hon. Member will see that some parts of the property-owning democracy are treated very differently from other parts. I do not want to deal with wooden houses, mud huts or caravans. All those are very remote from the real problems of people in our large cities such as Birmingham. What they want are houses. Given the plan and the organisation and the control of vested interests, we on this side of the House believe that those houses can be provided, but I ask the House to consider what is happening now.
  I want to mention one case only. At Solihull, not far from Birmingham, the Rover Motor Company was possessed of 72 acres of what is called "white land", which was part of green belt land and was not intended for development. It is safe to say that at its then use value that land was not worth more than £20,000. At the end of 1961 the Rover Motor Company applied to the Solihull Borough Council for permission for residential development of that land. It was refused. On 4th May of the following year the company appealed to the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman, in the quasi-judicial function about which he talked today, held a public inquiry on 8th November, 1962, and a few weeks later he overruled the Solihull Borough Council and planning permission was granted.
  The consequence was that about 12 months later this land, together with another small parcel of land with which I shall deal separately in my speech, was sold to the highest public tenderer at £16,200 an acre. The total amount realised was in excess of £1,200,000. This means that the Minister has by his action as a Minister—let us make no bones about it—made a present of £1,200,000 free of Income Tax to the Rover Motor Company. It is much easier to make money in that way than by making some cars. I cannot see how this sort of transaction can be justified.
  Mr. Hocking: Is the hon. Gentleman absolutely sure, and can he say categorically, that the sale of this asset by the Rover Motor Company will not appear in the company's accounts? If it does, then surely it will be subject to tax.
  Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member does not realise the limitations of the present tax on capital gains. If the land is sold after six months it is a capital gain.
  Mr. Hocking Mr. Hocking indicated dissent.
  Mr. Silverman: If it is sold within less than six months it is subject to tax, but if it is sold after that period it is a capital gain not subject to tax.
  Sir E. Errington: Not three months—three years.
  Mr. Silverman: At any rate, this amount of money was given as a present by the Minister under existing procedure. How can we possibly hope to have an incomes policy, and what right have we to say to postmen or anybody else, "Please restrain your demands on your portion of the national income" when these people get away with these enormous sums without any effort whatsoever? This is one part of the story and we have often pointed out these manifold social evils. The Minister told us on the last occasion when this subject was debated that he proposed to do nothing except wait for the shortage to abate, but there is another facet of the story with which I should like to deal.
  This part of the story has a smell of Crichel Down and a touch of Naboth's vineyard about it. I regard it as just as bad as anything in the Ferranti case. Surrounded by the plot of 72 acres with which I have been dealing is a plot of land which up to 1962 was owned by two people of modest means, a Mrs. Clarke and a Mr. Raven. This was a plot of four acres, and these people are the other part of the property-owning democracy. They had inherited the plot from their father. In 1960 the Rover Motor Company first negotiated for this, site. I do not want to make many comments, I want to recite the bare facts as far as I know them. There was a communication between the solicitors of the Rover Company and the solicitors of Mrs. Clarke and Mr. Raven written on 5th February, 1960, and in order that there should be no doubt about what it means I shall read it out:
  "Our clients, the Rover Company Ltd., have referred to us for attention your letter to them of the 1st instant as to the above. As we believe you are aware our clients are interested in purchasing the above"—

  1309
  that is land at Solihull—
  "solely for the convenience of their employees who use their sports ground to whom it would afford a comfortable access. Development is not contemplated in any way and we do not think planning regulations would permit variation of the existing use. It may be helpful in negotiations if we could agree the existing value of the land which we think would be approximately £400. Because of the convenience that it would afford our clients' employees we feel sure that they will be prepared to pay a reasonable sum in excess of this amount and we would recommend the purchase at £600."
  Another letter from the same solicitors to the solicitors acting for Mrs. Clarke and Mr. Raven came on 1st December, 1960. There they say:
  "We now have our clients' views on your letter of The 1st ult. and are asked to inform you that they are still interested in purchasing the land. In our view the price quoted by your clients of £4,000 very much exceeds the market value today. If you will refer to the amount agreed for estate duty purposes recently this will tend to support our view. The permitted use has not varied since this date and in our view the land is incapable of development"
  In 1962, there was a further approach by the Rover Company to buy this land. In May or June, 1962, following on the lines of this correspondence, the Rover Company assured Mrs. Clarke and Mr. Raven that they still wanted the land for the purposes of extending the facilities for their employees for an open space and said that the most that would be built upon the land would be a pavilion.
  On this occasion it will be borne in mind that already, at the end of 1961, the Rover Company had applied for development permission and indeed had submitted an appeal to the Minister on 4th May, 1962. Yet they were contending at the same time that they still wanted the land for use as an open space.
  Mr. A. Lewis: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Silverman: The owners sold to them for the sum of £2,000. An interesting point is that before the sale they had made an inquiry through their agent, to the Solihull Borough Council, and the council informed them during the, month of May that there was no prospect whatsoever of residential development being allowed on this land. The council did not disclose to them the fact that on the surrounding land there was in process at that time an application for development rights and that the Rover Company was at that time appealing to
  1310
  the Minister. Completion of this sale at £2,000 took place.
  Sir K. Joseph: I have a number of minor points which I could have taken but really the hon. Gentleman is implying something which I think is unfair. At the time to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, Solihull Council knew only that it had refused planning permission to the Rover Company for the large 72 acre site. It did not know the result of the company's appeal. It had not occurred then. So, from the council's point of view, the proper thing for it to say was whatever it said. The hon. Gentleman's imputation was that the council knew.
  Mr. Silverman: I have not made any imputation. I have stated the bare facts and let the facts speak for themselves. It is quite true that at that time Solihull Council did not know that the Minister was going to make this present to the Rover Company. At that time the appeal had just been lodged. Of course, Solihull Council was under no legal duty to inform Mr. Raven and Mrs. Clarke that this appeal had been put in. The fact is that nothing whatever had been said about it.
  Mr. A. Lewis: Rovers knew and could have told them.
  Mr. Silverman: There was no legal or statutory obligation to tell them, but the council could have told them the position. In fact, completion of this, sale was made in October, 1962.
  Mr. Hocking: I know this land fairly well. I looked at it at the time of the sale. In the course of his remarks, the hon. Member said that the small parcel of land was incapable of development. The then owners were told that it was incapable of development. It is true that this land was incapable of development on its own. It could be developed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—it is no good hon. Members saying "Oh". It is true that the sewage had to pass through the other portion of land, and it could only be developed as a whole.
  Mr. Silverman: Let me complete the story. In October, 1962, there was completion. That means that this land was sold for £2,000. It was the month afterwards that there was the public inquiry by the Minister of Housing and

  1311
  Local Government and a few weeks later the Minister made his decision.
  The point is that until October, until the moment of completion, these two people were under the impression, and given the impression, that the Rover Company intended to buy this land for an extension of its open space. Obviously, if they had thought anything else they would not have dreamt of selling it at that price. Nothing that was said by the Rover Company or by anyone else gave them any cause to think differently.
  A few weeks later, the Minister made his decision and gave planning permission. The Rover Company then went, with this additional four acres of land, to Solihull Borough Council and applied for permission for residential development. Although it had been indicated before that permission would be refused, it was then given to the Rover Company. I believe that there was some condition and that there was a certain amount of horse trading which provided that when the eventual price was decided by tender, 11 acres of land should be provided to the Solihull Borough Council for its own purposes. I think that was the arrangement and the condition. The Minister may correct me if I am not precisely correct. That was the position up to then. In the month of January this year, all this land was sold by public tender and all of it was sold at the price of £16,200 per acre, including the four acres that I have mentioned. It seems that this piece of land which was sold by this brother and sister for £2,000 was sold by the Rover Company again for £64,000 as a capital gain.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: Scandalous.
  Mr. Silverman: I put down Questions on this matter and I asked that an inquiry should be carried out. I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in the ethics of public administration and public business would want such an inquiry. This is a case for an Ombudsman to carry out an inquiry, probing deeply into Government Departments and covering every aspect of the matter.
  The Minister said in reply to my Question on 14th July:
  "The land was not allocated as open space."
  1312
  That is so, but it is a mere technicality. It was land for which no planning permission had been granted. The Minister went on to say:
  "I am informed that planning permission was not refused to Mrs. Clarke and Mr. Raven who had not sought it."
  It is true there was no formal application. They had inquired what the position was and they were told that planning permission would not be given.
  The Minister continued:
  "… after Rovers bought it the Council laid certain requirements on them in connection with their development of a nearby estate which made it reasonable to contemplate allowing housing on some of this land too."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1964; Vol. 698, c. 198.]
  That is the condition which I have described. In fact, when the Council heard of the price which this land had fetched—£16,200 an acre—it refused to go on with the purchase, and Bryants Holdings bought the whole lot, which simply shows the ridiculous extent to which the price of land has risen in this area.
  I gave the Minister notice that I intended to raise this matter because the House is entitled to a full and clear statement. There should be an inquiry. This is not a case in which one should ride off on technicalities. Naturally, Mrs. Clarke and Mr. Raven feel that they have been cheated. It may be that what is wrong is the whole system, and we want to know what the Minister is going to do about it.
  This is not merely a question of what is happening to certain parts of this property-owning democracy. The question goes far deeper. It demoralises the whole nation. We have heard about an increase in crime. I am convinced that part of the demoralisation which is afflicting the whole nation is due to the idea that many people are making easy money for nothing. I am convinced that the whole structure of our social system will suffer if this sort of thing goes on. I am entitled to ask not merely that the Minister will say that he will make a full inquiry into these matters but that he will make the fullest possible statement to which hon. Members are entitled.
  7.24 p.m.
  Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: When I made my

  1313
  maiden speech over a quarter of a century ago, I spoke of land as the basic raw material of our Scottish basic industry, and. tonight, in what will almost certainly be my last speech in this House, I want to speak about land as the basic raw material of the houses that we all want to see built, in the price of which land is a factor.
  The House has listened with great attention to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) speaking of a case which he has developed fully. It would, be impertinent of me to follow him, because I do not know all the facts, although he presented them as he understands them to be. Of course, one accepts that his statement of the facts is correct. I would only say this to him, and I say it on every occasion possible: people who are dealing with matters concerning land nowadays owe it to themselves to obtain the best possible advice before doing so. It pays them to do so, and I hope this course will be followed by others who are similarly placed.
  Mr. J. Silverman: Perhaps the hon. Member will bear in mind that the humbler members of this property-owning democracy cannot afford such advice.
  Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: That is wrong. Professional bodies would be very glad to give advice. Arrangements can be made. Land is a valuable asset and people should get the best possible advice, in the same way as they go to see a doctor and get the best professional advice possible if there is something wrong with their health. However, I do not want to enter further into this matter. I accept the hon. Member's challenge. I want to talk about land and the evils of rising prices.
  Rather over two years ago, two men were sitting in an estate agent's office in a pleasant suburb about 10 miles from London. They were neighbours and they had decided to put their two properties together and put them on the market. They were two ordinary detached properties in grounds which together totalled a little under an acre and a half. They had received an offer of £65,000 for the two properties. To them this offer was undreamt of, and they had gone to ask the agent what they should do. They said, "We had not expected anything like that. We
  1314
  must take it." He begged them not to do so. The next day, within minutes of the commencement of the auction sale, that land was knocked down under the hammer for £72,000 and within 24 hours the purchaser had had an offer for his contract, which he refused.
  Examples of that kind are not difficult to come by. We hear of them every day. Indeed, in last year's report of the London County Council it was stated that the average cost that the council had to pay per acre for land for housing requirements was £61,800 in 1963, as compared with £13,600 an acre in 1953. Of course, it is true that between those two dates there has been a change in the basis of compensation and there has been a fall in the value of money.
  Mr. Mendelson: And there was the Rent Act.
  Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: It is true that sites now have to be cleared of buildings, and to do that in London or in any other great city is very expensive. Very often compensation has to be paid—and, no doubt, it formed an element in the price in the case which has been mentioned—to owners of land in return for taking away their rights to use that land for commercial or industrial premises. But, high as these prices are—and in my professional life as a chartered surveyor I am constantly coming across these cases—this is not happening all over the country.
  Mr. Mendelson: As the hon. Gentleman has said that these matters concern his own professional life, I am sure he would not like to leave incomplete the recital of events. We also had the Rent Act for which the present Government are responsible.
  Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: That has nothing to do with the value of land.
  This is not happening all over the country. Yesterday, the Financial Times published a very interesting supplement on the land market. Some hon. Members may have seen in it an article by Mr. J. H. C. Chesshire, the chairman of the valuation and estate agency panel of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, in which he said that land with planning permission for ten houses to the acre changed hands at present in some cases for as little as £1,000 an acre

  1315
  in parts of the North-West of England, that its price would be between £4,000 and £5,000 an acre on the outskirts of Nottingham or in the Bristol area, whereas it would be about £20,000 an acre in the South-East of England.
  No one has yet devised a better method of allocating the use of land to its optimum advantage than a combination of land use planning and the price mechanism. Mr. Alan Day, in a most interesting article in the Westminster Bank Review recently, pointed out that while this means that there is no obvious way of avoiding the payment of high land prices in cases where there is pressure of demand for a limited area of developable land,
  "it does not follow "—
  here I entirely agree with Mr. Day—
  "that the individual selling his land ought necessarily to receive the whole of the price paid."
  I sometimes wonder whether we have got our emphasis right in these matters. High land prices are not in themselves undesirable. I do not believe that anyone, even the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), will lose a night's sleep because a property developer, a development corporation or a speculating builder has to pay a high price for the land which is his stock in trade. What does matter is that high land prices are passed on to the purchasers of houses put on the land.
  Mr. Mendelson: Persuade the Minister of that.
  Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: That is what I am trying to do. I am directing my speech to the Minister.
  For example, site costs used to account for about a quarter of the purchase price of the land and house. In the South-East of England today, site costs make up about one-third of the price of low-cost houses and up to one-half of the cost of luxury houses on special sites. What is needed is not some panic action to reduce high land costs—price levels represent the best way of allocating land to its proper use—but we need to reduce occupancy costs. Occupancy costs are what really matter to the kind of people about whom the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) spoke, the young married couple who have not
  1316
  another house to trade in at an enhanced price in order to get possession of a new one, people who start without the advantage of owning a house. These are the ones we want to help.
  I believe that there is a variety of ways to reduce occupancy costs if the Government would really set their mind to it. They could, for instance, abolish Stamp Duty altogether on the purchase of houses for individual occupation. They could make a contribution from the State towards the cost of the mortgage survey.
  Mr. Albert Evans: How much difference would that make?
  Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: They could provide—I am myself very much in favour of this—cheaper house purchase loans operated through the building societies and other agencies. They could provide for a reduction or a redistribution of the rate burden.
  If the Government of the day, whatever their complexion, would put their mind to it, these and other methods could be financed from the proceeds of a betterment levy by which the State would recover some part of the substantial financial benefits which accrue to owners as a result of public expenditure or the grant of planning permission.
  Over the past eighteen months, I have been taking the chair of a working party of chartered surveyors, men drawn from what one might call the higher echelons of the public service and private practice, with absolutely no party affiliations that I know of or have known of. We have been concerned to look at the problem from a non-party point of view in order to see whether a workable scheme for the recovery of betterment could be devised. After eighteen months of quite hard work, we are convinced that it can be devised in a way which would be both fair and simple to operate.
  I shall not spend a lot of time describing the scheme but, basically, it would be this. After the passing of the enabling legislation, the district valuer would be asked to make two valuations in every case where planning permission had been granted and acted upon. He would be asked to value the property as it was, for its existing use and before the grant of planning permission or change of use, and he would be asked also to value the

  1317
  site for the new use to which it was to be put. The difference between the two valuations—which, of course, could be the subject of appeal to the Lands Tribunal—would form the basis of a betterment levy payable by the owner to the Exchequer. But, because it is never possible for anyone to say with any certainty how much betterment is attributable to the initiative and foresight of owners and how much is attributable to community action, the enabling legislation would provide that in no circumstances should the levy exceed 50 per cent. of the assessed betterment.
  Within this upper limit, Parliament, through statutory instruments, could itself fix variable maximum percentages of charge for different regions so that, by this means, it could encourage development, perhaps, in the development districts and discourage it in the South-Eastern Region. Local planning authorities themselves, within the maximum limits imposed for their regions by Parliament, could vary the rate of charge or waive it altogether.
  I have skated over the various provisions of the scheme and referred only to the most important of them so that the House may have some idea of what we propose, but I think that these means of positive planning should commend themselves to those who wish to increase the incentive to owners to develop land in ways which best serve the public interest.
  Mr. A. Evans: Are not the hon. Gentleman's ideas about a betterment levy rather pathetic and belated in a dying Parliament? Will he address himself directly and personally to the Parliamentary Secretary who, probably more than anyone else in the House, was the author of the abolition of the betterment levy and put nothing in its place? The hon. Gentleman should address himself strongly to his own Government if he is sincere in his views.
  Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I told the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who interrupted me, that I was doing that very thing.
  Mr. Niall MacDermot: I am most interested in the scheme which the hon. Member is propounding. I quite understand that he cannot go into it fully
  1318
  in a debate of this character, but may I ask him whether any provision is built in to the scheme to ensure that the betterment levy would not be passed on to the purchaser and would not serve to increase prices even more? I understand that something of this sort has been attempted in France and that that is the end result.
  Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I am most grateful for that intervention. To get the matter in sequence, may I first deal with the intervention of the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans)? He asks why I have not propounded this before. I wrote articles about this two, three and four years ago, and I have been studying it ever since. For the last 18 months I have been working with an expert committee to try to find a solution. We have only just arrived at a solution. Secondly, I am asked whether it is too late in a dying Parliament. Of course it is too late for action to be taken in this Parliament, but I am still optimistic enough to hope that there will be something in my party's election manifesto which will enable us to do something about this in the next Parliament.
  The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) asked whether the tax would be passed on in the form of increased prices. I think it is true to say that any tax increases the price of the commodity to which it is added. In the pressure areas the tax would probably be added to the cost of land. I do not claim for this scheme that it will do anything to reduce the price of land. What I am saying is that the proceeds of the levy could be applied to reducing occupancy costs, which is really where the shoe pinches.
  If the need for a tax such as this were accepted—and, in my view, it is the linch pin of a comprehensive and imaginative land policy—the proceeds of it on what I call windfall land profits would be applied to the reduction, not of land prices, but of occupancy costs. At the same time, something could be done to reduce high land prices by extending to all local authorities the power of advance purchase of land earmarked for future residential development. If this were done, local authorities, by intelligent anticipation of trends which has enriched so many private developers in recent years, would be able to secure to themselves such betterment as may subsequently accrue.

  1319
  Having for many years pondered deeply on these matters, which are brought daily to my attention in my profession as a chartered surveyor, I can find nothing either in my philosophy as a Conservative or in my responsibilities as a land agent which prevents me from urging that part of the large, often untaxed, gains in land values which are at present enjoyed by individuals should go to the State which helped to create the increment in value by the grant of planning permission or in other ways.
  I am quite sure of one thing, that one day this will be seen to be both right and expedient. To criticise the Land Commission—I have done it myself and I shall certainly do it again—and to proclaim the merits of a free land market when the pressure of demand on a limited area of developable land is blowing the roof off land prices is not enough. In our efforts to modernise Britain, we would be foolish to deny ourselves the opportunity—if I may borrow a phrase from an article in yesterday's Financial Times—
  "to channel some of the profits from land sales into the public purse"
  a policy which, I would add, is increasingly demanded by public opinion.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I commence by congratulating most sincerely the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) on what I thought was an admirable speech. I do not want to get him into any difficulty with his party, but I should like to suggest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the hon. Gentleman might well make a radio broadcast for the Labour Party because all that he said has been said by the Labour Party and has been pooh-poohed and denigrated by the Minister.
  The last few words of the Minister, who attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) for putting forward a positive suggestion, were to the effect that nothing could be done about the land racket except to build more houses. He suggested that building more houses would solve the problem. But he had spent the best part of his speech in explaining that the Tory Government had, over the years, been building more houses than any other
  1320
  Government. I am not here to argue about the right hon. Gentleman's figures and statistics, but if that is true, why is it that, with all these new houses and all this extra housing, the land racket is now worse than it has ever been in our history? Why is it that house prices are at their highest level in the history of this country? Why is it that the rents of private houses and local authority houses are the highest that they have ever been? The answer is simple. It is because of the policies of this Government.
  The Minister was very upset when my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham interjected to say, with no personal disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, that he could not believe any pledge given by the Government or by the Tory Party because the Tory Party had pledged itself faithfuly to the electorate not to introduce rent decontrol. Yet in 1957 it did just that. The Minister wanted to know when and where this statement was made. Either he must have not been in the House during the debates on the Rent Act, 1957, or he could not have read the debates of that period. This is a strange attitude for the Minister to adopt. Since 1951, the Tory Party has consistently, regularly and deliberately broken every one of its pledges and promises.
  The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns mentioned high land prices. The Minister mentioned high rents and the high cost of housing. Who said that if the Tory Party got back it would control and reduce the cost of living? It was not me. It was not my hon. Friend. It was the Tory Party. It pledged itself faithfully to increase the purchasing value of the £. Yet the purchasing value of the £ is the lowest that it has ever been in peace or war. The cost of living is the highest that there has ever been in peace or war.
  Rents have gone up directly because of the policy of this Government in reducing subsidies and because of the Rent Act. Those who are suffering—those who are trying to buy their houses, those who are buying and those who cannot afford to buy—all owe their suffering directly to the Government's legislative programme. The Minister said that more houses were being built, and that is true, but fewer are being built today for those in most urgent need—

  1321
  that is, those who need a house to rent because they cannot put down the deposit. They want local authority houses. Fewer local authority houses are being built now than was the case two or three years after the war.
  The Minister has given the figures, and they are on record. To get the position clear, I recently asked the Minister what the position was in some well-known Tory areas neighbouring my constituency. Fortunately, we have a 100 per cent. Labour council and we have done a wonderful job with local authority housing, notwithstanding the difficulties placed in the way by high interest rates, reduced subsidies and the difficulties created by the Minister and his Government. I therefore inquired the position in such places at Ilford, Hornchurch, where the Prime Minister was last night, and in Wanstead and Woodford, which is represented by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), and Chigwell. These are areas where there is no particular shortage of land.
  The Minister gave me the figures for 1947 and for last year. Nineteen forty-seven was two years after the worst world war, when the right hon. Member for Woodford said that we had a bankrupt nation and when we had no peace-time industry because our factories had not yet been turned over to a peace-time economy. In addition, thousands of men in the Armed Forces were still being demobilised.
  In 1947, Ilford, under a Labour Government, built 126 houses. By 1951, the figure had risen to 248. Last year, it was 122, or fewer than in 1947.
  Mr. Hocking: Is the hon. Member including council houses?
  Mr. Lewis: Of course I am. That is my point. The postman earning £11 a week cannot put down a £500 deposit to buy a house costing £3,000 or £4,000. The hon. Member smiles, but a postman cannot afford that. He has to go to the local authority. The road-sweeper cannot afford a deposit of £500 or £600 and mortgage repayments of £4 or £5 a week. He has to go to the local authority.
  Let us look at Hornchurch, where the Prime Minister was yesterday. In 1947, the number of houses built in Hornchurch
  1322
  was 257. In 1951, it had gone up to 344. Last year, it was 14. This is an area where there is great need of houses because it is easily accessible to London. Land is available, but only 14 houses were built last year. The figure for Wanstead and Woodford in 1947 was 222. Last year, it was 52. Chigwell, which again is within easy reach of London, built 128 houses in 1947 but only 52 last year. That is typical throughout the country.
  One finds from the figures that fewer council houses have been built in total and in the area where they really matter than in 1951. This has been the deliberate policy of the Government. I know that the London County Council has done a good job and I know that a number of other Labour councils have done a good job. One can quote Labour-controlled areas which, notwithstanding the difficulties which have been put in their way by the Government, have got on with the job of housing for those in the lower income groups. The Government have gone out of their way to reduce in total the percentage of council, as against private enterprise, houses.
  We hear a lot about slum clearance and what the Government have done. In the main, it has been Labour authorities which have done the slum clearance. I do not know of any property speculator who offers to clear a slum area and put up houses for workers to rent.
  Mr. Norman Pannell: Is it not a fact that the slum landlords have great difficulty in doing so, because they cannot get the local council to provide alternative accommodation while the houses are being demolished?
  Mr. Lewis: I should like to know of even one case of a property speculator, either in the past or in the future, who has a scheme or an idea for slum clearance and wants to go ahead. I have yet to find one.
  I go further. Nine out of 10 slum properties, of which I have many in my constituency, have been in existence for 80, 100 or 150 years and many of them were built at a cost of only £100 or £150, but they are now changing hands at £2,000 or £3,000. Over the years, many of them have never had a halfpenny spent

  1323
  on them by way of repairs or decorations, whether internal or external. The tenants have purchased and re-purchased the property six or seven times over. I know of no other commodity which can be held for 80 or 100 years, from which rent can be drawn to the extent that the original capital outlay is repaid six or seven times over and which can then be sold for 2,000 or 3,000 per cent. more than its price when new.
  I have an old Ford Consul car, which I bought about seven years ago. It cost me about £900. I am told that if I took it to a dealer today, I should be lucky to get £150 for it.
  Mr. Hocking: Try polishing it.
  Mr. Lewis: If the Government's policy concerning land and housing prices were applied, that car should now be worth about £5,000. The Rent Act has caused immeasurable suffering to people in my constituency. Unfortunately, we in West Ham were the worst bombed borough during the war. We lost one-third of every type of habitable accommodation and the remaining two-thirds was bombed, blasted and blitzed in some way. Our people were promised that they would be looked after and given housing.
  The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) spoke about setting up wooden huts to solve the housing problem. We had wooden huts. We had Portal huts to help us out of our difficulty. We were promised that they would be there for 10 years, but we still have them. We also had Nissen huts, those iron things which get very hot in summer and very cold in winter, and which one can never get dry because the water drips off them. They were put up, so it was said, to last for 10 years, but they look like being there for another 50 years, and now it is being suggested that we should have wooden huts. There is a place in Holborn called Headquarters and General Supplies. It has a good line in tents. I suggest that the Minister should go there and buy as many tents as he can find. Why should our people have to put up with this kind of treatment?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): It is only fair to point out that my hon. Friend
  1324
  was talking about the wooden houses which are used widely in Canada, and which provide very good homes. The reason why we do not encourage them here is because of the fire risk in great densities.
  Mr. Lewis: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for helping me with my next point. I did not mean to denigrate the houses that are used in Canada. The Minister may call them beautiful places, or chalets, but I suggest that in the first instance they should be put up in Sloane Square, or Portland Square, or even here in Parliament Square. In other words, do not send them to the East End of London where the working-class people work for their living. Put them up in the areas occupied by the Clore's and people like that. If these wooden buildings are so good, I suggest that those people would jump at the opportunity of having these wonderful, beautiful wooden Canadian-type houses. After we have seen how these wonderful houses are received in these luxury West End areas, the Minister can send as many as he likes to my area. These Nissen huts, these Portal huts and things like that are not for areas like mine. They can go to the luxury areas.
  The Rent Act has adversely affected my constituency. I have here a page and a half of cases quoted by my housing officer in West Ham. He points out that before the Rent Act fewer than 18 people were homeless in that area. After the Act was introduced the figures rose as follows: 31 in 1958; 36 in 1959; 29 in 1960; 19 in 1961; 33 in 1962; and last year the figure rose to 42. He reckons that this year he will have to deal with 84 cases.
  In an area such as mine we have an enormous housing list due to slums, overcrowding, and destruction in the blitz. The list is so long that we have an urgent priority list. If 60 or 70 people, through no fault of their own, become homeless because of the Rent Act, they take precedence over people who have been on the list for perhaps as long as 14 years, and not unnaturally these people ask, "Why should Mrs. Smith, who was living in a decent house, come out of it and take precedence over us on the housing list?" I do not mince my words when I tell them what has given rise to this situation. I tell them quite bluntly that

  1325
  it is because of the Government at Westminster, and because of the Rent Act, because if it were not for the Rent Act these people would not have been compulsorily evicted.
  In my constituency the situation with regard to rents is appalling and disgusting. I sat through the last housing debate. One of my hon. Friends quoted an instance of an exorbitant rent being charged, and the Minister asked my hon. Friend to send him details of the case. But I have been sending the Minister details of cases for many years, and all that he says is, "Of course, nothing can be done. These people must seek legal advice, and I have no power to intervene". I know that.
  I have here the names and addresses of people who have been affected by the Rent Act. I do not propose to name them, but perhaps I might quote a few examples of what has happened. In January, 1964, the rent of a decontrolled house was increased from £1 10s. 5d. to £2 5s. a week, and a demand has now been made for a further 10s. a week accompanied by the usual notice to quit. The house in question is a small one shared by two families. There is a common entrance, an outside toilet which both families have to share, no bathroom, and no hot water.
  In another case the rent was agreed in April, 1960, at £3 10s. a week inclusive. The occupants have now been served with a notice to quit because they are unable to agree to pay a rent of £4 5s. a week. The accommodation consists of two bedrooms, one small living room, a kitchen, and a bathroom which is shared with another family.
  In another case notice to quit has been served, the time allowed has expired, and the bailiff has been instructed to evict the occupants. Last April by moving from the upper to the lower part of the house, they lost the protection which they previously enjoyed. They have been given notice to quit without any question of an alternative.
  One of the most tragic cases that I have come across is that of a lady who is separated from her husband. She has two children, one of whom is a spastic. Because this unfortunate child must have everything done for it, such
  1326
  as being taken to school and brought back, fed, washed and clothed, and cared for all day long, this poor woman is unable to go to work. She was recently given notice to quit the one room which she occupied, and for which she paid £2 10s. a week. There was no separate toilet no bathroom—nothing. She had to share the toilet with about half a dozen other tenants. Nothing could be done about the notice to quit, and she had to leave.
  Eventually a place was offered to her, which consisted of one room—it is true that it was a larger room than she previously occupied—at a rent of £5 10s. a week. She said to me, "Mr. Lewis, they cannot do this, can they?". I had to reply, "I am afraid that they can". She said, "What can I do? I cannot work because of this child. Can you get my child into a home for spastics?". I tried to do that, but without success. I told her that she would have to go to the National Assistance Board. As always, the Board was very helpful and it agreed to pay her rent of £5 10s. She receives the money and pays it straight over to the landlord.
  I learned from an answer to a Question that I asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance that under this Government National Insurance contributions have increased by 173 per cent. I am not surprised that the Minister either cannot or will not tell us how much money is being paid into the pockets of the landlords of this country through National Assistance. When we hear about subsidies, and about subsidising rents, and when the Minister talks about economic rents and says that the councils should do something about them, I suggest that the Government should do something about the subsidies being paid to the landlords through the National Insurance Fund. I suggest that the Minister should give us the figures. They would make the Ferranti scandal look insignificant by comparison. This is all due to this Government and their legislative programme.
  If the Minister feels that he can do something about the cases on the list that I have here, if I send them to him will he guarantee to intervene? Will he see whether, in cases where rents rise from £2 5s. a week to £4 a week, and where

  1327
  rents have been doubled and notice to quit given, and nothing can be done from the local end, he can do something? I know that he cannot, because he has no power to do anything.
  Sir K. Joseph: I am always interested to receive details, because there are circumstances in which either I or the local authority, or the local authority and I together, can initiate or take some action. If a landlord is exercising improper pressures on tenants in multi-occupied property the new control order which was introduced under the Housing Act as from last week will be available. If there is a danger of homelessness through exorbitant rent demands local authorities—if they judge fit to do so—can make compulsory purchase orders, which would then come to me.
  I do not want to exaggerate the position, but there are occasionally cases, apart from this, where I can be of assistance. There is no harm in sending me the details. I do not hold out any wide hope of being able to do something, but occasionally I can.
  Mr. Lewis: I am very appreciative, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much. I mean no disrespect to him when I say that both his predecessors and he himself have been sent by me particulars of numerous cases, and in every case I have had a stereotyped reply telling me that the landlord was quite within his rights, or words to that effect. I have been told that there is no action which the Minister can take. I always send those letters on to my constituents, with a nice covering letter, saying, "I send you the letter that I have received from the Minister. This is the sort of reply that I expected, because this is what I have been getting from housing Ministers for years. Nothing can be done."
  I do not suggest that there is any undue pressure. I am not suggesting that for a one-roomed flat an increase of rent from £2 10s. to £5 is excessive. I do not know what is excessive. All I know is that for the postman earning £11 a week or the road-sweeper earning £12 a week, to have to pay £3 or £4 a week in rent is excessive. If a person is getting £30 a day in expenses, or £30,000 or £40,000 a year, of course it is not excessive.
  The Minister knows this as well as I do. The landlord has it all his own way.
  1328
  In all these cases the tenant has an alternative. If he does not want to pay he can get out. That is the point that I want to emphasise. And once the tenant is evicted and becomes homeless the local authority must do something, and that is an added expense for the local authority. I agree that there will always be some people who are forced to pay higher rents.
  The Opposition are to be congratulated. In the last week of this Parliamentary Session, and in the last few days of the life of this Government, they have once again initiated a debate on the most important subject of rents and housing. I am confident that this Government will be evicted without any option when the election comes. Not only that; I am so convinced that this will be the case that I know in my heart that that was why the Prime Minister put off the election from June until October. But even those few months will not save this Government. They will get the defeat they so richly deserve.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. Philip N. Hocking: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) made a sparkling and scintillating speech. At the beginning I thought that we were in the midst of a cost-of-living debate of the sort that we had a few days ago. One thing struck me about his speech; he was unable to make a single point which would help to remedy the situation. It was the most negative speech that I have ever heard. As he had no real points to make I can only presume that he, or his party, has not got any policy which is likely to build more houses or to relieve the situation. If he and his colleagues campaign in this way, I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend or one of his colleagues will continue in the same office and that we shall be permitted to carry on the government of the country.
  In the last few weeks I have noticed a new mood among hon. Members opposite. Continuously, day after day, they suggest that they are the brains behind my right hon. Friend's policy. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said that he had continually put these suggestions to my right hon. Friend and that he had now woken up and adopted them.
  In that case, I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite did not put these

  1329
  suggestions into practice between 1945 and 1951. I spent the last 25 years in the housing business, and I know something about it. I agree that in those days there was a shortage of materials and labour. But it is a remarkable fact that if anyone was prepared to build houses without using any controlled materials it was almost impossible for him to get a licence to do so. Homegrown timber was free of licence. If a person said that he would use homegrown limber for the construction of houses and would not want any imported timber, did the Labour Government give him permission? A friend of mine wanted to build his own house with his; own hands in Redditch. He had to get a licence to do so. Even where a person used his own labour, and materials which were in good supply, it was still necessary to obtain a licence.
  I can only conclude that the party opposite has no more expansive views with regard to building more houses than it had when it was in power. Still hon. Members opposite talk about licensing and controls. Still they talk about building 200,000 council houses a year. This has been their rigid policy ever since they went out of office. If, when the time comes, they continue the policies of yesteryear, they will be rejected yet again.
  Mr. A. Lewis: Just listen for two seconds. I was speaking of people on low incomes. I talked about the postman and the road-sweeper earning £11 and £12 a week. Is not the hon. Member aware that if local authorities built 200,000 houses for people like that it would be an enormous help? It would mean that we would be getting back to what was happening 13 years ago.
  Mr. Hocking: I could quote figures which would quickly refute that argument. The trouble with the philosophy of the hon. Member is that he believes that everybody is a road-sweeper or a postman and is living on the minimum wage. I have made inquiries about postmen's pay. I know that the basic rate is £11 a week, but I know many who take home much more than that, and the hon. Member knows it.
  All through the debate we have heard the basic philosophy of hon. Members
  1330
  opposite—the almost built-in philosophy—about landlords. Continuously hon. Members opposite decry every landlord as being the most dreadful person that ever lived in the land. This is not so. I agree that there is a small minority of bad landlords, but there is a small minority which is bad in every section of the community, and I see no reason why hon. Members opposite should have this in-built feeling against landlords.
  Mr. Richard Marsh: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Hocking: No, I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman; time is short and I have several points which I wish to make.
  If hon. Gentlemen opposite would get rid of this feeling about landlords; if they would look at the matter realistically and accept the fact that it is possible for there to be good landlords, and that there are good landlords, people would be encouraged to provide houses to rent. One other fact which seems to run through the housing philosophy of hon. Member opposite is that only local authorities can be good landlords. I have never understood this. Landlords can give notice to a tenant to quit and get him out of the property much more quickly than can a private landlord, and frequently local authorities do this. There have been many cases in my constituency of the Coventry Corporation throwing out council house tenants with a week's notice for not paying the rent. I had a tenant who did not pay the rent for six months and it took another six months to get him out of the property. I had to take him to the county court to claim the rent. The dice are loaded against the private landlord, yet a local authority which may throw out a tenant at a week's or a fortnight's notice is said by hon. Members opposite to be a model landlord.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Why did not the party opposite support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) when he brought in a Private Member's Bill to give council house tenants security of tenure?
  Mr. Hocking: I am always doubtful with regard to policies put forward by hon. Members opposite. I see no

  1331
  reason why I should join with them in that sort of thing.
  I believe that hon. Members opposite should think seriously about this question of landlords to see whether they cannot reorientate their views to bring themselves up to date in the midst of this century and realise that there are good landlords whom it is worth encouraging. They should stop making the kind of suggestions that they have made about every landlord being a bad landlord.
  Earlier in the debate points were made to my hon. Friend about party policy and a party manifesto. He was asked whether he stood by a statement made by the Chairman of the Conservative Party. I have listened on a number of occasions to speeches about land policy made in debates on housing. About eighteen months ago I had the privilege and pleasure of debating in a B.B.C. programme with the hon. Member for Fulham the policy of the Labour Party. When I asked him whether the Land Commission proposed by the Labour Party would cover all land the hon. Gentleman said they did not think it would. It would not cover land used by owner-occupiers. He did not think that small estates would be covered. In view of many of the remarks that have been made since, I wonder whether that was a statement of policy on the part of the party opposite; whether what the hon. Member for Fulham said about small parcels of land not being taken up by the Land Commission was correct. There is no doubt that the only policy advanced by hon. Members opposite about land will not help to build a single extra house, as was indicated by my right hon. Friend. Their policy will not reduce the cost of housing one scrap. It would mean that from the introduction of legislation by the party opposite every house built would attract a ground rent which would have to be paid continuously to whatever receiving body was ordained by the Commission. The amount would not be settled for a term of years. From the small print of their manifesto we understand that it would go up over 10 years.
  Mr. A. Lewis: Accepting for the sake of argument that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is correct, can he say what would be the alternative of the Tory
  1332
  Party and why hon. Members opposite have not implemented it during the past 13 years?
  Mr. Hocking: If the hon. Gentleman will listen for a little longer, he will find that I shall come to the question of what I believe should be done about land.
  I wish to emphasise that there is no virtue in the proposals of hon. Members opposite about land purchase. If their proposals were put into effect, the cost of housing would be considerably increased for a large number of people. The hon. Member for Fulham suggested during the debate that it would help people if a deposit were obtainable for the purchase of property. This has been done for years. Many reputable builders keep a collateral security on a house and the deposit is reduced. That is going on at present. There is nothing new in the hon. Member's suggestion. The machinery exists for doing this. I think it would be far better to encourage people to do that sort of thing, and encourage the industry and local authorities to do so than merely to make suggestions.
  I am at a loss to understand how the proposals about cheap interest rates advanced by hon. Members opposite are to work. There is a large number of people in the country who have mortgages. According to the advertisements inserted in the Press by Transport House, it would appear that the Labour Party propose to reduce interest for all house purchasers. If that be so, it means that they will bring about a very different economic policy. They will make a considerable reduction in interest rates over a wide field. Do hon. Members opposite suggest that they are prepared to go back to the sort of financial policy which brought this country to the verge of ruin in 1951? Or, on the other hand, are they proposing to be selective? Should the party opposite ever come to office, does it intend that people about to buy houses shall enjoy beneficial terms? If that is so, it means that a very small proportion of citizens will enjoy the benefits derived from cheap house-purchasing facilities.
  I was interested in the remarks which have been made about brick production. There was a strange suggestion from the Opposition benches that the Government should encourage the

  1333
  brick industry to build more kilns and increase the production of bricks. What has been the policy of hon. Members opposite? What encouragement have they given to the brick industry to increase production? At the last General Election they proposed to nationalise the London Brick Company. What about the cement industry? What encouragement do they give to cement manufacturers? Not long ago hon. Members opposite were talking about nationalising the cement industry.
  That is not the kind of encouragement to give to any industry. It is the same basic philosophy of hon. Members opposite. They continue to believe that by these threats and the suggestion that this or that industry should be taken over they can encourage production. We have a sneaking feeling that in the words about industries which have "failed the nation" there is a threat to brick companies and cement manufacturers that they will be drawn into the net of nationalisation. These are not the sort of suggestions that should come from the party opposite when hon. Members opposite criticise my right hon. Friend because these suggestions do not encourage the industry to build a single house more. They are discouraging everyone, discouraging landlords from providing properties to let and discouraging the building industry from expanding. These are the wrong sort of things for a party to say at this time when it is offering itself as the alternative Government.
  I turn to one or two aspects of the policy of my right hon. Friend with which I am not altogether satisfied. Much has been said in regard to land. This afternoon we have heard two hon. Members, one from each side of the House, draw attention to this question. I should be the first to admit that there are certain aspects of the land question at Solihull which do not bear looking into. I shall not comment on the letters written by the Rover Company to the brother and sister, but the sale was made on the understanding that that land would be kept for an open space. It seems that the professional advisers of the brother and sister were very much at fault because they were selling land for open space and they should have included in the conveyance a covenant to that effect. That would
  1334
  have precluded any possibility of development without at some later date providing some sort of payment for breaking the covenant.
  Hon. Members should not think that this is done only in private sales between individuals. I can give examples of cases where individuals have sold land to local authorities and four or five years later the local authority as the planning authority for the area has changed its mind. It has decided that it does not want an open space and would rather build some blocks of flats or garages on that land. When that has been done it has not been regarded as a scandal, but it has been said to be in the public interest. If a private individual does it, it is regarded as a scandal. There is no difference whatever in this matter between the local authority and the private individual who changes his mind about the land.
  There is, however, an important difference in the law affecting sales between private individuals and local authorities. Private individuals can covenant land one to the other, but hon. Members should try to put a covenant on to a local authority. They would be immediately told that that cannot be done and that the authority would not allow the sale to go through in such circumstances. I should like to hear what my right hon. Friend intends to do about this matter. I believe the law should be made the same for local authorities and private individuals in this respect. I should also make it exactly the same in regard to private landlords and local authorities. Let us get rented property all on the same basis.
  Mr. Skeffington: I think the hon. Member has overlooked a provision in the 1959 planning Act If land has been purchased by a local authority when it is designated for one use and then the local authority uses it for a more valuable purpose, within five years the private seller can claim additional compensation from the local authority. Incidentally, there is no provision the other way round, but in this case the local authority has to pay more if it uses the land for a more valuable purpose.
  Mr. Hocking: That is for a limited period of five years. I would extend it further.

  1335
  My right hon. Friend has put forward suggestions about advance purchase of land for new towns. This may be an excellent idea, but I am very much concerned about whether the freehold would go. I want to see the freehold principle kept because it is very important. I should like to know whether when these areas of land are to be bought for new towns they will be developed on a leasehold basis, or what proposals should be made to see that owners of the houses in those new towns shall own the freehold of the land on which the house stands. Unless this is done there will be nothing more than a slightly watered down version of the policy of hon. Members opposite. This I cannot believe to be in the mind of my right hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Harriet Slater rose—
  Mr. Hocking: I have given way several times and other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Another aspect of what should be done, and done quickly, is for the Government to give encouragement to private landlords to build to let.
  Mr. A. Lewis: Do not forget land policy.
  Mr. Hocking: I have not forgotten that and I shall come to it in a moment.
  Hon. Members say that private landlords are not at present being encouraged to build to let, but this is being done although it is mainly done by insurance companies. In the Midlands large blocks of fiats are built and let at 50s. or 60s. a week. That is a modest rent in the Midlands, bearing in mind the high wages paid there. Take-home pay is regularly £30 a week for many motorcar workers. These flats are built mostly by insurance companies which have vast sums of money invested in them by various people. Not very long ago private individuals built or bought blocks of property through building societies. That has been a satisfactory arrangement, but, unfortunately, under the Building Societies Act such advances are given special treatment. I should like some amendment made to that Act to make it possible for people to borrow
  1336
  money on these properties and to let them.
  I said that I would say a few words about land. I was not enamoured with the scheme put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) because I did not think that it was practicable in any way. It seemed to me to create a good deal of work for land agents, surveyors, auctioneers and district valuers, but I do not think that in the end it would reduce the price of the house or the flat built on the site.
  We must accept the fact that high prices for land have come to stay. We need to reorientate our views on land values. In a debate some time ago I pointed out to hon. Members that the carpet in this Chamber cost more than the average building site. It was perhaps £8 per sq. yd. or even £10 per sq. yd. or £40,000 an acre.
  Mr. Bence: Who supplied it?
  Mr. Hocking: No doubt my hon. Friend the the Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) will tell us where the carpet came from. I remember that he made some pronouncement about his constituency when this new carpet was put down some time ago. We must get our values into proper perspective. If a carpet is worth £40,000 an acre, I am sure that building land, which is permanent and exists for all time, is worthy of a reasonable sum.
  In order to reduce some of the high prices being paid, instructions should be given to planning authorities to release more land all over the country, and to release it quickly. If that policy were carried out and sufficient land were made available immediately for the number of houses which are required in the country, the price of land would fall.
  Mr. A. Lewis: Builders would buy more.
  Mr. Hocking: There would be no point in buying more, because one would know the demand and the number of houses required over the next 20 years. It is possible to make that assessment. If land were made available in large quantities, the scarcity value would to a certain extent be removed.

  1337
  I hope that both parties will look at this problem of land to see whether it is possible to adopt a realistic policy. There is no advantage in creating leaseholds all over the country. There is no advantage in the taxation system suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns. Taxation in itself will not reduce the price. It will keep it up.
  All parties are agreed—with the exception of the Liberal Party, from which we have not heard this afternoon—that more than 400,000 houses must be built each year. I know from practical experience that houses and flats are not built with fine words. They are built by encouragement. I hope that in the next few weeks and months we shall hear words of encouragement from political parties seeking election—words of encouragement to the building industry. It is only by encouraging the building industry and fostering it that we shall solve the problem. If we do just that, instead of applying restrictions and decrying various sections of the industry, we shall solve the problem, and the people of the country will be happy.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: We heard some extraordinary remarks from the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking). Some of the things he said were astounding. For instance, he suggested that as there were many good landlords and a large minority of bad landlords, we should do nothing about it.
  Mr. Hocking Mr. Hocking indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bence: That was the implication of what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that the housing programme was being frustrated because the Opposition were always attacking the vicious landlords. Of course we are. We want some action to prevent the exploitation of the scarcity of accommodation which exists not only in our own but in every industrial society of Western civilisation. If we are to solve the problem of the scarcity of land and housing, we have to prevent any landlord from becoming vicious, whoever he may be. It is no use blaming the Opposition because these vicious landlords exist. Hon. Members opposite have been in power for 13 years, during which time they could have taken action to
  1338
  prevent Rachmanism and that sort of thing.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that the difference between the parties was that hon. Members opposite encouraged the landlords and we discouraged them. We ought to discourage landlords of that type, but in the 13 years that I have been a Member, we have never opposed proposals for encouraging institutions of all kinds to provide houses to let for the people.
  Mr. Hocking: I seem to remember that at the last General Election hon. Members opposite stood on the ticket of municipalising all privately-owned property. What is that but discouragement?
  Mr. Bence: I remember that a couple of years ago the Minister of Housing and Local Government was saying that where local authorities met vicious landlords of private property, they would have power to take over the property. That is municipalising. We said that 13 years ago and we said it again in 1955. It is now being said by hon. Members opposite in 1964. If the electors are foolish enough to return them again, I have no doubt that encouragement of the landlords will return, to the discouragement of the tenants.
  The hon. Gentleman also proposed that building societies should be given power to finance investment building. Building societies were established to accept the savings of ordinary people and to use them to enable the same sort of ordinary people to buy their own homes for owner-occupation. Building societies have limited funds. They do not have an inexhaustible credit and they are not creators of credit like the banks. They can lend only what they can borrow. Provided a man has a secure job and is earning more than £1,000 a year, the building societies will give him a mortgage.
  Sir E. Errington: The position is that the assets of the building societies total about £5,000 million. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is worth while their being able to advance money to people who are prepared to build accommodation for the ordinary man and woman who want it?
  Mr. Bence: That is what they are doing. They are lending money to people

  1339
  who are prepared to buy houses. The societies have no idle money and are lending to the limit of their capacity. If a percentage of the money they have is granted to building speculators to build houses to let, there will be less money in the pool to provide for owner-occupation. I believe in owner-occupation. It is a desirable feature which any Government should encourage.
  We on this side of the House have always said that, but along with it we have said that people who cannot afford to buy their own houses, people to whom no building society, bank or solicitor will grant a mortgage, are also entitled to be housed and that we must therefore balance our resources between those two functions. Surely that is what the State and the local authorities do. We try to find a balance between those who have a credit background and the security and the financial resources to finance their own housing and those people who cannot afford to buy their own.
  Sir E. Errington: I say that facilities should be made available to private individuals who are prepared to build houses to let. Mo help is given to them at present, largely because of the attitude of hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. Bence: Anyone who was in industry between 1945 and 1951 appreciates that, having come through a terrible war, with our factories still on the ground, we had as much as we could do to help the country recover from that devastation.
  We paid tribute today to one of our greatest Parliamentarians. I recall how in 1945 the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) said that the future would not be easy. We were faced with a battle, a hard one, he said. Between 1945 and 1951 that battle was fought, and when history comes to be written it will be said that the greatest tribute must be paid to the engineers and technologists throughout British industry for the changeover that was achieved from the production of goods for war to goods for peace, enabling us to lead Europe at that time.
  Mr. Hocking: The hon. Gentleman referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) saying in 1945 that a difficult time was
  1340
  ahead. I must judge the party opposite by what some of his hon. Friends said at the election of that time. When my right hon. Friend spoke about those things Aneurin Bevan was saying that his proposals were chickenfeed.
  Mr. Bence: I hope that in 1982 Parliamentarians will not be reminding hon. Members of what happened between 1959 and 1964. There is no more wasted effort than continually to refer to the past. We are dealing with a contemporary problem—that of housing our people. To solve it someone, a section of people in this country, must be prepared to submit to discipline.
  It must be remembered that our most precious asset is land and that we cannot rehouse our people while a free market in land is perpetuated. I am getting tired of hearing talk about people owing the land on which their houses stand. If the general public believe that, it is obvious that our system of disseminating news has something wrong with it. The vast bulk of property in Scotland is feu property, while in England and Wales the majority of property is leasehold.
  Mr. Hocking: No.
  Mr. Bence: I assure the hon. Gentleman that at least 40 per cent. of all domestic and commercial property in Britain stands on leasehold land. I understand that the figure for the Midlands is higher. Many houses built in Scotland in the 1930s carry a feu of £4 a year, but lots of houses now being built there, which are of the same size but often on smaller sites, have a feu of £30 a year. Ground rents have gone up and up. They are a splendid investment. We need only look at Stock Exchange reports of price movements to see that ground rents always make the biggest increase.
  The increased prices of land and other things that we have seen in the last 13 years are due to the Government's failure to halt inflation. Rising prices are due to a fall in the value of money. As a nation, we have failed to tackle the problem of full employment without inflation. The Government were returned in 1951 to solve that problem, but they have not been able to stop the hole in the purse. Increased prices of land, houses and every commodity are due

  1341
  to the present Government making the hole in the purse bigger.
  In many cases the hole in the purse has been made bigger by the owners of land and property. It is they who push the spiral of wages chasing rising prices; it is not the rising prices that chase increased wages. It is not true to talk, as hon. Members do, about increasing wages being chased by increasing prices. The monetary system commands the price structure—not the workpeople. And the large property owner is the worst element in this mad rush of fantastic increases in land values.
  For example, 170 acres of land at Bishop's Stortford changed hands at £42,000 and were later sold for residential purposes for £1·7 million. The firm of Ferranti is to return £4 million to the Ministry, which means that it has made £1·5 million. But for that £1·5 million we get the Bloodhound, while for the other sum of over £1 million we get nothing extra at all. Manufacturers create things, give us something and make a profit, but here we have people making fantastic profits and giving us nothing. They do not create the land—they just hold on to it until they have the ear of the right people and can get planning permission.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, South talked about a private building contractor providing houses to let. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that it is only in London and Birmingham, where there is terrific pressure and the income level is high, that the private building contractor can find a market for his houses. In Glasgow, it would be impossible for any speculative builder to house the thousands of people who need homes by the normal commercial practice of building houses and letting them. The Minister knows that, and so does the hon. Gentleman. The private building contractor may be able to help to some extent, but if the party opposite wants to encourage him, let them stop this racket of land speculation so that he can have a better chance to get land at a more modest price.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, South and his hon. Friends are not helping the Minister when they tolerate this racket in land prices. Time and again all over the country one has seen small builders being
  1342
  squeezed out by the big combines. I could bring details of cases to prove that the little man has not had a chance. The hon. Member said that in this country the dice are loaded against the landlords. I never heard such nonsense. They are not loaded against them in the Metropolitan area of London and in the Midlands. With the gradual decontrol of housing since 1957 the dice have been loaded against the homeless of London, Birmingham and Glasgow. This is a piece of impertinence on the part of the hon. Member. He should go to Glasgow or to the East End of London and tell the homeless, "You are doing all right. The dice are not loaded against you. They are loaded against the landlord."
  I have been getting tired of listening to hon. Members opposite these last six months speaking in defence of the Government of the last 13 years as if all the ills of the country from 1951 to 1964 were not the fault of the Administration or were the result of failure of policies but resulted from the failure of the Opposition, as if we on this side of the House were the Government. The hon. Member for Coventry, South suggested that we on this side were responsible for everything that is wrong with the country. We had not encouraged the landlords. We had not encouraged the cement manufacturers. I suppose that the hon. Member objects that we put down Questions and ask that these various institutions should be brought before the Monopolies Commission.
  People are sick and tired of a Government who whenever anything goes wrong can do nothing but blame the Opposition and who become nasty and vicious when the Opposition carry out their job which is to criticise the Establishment. We on this side of the House will not be the Opposition for more than three more days and I dare say that this will be the last speech that I shall make in Opposition. I shall be on the other side of the House in the next Parliament. It is nonsense and humbug on the part of hon. and right hon. Members opposite to blame the Opposition for the Government's failure to govern our society as they should have done and their failure to recognise the problems of modern times. The Government have had their heads in the nineteenth century although their bodies have been here.
  9.3 p.m.
  Sir Eric Errington: I want to make only three points. We do not blame the Opposition for their policies or lack of policies—we blame them for being unconstructive. They never produce anything which would help solve the problems the country is facing.
  It is important that the labour position in the jobbing industry should be watched carefully in relation to building work done under improvement grants. Large numbers of jobbing workers have transferred to construction work and there is a serious shortage of jobbing labour to carry out the purposes of the improvement grants which are important for preservation of existing houses. I understand that arrangements have been made for a separation in the statistics of those who are doing jobbing work and those who are doing constructive work. That is very useful.
  The debate today has been wide-ranging and has not really dealt with the main issue to the extent that it ought to have done, namely, the question of decontrol under the 1957 Act. I believe that both the Opposition and the Government should be realists about this. I do not believe that the Opposition are. I do not believe that in denigrating the 1957 Act they have considered the question of labour mobility. Labour mobility, as I understand it, though difficult to pin down to a particular figure, is somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 people during the year. If we had continued with the controlled houses there would have been no room, at any rate so far as private rented houses were concerned, for those people who had to move in order to get to the work that they wanted to do in other parts of the country. I think that it has not been realised how important this item is and has very much to do with the solution of the problems of industry as well as housing accommodation.
  The second matter that I want to speak on is the question of subsidised housing. I think that this debate was initiated by the party opposite because it thought that it would be rather satisfactory from its electoral point of view and it has stressed very much the importance of subsidised housing. I am sure that the question of subsidies is getting completely out of hand, and that
  1344
  it has to be dealt with and that when we get back it will be dealt with. But there are 3½ million council tenants receiving subsidies of £128 million a year and, in addition, there are 2½ million of rent-controlled owners of property who are also contributing a subsidy by reason of the fact that they are not able to charge a realistic rent for their accommodation. Those facts will dawn upon the public at no distant date. I do not think the other side of the House has realised there are more people who subsidise than those who are subsidised. Hon. Members opposite may find that out during the course of the next month or two.
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. James MacColl: I make only two comments on what the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Erring-ton) has said. The first is that if his argument is that we help the mobility of labour by creeping decontrol and that it will encourage people to leave controlled houses to move into areas where there is no hope of getting controlled houses, that is as fitting a comment on the 1957 Act as I should like to make.
  The other comment is this. There are two things which I am certain will not happen before the General Election. First, the right hon. Gentleman will not finish his review of subsidies if it means that he will face the electorate with suggested reductions in subsidies. The second is that the Milner Holland Committee will not report until the election is over. I have no doubt that that Report is potentially such a blow to the whole policy of the Government that has been deployed today that it could never be allowed to see the light of day until afterwards.
  Having made those rather controversial remarks, I should like to say that we and every decent person must welcome the information that we have had about improved housing output. It would be silly if, in the process of tightening up party controversies, one forgot the importance to everyone of getting improved housing output. Therefore, I am sure that everyone on this side of the House is glad to have heard the news that the Minister has given us, and we hope that his optimistic predictions will be confirmed by events. But he must forgive us if we view these

  1345
  things with a certain amount of caution and cynicism.
  The right hon. Gentleman complained that he had been misquoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) about his remark in March that housing was given an early priority under the Conservative Government and that it was then rather dropped into the background. But that is precisely what happened, and that is our complaint. We complained that the housing figures were pushed up to a very great extent—higher than anything that has been reached since, and not equalled in any year since—and then they were allowed to run down. Those houses were lost, in the sense that the resources of material and of building labour and the opportunities of getting the houses will never come back.
  One does not excuse that position by saying 14 years later, "Now we have at last solved the problem of keeping an increased housing target." That is the danger of all housing targets, that they become an electoral stunt. The right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if a few people are inclined to be suspicious about the present position.
  Next I want to ask about the shortages of building materials and the danger of having a slow-down in completions. We have had a certain amount of information about this. The right hon. Gentleman quoted some figures about housing under construction, but it does not follow that because the figures for housing under construction are high, we will get a bumper figure at the end. High figures of housing under construction often mean slow completions, and are indicative not of a good programme but of a programme which is choked in the pipeline and in danger of failing to produce the houses in time. That is something about which we should like more reassurance before we accept completely the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave.
  Next I want to emphasise that the housing figures put too great a strain on the land situation. The effect is that the demand for land will be intensified and quickened, and the slowly moving procedure of finding and releasing land will mean that we shall be faced with all the signs of enormous increases in
  1346
  the price of land, exploiting and milking the housing market.
  My final observation on the subject of the target, to underline what I have already said, is this. If we are to have an efficient housing output, we must guarantee for the future that the figures will be maintained. The great complaint of all housing authorities over the past 10 or 12 years has been about the hideous business of stop and start, the slow running down of the work of architects, surveyors and building foremen who built up teams for housing development but who had to cut down again because Government policy has been based on restriction in housing. If it happened—God forbid that it should—that the Conservatives came back to Government, triumphant at having achieved a target of 400,000 houses, and if the same thing happened as happened in 1956, that is, a slow whittling down of the figure, all the confidence of the building industry would be destroyed. All chance would be lost of having real development in building techniques, industrialised building and the rest, all the things which depend upon a large and assured demand for houses. Therefore, it is most important to be sure of being able to maintain the output. What is important is not a maximum figure, which, once they have achieved it, people can sit back breathless and look at. What really matters is the maintenance of a steady figure, come wind, come weather.
  This is what lies behind the difficulties regarding the rate of interest which we have been discussing. There was a little more controversy today between my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham and the Minister about what we meant by a differential rate of interest. Believe it or not, I once nearly became an economics don, but that was a very long time ago and I do not hold myself out now as a pundit in these matters. But what we say seems perfectly simple. We believe that one must have a low rate of interest for all types of housing building. If the general market rate is low, then the problem, to some extent, solves itself and one does not need to do anything in particular. If, on the other hand, the general rate of interest happens to be high, one must shelter housing from the effects of that high rate

  1347
  of interest because, otherwise, one cannot have the smooth flow of housing which is a vital national interest. It is a judgment of priorities. Making a judgment of social priorities, one has to determine to keep housing going smoothly because that is the only way to secure one's object.
  Now, slum clearance. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he thought that he was in sight of solving the slum-clearance problem.
  Sir K. Joseph Sir K. Joseph indicated dissent.
  Mr. MacColl: The right hon. Gentleman now says "No". I was being charitable to him. I thought that, with the exception of about three towns—and he thought that the programme in these could be speeded up—he could see his way ahead. The right hon. Gentleman has at least been consistent today. The last time I heard him speak on this subject, he grew more enthusiastic as he went along. I am referring to his speech last March when he started by saying that
  "all but 12 will have cleared their slums by 1973".
  A column later, he is reported as saying:
  "… all slums now known as slums … will be virtually cleared by 1973".
  Then on the next page, he is reported as saying:
  "… by 1973 … there will be virtually no more slums".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18tth March, 1964; Vol. 691, c. 1419–28.]
  The right hon. Gentleman made those three different statements as he got warmed up. He now appears as the great man who is driving forward in sweeping away the slums which have shackled our life for so long. This is to be the great election slogan which will win the election for the Government—the great sweeping away of slums by 1973.
  The only difficulty about this is that the Conservative Party has already contested two elections on precisely the same slogan. The right hon. Gentleman got angry about things which were said to be in a manifesto which were not in fact there. I took the trouble to look up, not in the manifesto but in a Conservative document, a speech in January, 1955, by the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. He said:
  1348
  "We think there may be about a million houses"—
  that is, slums.
  "If these figures prove correct I suggest that we should aim at breaking the back of the problem in most areas within 10 years"—
  that is now—10 years since the date of the 1955 election. Today the Minister said that there were still two-thirds of a million slums. It is, therefore, a little hard to see how this somewhat complicated vertebra of the back of the slum clearance problem has been broken.
  Sir K. Joseph: The fact is, as I also said today, that over ½ million of the 1 million slums referred to by my right hon. Friend in 1955 have been demolished. We have now discovered a further 200,000 or so houses which need to be demolished. But the back has been broken of my right hon. Friend's then target.
  Mr. MacColl: It must be a curious animal if its back is broken when only half of these houses have been demolished. But that is so like the right hon. Gentleman. He transfixes the nation by speaking of this wonderful thing that he has discovered—that there are more slums that there were in the returns upon which the Conservative Party based its programme. He speaks as if this was something which only the very wise and most foresighted and prudent statesman can see. But the Government were told about it at the time.
  When the Housing Repairs and Rents Act was being discussed, one of the major arguments which we on this side used was that Section 1, which dealt with the survey, would be impracticable simply because one could not suddenly launch people on what was admitted to be a whistle-stop survey, going from house to house and making a quick assessment of the slums. It is true that there are far more slums than the slum clearance programme has been based upon. It is true that, so far from having made a tremendous advance in slum clearance, we are desperately attempting to keep up. Far from having completed the programme in 10 years, we are now back where we started, and we must face another 10 years of slum clearance.
  Last night in the train I was looking through the agenda of the Widnes council, which is meeting tonight. This was

  1349
  not something which I obtained by a telephone call to the town hall. The slum clearance position in Widnes caught my eye. In the 1955 return, the local authority in Widnes said that there were 906 slums to be cleared. Widnes is a town of 50,000 people in the industrial North. It is not the middle of Liverpool and it has not the difficult and intractable problems of the great conurbations. It is an old industrial town.
  Since the end of 1955, it has cleared 760 slums, which represents a very substantial inroad into the original assessment of 906. The local authority has not been slack in this matter, but it now finds that it has 1,313 slums waiting to be cleared, more than it originally returned in the survey which it had to make so cursorily in 1955. I quote that merely because it happens to be a fortuitous piece of information which came to my notice from my constituency. I am s are that the position in Widnes is the same as in an enormous number of other areas.
  I want to make some comments about land, because the Minister was very truculent in demanding pledges and details about this. The one fly which the right hon. Gentleman never once rose to was what happened to his own policy, put forward in November, 1963, for the acquisition of land by a new public authority in advance of requirements. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will help us out on this. I hope that he will spend a little less time wanting details from us and will answer that simple question, because this is not a debating point.
  The right hon. Gentleman is far too shrewd a Minister not to realise that he is absolutely naked in the face of increases in land prices. I agreed with almost everything in the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), except his plural of metropolis, which, I understand, is metropoleis and not metropoli. I agree with most of what the hon. Member said about the extending public demand for land and the developing of the public services, including education, roads, and so on, not only in housing but in ancillary matters. All these things will increase the demand for land.
  The hon. Member referred particularly to regional sub-development centres, an
  1350
  important new field of Government activity. I happened to find a cutting from The Times of 18th January this year. This is an interesting illustration of how the land racket works. Again, this is not the Labour Party. It is The Times correspondent from York, who stated:
  "Confidential negotiations have been going on between the Ministry of Housing and four local authorities to release huge areas of green belt land around York which could house 60,000 people and put a profit of around £10 million or more into the pocket of local landowners."
  That is what happens. This is not a scheme It was merely the slightest rumour or suspicion of a thought that there would be development in an area, and one which at that time was losing population. This is immediately seen in terms of millions for landowners. These enormous potential increases in the price of land apply not only in major development schemes but in the kind of things of which we have been speaking, such as the increase in housing output to which I have already referred.
  I should like to quote again from the Roskill Report, which was blessed by the hon. Member for the City of Chester. At page 15 it states:
  "The rise in the price of new houses is therefore likely to be due more to the rising price of land than to the cost of building new houses."
  In other words, we can spend all the time we like improving our methods of building, improving building output and productivity per worker, developing new techniques and industrialised building, but in the end the net result is that the price of land mops it all up because the Government have failed to give themselves the machinery with which to control it.
  That is what happened when the Government dismantled the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, without any idea what they were doing. As to asking us for details about our programme, what details did the people have about the programme of the new Conservative Government when they dismantled the 1947 Act? They had none, because the Government did not know themselves. They worked it out by degrees over the years with improvisation from Act to Act as they went along. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows this, because he

  1351
  played a rather discreditable part in a political sense in the process, [Interruption.] The result is that those provisions were dismantled and nothing has been put in their place.
  That is why we have made our proposals about the Land Commission, not out of gratuitous interference with the freedom of the small property owner but because unless the Government are prepared to grasp the difficulties of the land problem, and to grasp them firmly and decisively, all along they will have this round their neck and all the time that they are trying to do the work of development they will be up against the grip of monopoly exploiting every move they make. Unless we are prepared to tackle that and risk distortion and misunderstanding among the electorate, we are deceiving people because we are going in without the essential weapon of control. Unless we are prepared to do that, we might as well give up.
  I end by making some comments about something which I think has been implicit in the debate. It has come out in the discussions about the market price of land, about rent decontrol, and so on, and that is the basic assumption behind the Government's policy that these things can be done if we ration by price. In other words, we do not need controls and we do not need artificial interference with rent or land prices, because if we leave these things to the market price supply will equal demand.
  As the Minister said, every one of the houses has been "snapped up", to use his words, no matter how expensive they were. Who snapped them up? Were they snapped up by people with three or four children? That is the question implicit in the whole problem of shortage that we have today, particularly in London.
  I should like to give three illustrations. The first is not a question of housing but of education but it concerns land price. I was governor of St. Marylebone Grammar School for many years. It is housed in an old overcrowded building which is in a state of obsolescence. There was an empty site next door into which that school could have expanded. On that site today there is a brand new block of offices belonging to Woolworth's. I am not criticising Woolworth's because
  1352
  the block was built before they got it. The point is that it is clear that the education authority could not be expected to spend money on acquiring that site to expand the school when it had to compete with this commercial development, which the Minister now admits was allowed to get out of hand and went too far.
  That is a symbol of the scale of values. Which is the most important? Which is the thing to put in the main street—an ancient school which for many years has educated the people of London or a brand new office block for people who can afford to pay the market price of land? That is rationing by price.
  Further along Edgware Road there is Burwood Place in the constituency of the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan). This is a fine piece of development. Posters advertise it as office development, housing development and shopping development. This used to be an area of rather shoddy and cheap houses, but now they have been cleared. That is the good side of the picture. The bad side of it is who is going to occupy these flats and offices? I imagine that the rent for a flat in a place like that is a good deal more than the salary that we earn in this place. There is no prospect of people living in desperately overcrowded conditions in London being able to take advantage of that development.
  The third example—and I have kept the Minister in touch with the various stages of this development—concerns one room in 42, Sutherland Avenue in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), which is occupied by a man and his wife and three small children under school age. A management order has been made under the 1961 Act in respect of that accommodation, one condition of which is that adequate heating, lighting and water facilities must be provided for the tenants.
  From 2nd June until 11th June when they capitulated, that little family was the victim of warfare. They had one water closet on the ground floor—not their own—and they had no electricity or gas to heat or cook anything. That situation occurred in spite of attempts to apply a management order. This is no

  1353
  doubt what the right hon. Gentleman the other day called
  "a prospering and increasingly sophisticated community…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1964; Vol. 691, c. 1416.]
  in the modern world.
  This is not the Home Secretary's adventures in Soho; it is the fact that in this year of 1964, within little more than three miles of this place, that kind of armed warfare is going on. Apart from rent control and anything else, the Government would not agree even to saying, "There will be no evictions without a court order", a basic principle of decent society. When my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North introduced a Bill to deal with the situation hon. Members opposite turned it down. They are responsible for the monstrous horror that is going on.
  9.35 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I shall not start with any apology for having played a part in destroying a system which produced Pilgrim, and which produced over and over again compulsory purchases at figures below what people legitimately gave for land, and without the destruction of which we could never have hoped for 3¾ million houses since the war, let alone upwards of 400,000 houses today.
  We have had a wide-ranging debate and it was perhaps not entirely unexpected that the Opposition, who selected the subject, should have touched upon all three of their main planks of criticism—it would be a euphemism to call it their policy—with which they attack the present Government. They have talked about their Land Commission in relation to land prices. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), and a modified version was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley). If the Land Commission has not been specifically referred to by every speaker, land prices have been.
  We have also heard a great deal about the Rent Act, and I shall hope to say something about that later on. It was the main theme of the speech by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harrington (Mr. Skeffington) and the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis).
  1354
  My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) covered almost as many points as the rest of the speeches put together. It was a useful contribution. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not pronounce on his version of the plural of great cities—the term that I prefer—or deal with such matters as the National House-Builders Registration Council, except to say that my right hon. Friend, of course, confirms that he is still most anxious that this voluntary scheme will extend to cover a greater number of houses in the country, but that if it does not he is still watching the position and will not flinch from making it a compulsory scheme.
  My hon. Friend also referred to town and country planning techniques, which are relevant to something which the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said, namely, that quite apart from the price of land the range of subjects to be covered by these techniques becomes more important as the housing programme increases. I agree, but the House will appreciate that the balance between giving a degree of certainty for the future for all the people concerned, on the one hand, and providing the flexibility that is required quickly to meet the planning needs of the community, on the other, is not always easy to find. But we are taking the matter very seriously and will have proposals by which we hope things will be considerably speeded up.
  My hon. Friend went on to refer to the need to preserve agricultural land. He talked about the part that villages could play in absorbing the extra population, and he was rather unkindly called to task by the hon. Member for West Ham, North when talking about the use of more timber houses, which the hon. Member for West Ham, North rather unkindly referred to as huts. Timber has a great part to play, although the position regarding byelaws is difficult. In a short speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) raised three points, and I think it only right to say that the matters will be considered. If I went into them in detail tonight it would be unfair to other hon. Members.
  I wish to take up the specific constituency matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman), to which he devoted the whole of his speech. I wish to make quite clear

  1355
  that negotiations between Rovers and Mrs. Clarke and Mr. Raven had been going on for some time before the transaction was concluded in the autumn of 1962. I understand that negotiations were started as far back as 1957. The planning appeal which came to my right hon. Friend was heard in November 1962, which certainly means that Rovers must have applied for planning permission and been refused by the local planning authority some time considerably earlier and before the conclusion of the transaction in the autumn of that year.
  The decision of my right hon. Friend to allow the appeal in respect of the adjoining land was given in June 1963, about nine months after the transaction between Rovers, on the one hand, and Mrs. Clarke and Mr. Raven, on the other, was completed. It is, I think, fair to point out that the price paid for this land by Rovers—£2,000 for three-and-a-half acres— works out at about £570 an acre, and is substantially more than the agricultural value which I have seen estimated, in the only estimate which I have seen of the agricultural value for that area, at £80 an acre. However that may be, one must assume that the vendors had at least something to put them on guard that the land might have considerably more value.
  Regarding the decision of my right hon. Friend, the inspector found that the site could be suitably used for housing; that such land was needed in Solihull, and there was insufficient outstanding land selected on the town map. As a revised town map was to be submitted he thought that to permit immediate development would be premature. My right hon. Friend, however, took into account the facts of shortage and that Solihull was about to become a county borough and would be submitting another town map. He decided there was no reason why permision should not be given there and then.
  It is not for me to criticise in this House the behaviour of Rovers. I do not know enough about it to do so. It must be appreciated that the value of this land was almost certainly very much greater as part and parcel of the bigger piece than it would have been as a single entity. That has to be borne in mind—
  Mr. J. Silverman rose—
  Mr. Corfield:—as has also to be borne in mind that this value was largely controlled by the fact that it became an access to this development—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."]—if the hon. Member for Aston will allow me to finish, I will give way—due to the fact that the developers had to provide a bridge which the council estimated would cost about £40,000 in order to make a suitable access.
  Mr. Silverman: While it may be that the value of the small parcel of land—four acres—was enhanced by being part of the whole, surely the value of the rest of the land was enhanced by this plot because of access and planning.
  Mr. Corfield: Of course, this works both ways, but it is just as valid one way as the other. All I am endeavouring to do is to show that my right hon. Friend was concerned with the planning merits of the case, and the valuation does not come into it at all. I was explaining to the hon. Member, as I thought he would wish, what the planning situation was and one of the reasons which might well account for the very substantial rise in the value of the land.
  Mrs. Slater: Sheer humbug.
  Mr. Corfield: The hon. Lady says "humbug", but whether she thinks that or not after all her time in the House, with a planning appeal one cannot work out exactly what will happen as to price when one is concerned only with the suitability of land for development. It is an impossible task and one which hon. Members opposite never thought of undertaking in the 1947 Act and, so far as I am aware, have never proposed to do so since.
  Mr. J. Silverman: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the Rover Company had some obligation to these people at whose expense the company has made a profit of £62,000?
  Mr. Corfield: I do not think it is for me to comment on a matter of that sort. Quite apart from anything else, I do not know the full details or the information which was before either Rovers or the vendors at the time of the

  1357
  sale. I am certainly not going to misuse Parliamentary privilege to condemn a firm without studying the details. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have an inquiry."] The hon. Member for Widnes—
  Mr. J. Silverman rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Silverman: There is a final point about which I wish to ask the Minister. He might not have all the facts, but I asked in a Question and in my speech for an inquiry. Does the Minister accept the necessity for an inquiry?
  Mr. Corfield: No, I do not think there is a need for an inquiry into the planning merits of the case. If there were any misrepresentation in the negotiations that is a legal matter between the parties and not something in which a Government Department should intervene.
  I was trying to turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Widnes and I wished to run briefly through some of the points he made. He said that after the target of 300,000 houses was reached there was a certain levelling off, indeed a slight running down. But this was because it was necessary, and I believe right, to deploy a proportion of the building construction industry on other things such as schools, roads and hospitals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Offices."] Hon. Members say "offices" but so far as I recollect support for the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill did not come only from this side of the House. It is time that hon. Members opposite realised that in nearly all the advanced engineering firms today a bigger and bigger proportion of the work is done in the office than on the floor of the factory. If we are to compete in the world, offices are as important to us as factories.
  The hon. Member, among others, talked about the Land Commission. He expressed the hope that I should not ask too many questions about the Labour Party's proposals. I shall probably disappoint him, because it seems to me that there is no merit whatever in a proposal to change for the sake of change, and that it is right that we should examine whether the proposed change will do what it is claimed it will do and whether it will improve the situation. The proposal is the most
  1358
  radical alteration in the property law of this country since the abolition of the feudal system. It has certain characteristics in common with the feudal system. It is at least right that we should look at it with a degree of care.
  At the beginning of the debate my right hon. Friend once again presented the House with a masterly account of the remarkable progress which has been achieved in housing in 13 years of Conservative Government, and I was glad that the hon. Member for Widnes admitted that it would be silly to ignore the improved productivity in house building and, I think he said, the increase in the number of houses being built. Unless it can be shown that either private developers or local authorities are not building to meet a demand, then the most important factor in matching supply with demand and in closing the gap between households and houses is the number of houses which have been built.
  Under Conservative Governments this has been increasing rapidly and has reached a peak in a space of time which the Opposition thought impossible, impracticable and, indeed, fraudulent. Their own statements make it clear that by delaying the achievement of a target of 300,000 houses a year they could not have matched the number which we have reached today.
  Their criticisms today, as on other occasions, would not build one extra house. They have been anxious to portray to the country the idea that there are vast savings in prices around the corner provided that the country is foolish enough to return them as a Government in the autumn.
  They have three main proposals—a Land Commission, the reimposition of rent control and special interest rates. I am still as muddled as I have ever been about the views of the hon. Member for Fulham, on the one hand, and those of the Leader of the Opposition, on the other hand. Reading the right hon. Gentleman's letter to the chairman of the Council of the Building Societies Association, it seems that the last sentence is a categorical statement that there will be no special interest rate for housing. It reads:
  "As you will see, however, we are not, as your questions assume, proposing to introduce

  1359
  through the public sector some special or discriminatory form of subsidised loans for house purchase."
  If the earlier part of the letter is not quite as categorical, the implication is strongly that local authorities will have to rely for their finance for housing, as for everything else, on the Public Works Loan Board at a rate of interest reflecting the Government's power to borrow. The hon. Member for Fulham puts a gloss on that when he says—and I think he will agree that I am fairly paraphrasing what he said the other day—that the objective of the party opposite will be to lower interest rates generally and, if that is not sufficient, to give a special interest rate to local authorities for housing.
  If local authorities—the implication is that they will—pass on that favourable rate to help the private householder, then provision is to be made to balance that through the building societies so that the building societies will not be injured. But the clear implication is that in these circumstances there would be, either directly or indirectly, a special favourable rate for house purchasers in the private sector, and I still do not see how that can possibly tie up with what the right hon. Gentleman said in his letter to the Building Societies Association.
  I do not have much time in which to pose the important questions on the Land Commission but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fulham for at least giving me the chance to read his article in The Times yesterday instead of having to make notes today. I am bound to say that I am not very much further forward, because the vital details and the vital questions remain unanswered. All of us who have given some study to the problem of betterment know that nearly all the cases in the past and all the methods which have been considered over a number of years break down on matters of detail, not the least important of which is the formula by which to
  assess the price to be paid to the vendor and the terms given to the purchaser.
  These are the matters on which hon. Members opposite remain noticeably silent and they are as vital to this as they were to the development charge system. Whatever the hon. Member for Widnes may say about the development charge, I notice that hon. Members opposite have never for a moment proposed to reinstate it. Hon. Members opposite ask what we would do: we would not do anything until we were certain that it would improve the situation.
  The crux of the housing problem remains to match supply to demand by building more houses more quickly and, in the meanwhile, making the best use of the stock we have. On all these fronts the Government and my right hon. Friend, in particular, have made and are making unprecedented progress. The Opposition have put forward not one constructive idea to build one extra house.
  In asking the House to reject the Motion, I ask hon. Members to recall that it is moved by a party which so underestimated the problem that its spokesmen of the day was pledging that he would solve the problem by 1950 and which was so lacking in confidence that it did not think that it was possible to produce more than 200,000 houses a year for a number of years and which regarded that as the right priority in 1957. It is a party which, wittingly or unwittingly, is misleading the country into believing that there are great savings in price to be made by adopting its proposals.
  In rejecting the Motion tonight, I am certain that we shall be anticipating the country in throwing out the party opposite.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 283.

  Division No. 144.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Blyton, William

  Albu, Austen

  Beaney, Alan

  Boardman, H.

  Alldritt, W. H.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Boston, T. G.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Bence, Cyril

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

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

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Bowles, Frank

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Benson, Sir George

  Boyden, James

  Barnett, Guy

  Blackburn, F.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Bradley, Tom

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Probert, Arthur

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Pursey, Cmdr, Harry

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Randall, Harry

  Callaghan, James

  Jeger, George

  Rankin, John

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Redhead, E. C

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rhodes, H.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cronin, John

  Kelley, Richard

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  King, Dr. Horace

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lawson, George

  Ross, William

  Darling, George

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda. E.)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Silkin, John

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Deer, George

  Lipton, Marcus

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Loughlin, Charles

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Dempsey, James

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Small, William

  Diamond, John

  McBride, N.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Dodds, Norman

  McCann, J.

  Snow, Julian

  Doig, Peter

  MacColl, James

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Donnelly, Desmond

  MacDermot, Niall

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Driberg, Tom

  McInnes, James

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Steele, Thomas

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Stonehouse, John

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Stones, William

  Evans, Albert

  MacPherson, Malcolm

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

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mahon, Simon

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

  Finch, Harold

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Swain, Thomas

  Fletcher, Eric

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

  Swingler, Stephen

  Foley, Maurice

  Manuel, Archie

  Symonds, J. B.

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mapp, Charles

  Taverne, D.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Marsh, Richard

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Forman, J. C.

  Mason, Roy

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mellish, R. J.

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)

  Mendelson, J. J.

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

  Ginsburg, David

  Millan, Bruce

  Thornton, Ernest

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Milne, Edward

  Tomney, Frank

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Grey, Charles

  Monslow, Walter

  Warbey, William

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Moody, A. S.

  Watkins, Tudor

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Weitzman, David

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Moyle, Arthur

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Whitlock, William

  Hannan, William

  Neal, Harold

  Wigg, George

  Harper, Joseph

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Willey, Frederick

  Healey, Denis

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Owen, Will

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

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Padley, W. E.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Paget, R. T.

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Holman, Percy

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Woof, Robert

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Parker, John

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Howie, W.

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Zilliacus, K.

  Hoy, James H.

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Peart, Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Pentland, Norman

  Mr. Short and

  Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Braine, Bernard

  Allason, James

  Bidgood, John C.

  Brewis, John

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Biffen, John

  Bromley -Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter

  Anderson, D. C.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Arbuthnot, Sir John

  Bingham, R. M.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Bishop, Sir Patrick

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Bryan, Paul

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Buck, Antony

  Barlow, Sir John

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Bullard, Denys

  Barter, John

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Batsford, Brian

  Box, Donald

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Campbell, Gordon

  1362

  1363

  Carr, Compton (Baron's Court)

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Pounder, Rafton

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Chataway, Christopher

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, North)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Jennings, J. C.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Pym, Francis

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Cole, Norman

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James

  Cooke, Robert

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

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

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Costain, A. P.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Coulson, Michael

  Kitson, Timothy

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Lambton, Viscount

  Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

  Critchley, Julian

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Curran, Charles

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dance, James

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Sharples, Richard

  Donaldson, Cmndr. C. E. M.

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Shaw, M,

  Doughty, Charles

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

  Shepherd, William

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Eden, Sir John

  Longbottom, Charles

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

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

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

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Spearman. Sir Alexander

  Emery, Peter

  Lubbock Eric

  Speir, Rupert

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Stainton, Keith

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Farr, John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stodart, J. A.

  Fisher, Nigel

  McLaren, Martin

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Foster, Sir John

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

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  MacLeod, Sir John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Gammans, Lady

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Gardner, Edward

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maddan, Martin

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

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  Maginnis, John E.

  Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Teeling, Sir William

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Temple, John M.

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Goodhart, Philip

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marshall, Sir Douglas

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Gough, Frederick

  Marten, Neil

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Cower, Raymond

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Green, Alan

  Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Mawby, Ray

  Turner, Colin

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

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

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Grosvenor, Lord Robert

  Mills, Stratton

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Gurden, Harold

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wade, Donald

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Walder, David

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Walker, Peter

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Wall, Patrick

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Neave, Airey

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hastings, Stephen

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Henderson, Sir John (Cathcart)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wise, A. R.

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

  Partridge, E.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Holland, Philip

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Woollam, John

  Hollingworth, John

  Peel, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Holt, Arthur

  Percival, Ian

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Hopkins, Alan

  Peyton, John

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Mr. Finlay and Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Pitman, Sir James

  Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—
  The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 226.

  Division No. 145.]

  AYES

  [10.12 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peteer

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  MacLeod, Sir John (Ross&Cromarty)

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Gammans, Lady

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Allason, James

  Gardner, Edward

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maddan, Martin

  Anderson, D. C.

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  Maginnis, John E.

  Arbuthnot, Sir John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Barlow, Sir John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marshall, Sir Douglas

  Barter, John

  Gough, Frederick

  Marten, Neil

  Batsford, Brian

  Cower, Raymond

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Green, Alan

  Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Mawby, Ray

  Bidgood, John C.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Biffen, John

  Grosvenor, Lord Robert

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

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Mills, Stratton

  Bingham, R. M.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Bishop, Sir Patrick

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Box, Donald

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Hastings, Stephen

  Neave, Airey

  Braine, Bernard

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Brewis, John

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col, Sir Walter

  Henderson, Sir John (Cathcart)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hendry, Forbes

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bryan, Paul

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

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Buck, Antony

  Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Bullard, Denys

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

  Percival, Ian

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Holland, Philip

  Peyton, John

  Campbell, Gordon

  Hollingworth, John

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Carr Compton (Baron's Court)

  Hopkins, Alan

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pitman, Sir James

  Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Pounder, Rafton

  Chataway, Christopher

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, North)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Cole, Norman

  Jennings, J. C.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James

  Cooke, Robert

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

  Cooper, A. E.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

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

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Costain, A. P.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Coulson, Michael

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

  Critchley, Julian

  Kimball, Marcus

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Curran, Charles

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dance, James

  Leavey, J. A.

  Sandys, Ht. Hon. Duncan

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Donaldson, Cmndr. C. E. M.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sharples, Richard

  Doughty, Charles

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Shaw, M.

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Shepherd, William

  Eden, Sir John

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

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

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

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Emery, Peter

  Longbottom, Charles

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Longden, Gilbert

  Speir, Rupert

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Stainton, Keith

  Farey-Jones F. W.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Farr, John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Stodart, J. A.

  Fisher, Nigel

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McLaren, Martin

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Foster, Sir John

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &N.Ayrs)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Tapsell, Peter

  Turner, Colin

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Wise, A. R.

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

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Teeling, Sir William

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher

  Temple, John M.

  Walder, David

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Walker, Peter

  Woollam, John

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Worsley, Marcus

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Wall, Patrick

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

  Mr. Pym and Mr. Peel.

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Albu, Austen

  Grey, Charles

  Millan, Bruce

  Alldritt, W. H.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Milne, Edward

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Monslow, Walter

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Barnett, Guy

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Hannan, William

  Mulley, Frederick

  Beaney, Alan

  Harper, Joseph

  Neal, Harold

  Bence, Cyril

  Hayman, F. H.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

  Healey, Denis

  Oliver, G. H.

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Benson, Sir George

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Oswald, Thomas

  Blackburn, F.

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Owen, Will

  Blyton, William

  Hilton, A. V.

  Padley, W. E.

  Boardman, H.

  Holman, Percy

  Paget, R. T.

  Boston, T. G.

  Holt, Arthur

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pargiter, G. A.

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

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Parker, John

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Bowles, Frank

  Howie, W.

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Boyden, James

  Hoy, James H.

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Peart, Frederick

  Bradley, Tom

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Pentland, Norman

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Probert, Arthur

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Callaghan, James

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Randall, Harry

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jeger, George

  Rankin, John

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rhodes, H.

  Cronin, John

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Kelley, Richard

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  King, Dr. Horace

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Darling, George

  Lawson, George

  Ross, William

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda. E.)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Silkin, John

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Deer, George

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lipton, Marcus

  Small, William

  Dempsey, James

  Loughlin, Charles

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Diamond, John

  Lubbock, Eric

  Snow, Julian

  Dodds, Norman

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Doig, Peter

  McBride, N.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Donnelly, Desmond

  McCann, J.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Driberg, Tom

  MacColl, James

  Steele, Thomas

  Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Edelman, Maurice

  McInnes, James

  Stonehouse, John

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Stones, William

  Evans, Albert

  Mackenzie, Gregor

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

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

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

  Finch, Harold

  McLeavy, Frank

  Swain, Thomas

  Fletcher, Eric

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Swingler, Stephen

  Foley, Maurice

  Mahon, Simon

  Symonds, J. B.

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Taverne, D.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

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

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Forman, J. C.

  Manuel, Archie

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mapp, Charles

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Marsh, Richard

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)

  Mason, Roy

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

  Ginsburg, David

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Thornton, Ernest

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  1368

  1369

  Tomney, Frank

  Whitlock, William

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Wade, Donald

  Wigg, George

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Woof, Robert

  Warbey, William

  Willey, Frederick

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Watkins, Tudor

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Weitzman, David

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Short and Mr. G. H. R. Rogres.

  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House deplores the hardship to all those affected by a housing shortage, caused by such factors as the growth in household formation, which can only be cured by building more houses; recognises that the Rent Act 1957, by encouraging the proper maintenance of privately rented houses and their retention in the pool for letting, has helped substantially to improve the overall housing position; welcomes the accelerating pace of slum clearance where it is most needed and the programme of house building now running at near the annual target of 400,000 houses; endorses the Government's policy of increasing the supply of houses and land for needs for all kinds as the best way of restraining the levels of prices and rents; notes that the Labour Party's proposals provide for no larger housing programme and imply a cut in building for would-be owner-occupiers; and believes that, against this background, ambiguous promises of lower interest rates would add not a single house and however implemented could do nothing but raise the price of houses more sharply.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORDERS (COUNTY ELECTIONS)
  10.23 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir K. Joseph): I beg to move,
  That the Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely (Amendment) Order, 1964, dated 16th July, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.
  I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it might be for the convenience of the House to take at the same time the second Order—
  That the Huntingdon and Peterborough (Amendment) Order, 1964, dated 16th July, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.
  Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House so pleases.
  Sir K. Joseph: The purpose of these two Orders is, at the request of the four counties concerned, to give them a slightly wider scope in the period during which they may have their new county elections. Hon. Members will recall that, by a recent decision of the House, the counties of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely and of Huntingdon and the Soke of Peterborough, respectively, are to be amalgamated as from April next year, into two new counties. The original Orders gave them power to have their elections for the new counties between 27th September and 22nd November, this year.
  At the request of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely, I was asked to consider whether they might be given a wider period during which to have their elections. I put the proposal to the other counties and they concurred.
  The Orders therefore carry out the wishes of the four counties. They enable the returning officers for the two new counties to choose election dates which give them the maximum opportunity to organise their affairs as they wish before the Orders creating the two new counties come into effect. I hope that the House will see fit to pass both Orders.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Huntingdon and Peterborough (Amendment) Order, 1964, dated 16th July, 1964 [copy laid before the House, 16th July],approved.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

  AGRICULTURE (LIME SCHEME)
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Agricultural Lime Scheme 1964 (SI, 1964, No. 903), dated 19th June, 1964, a copy of which was laid before the House on 25th June, be annulled.
  The value of lime to agricultural production in this country is enormous. On acid soils it is estimated that it can amount to as much as £20 per acre loss of production if the soil is not properly limed. The use of agricultural lime has increased from about 1,300,000 tons in 1937 to about 6 million tons today. This is largely as a result of a scheme previous to the one we are discussing, and it shows at once the great benefit of the scheme.
  The Scheme which we are discussing is a new scheme based on a flat contribution which will result, quite rightly, in very intensive competition within the trade, but which will also have its effect on the farmer. It may result in some areas, where only the better grades are available, in the farmer not obtaining the 65 per cent. subsidy envisaged and in areas where coarser materials are available it will be possible to obtain up to a 75 per cent. subsidy.
  I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for his views on this point as all the evidence points to the desirability of using high grade material with a high neutralising value as is laid down in the booklet published by his Ministry called "The Use of Lime in Agriculture". On page 30 it says:
  "The point is that a low grade, bulky product may appear cheap on first cost, but what really matters to the buyer is the Neutralising Value of the material and its whole cost on the land. With bulky material, the advantage of a low price per ton can soon be lost in low Neutralising Value and the extra cost of transport and labour in spreading the larger quantity needed".
  I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us some indication of how his officers think that this new Scheme will work in that respect.
  There have been some very unpleasant major swindles in the lime industry in
  1372
  the last few years, including in South Wales, Cornwall and Yorkshire. Another case in Norfolk is at present under appeal. These are the swindles about which we know. There may well have been others about which we do not know. This is possibly a good deal more important than any other aspect of the scheme.
  There are many ways in which a swindle can be perpetrated. Swindles generally involve a lot of people, but one of the ways in which they happen is by fanners signing for lime which they have never received. Lorry loads of lime may be weighed over the weighbridge as they go out of the lime pit but not be emptied properly. Thus, the lime is weighed again on the return trip. There are many other variations.
  Swindles of this sort have worried the lime industry as much as they have worried hon. Members. In my view, they can be put right only in two ways. The first is by strengthening the Agricultural Lime Department officials and making certain that they are on the job and doing the job, and the second is by having a careful check of all the partners in the lime industry and building mutual confidence and responsibility within the trade. What steps are we taking in this new Scheme to do that?
  Building confidence and integrity in the industry is very much in the industry's mind and it has approached many of my hon. Friends, and, I think, hon. Members opposite, with a view to setting up an advisory committee which would be in a position to consult the Minister when things looked like going wrong. There is a strong feeling in the industry that communications between it and the Agricultural Lime Department have not been so close or so beneficial as they need to be, and much of the abuse of the old scheme and many of the difficulties of the new could best be examined and sorted out by this committee. The industry would like this to be a statutory advisory committee, and it has pressed hard for this.
  I put a Question to my right hon. Friend asking whether he would consider setting up a committee in response to the industry's request. In a Written

  1373
  Answer on 24th June, he told me that he did not consider it necessary to establish a formal committee, but was prepared to have joint meetings between representatives of the industry and the Department from time to time to discuss problems arising from the administration of the scheme.
  The industry considers that that promise does not go far enough. Considering the troubles it has had in the past, it has good grounds for something rather more permanent. After all, if the purpose of a committee is merely to consult the Ministry's officials from time to time and there is no laid down formula for those consultations, I do not see how the committee will perform a useful function.
  If the committee is to work effectively, it must have fairly clearly defined objectives, and these would have to be accepted by the Minister. It should meet regularly, and its agendas should be properly worked out and it should have an efficient secretary to see that everything is minuted. The secretary should hand the agenda and the minutes to the various trade associations about eight weeks in advance of the meetings so that relevant issues can be raised. I would have thought that this committee might meet at least twice a year to start with and possibly once a year after the scheme is seen to be working properly.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will be prepared to go a little further tonight than his right hon. Friend has so far indicated. This is an important industry and £9 million a year are being spent in subsidies. If the trade feels that this is the best way in which its own house can be put in order and to help the Ministry officials to do their job, we should give our help and encouragement. I ask my hon. Friend to be as forthcoming as he can and, if he is unable to give me an affirmative reply tonight about the setting up of this committee, that he will be prepared to consider it again with his right hon. Friend and to get in touch with the industry so that it feels that it is brought into the consultations right from the start so that this new excellent scheme which has been devised can get off on the right foot.
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. John Brewis: I want to object to this Scheme on behalf of the farmers on the Wigtownshire side of my area, which, as hon. Members know, is a somewhat distant part of Scotland, though a very important agricultural county and a county where lime is greatly needed all the time for the production of crops. But what I say about Wigtownshire applies, though perhaps with diminishing force, to the Stewartry of Kircudbright and, perhaps, Dumfries-shire. I see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. D. C. Anderson) in his place; no doubt if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will mention this matter.
  We obtain a far larger part of our lime requirements from the north-west of England, and therefore the one-sixth extra contribution for lime produced in Scotland and sold to Scottish farmers will not help us. I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will agree with me that at the moment the Scottish lime quarries can only produce about 70 per cent. of the requirements of Scotland. Therefore, there is no extra lime coming from Scotland to enable us to shift our orders from the north-west of England to Scotland and get the one-sixth extra contribution. Therefore, it does not help Scottish farmers at all.
  I have some figures which show what this Scheme is going to mean. Taking Newton Stewart, which is the nearest point in Wigtownshire to the lime quarries, the present price is 25s. 5d. net to the farmer. Under the proposed Scheme lime is going to be 36s. 8d. a ton, an increase of 11s. 3d. In case my hon. Friend does not agree with the figure, the gross cost is 72s. 8d. The present subsidy of 65 per cent. means 47s. 3d. off, leaving the present price at 25s. 5d.
  Under the proposed Scheme, instead of there being a subsidy of 47s. 3d. the subsidy will work out at 38s. It seems to me that this is an enormous increase of something like 50 per cent. to a farmer. It will, in fact, reduce the subsidy from 65 per cent. to about 50 per cent. I am very anxious to know what my hon. Friend intends to do about this situation which becomes very much worse when one gets further into the county, for Newton Stewart is just under 100 miles away. The other main agricultural

  1375
  centres of Stranraer, Whithorn and Drum-more are about another 35 miles from the quarry, and as haulage tariffs do not cater for anything over 100 miles the extra cost of haulage here will have to be borne entirely by the farmer. Therefore, making an estimate for Stranraer, the extra cost is going to be something like 13s.
  I have had a letter from my hon. Friend saying that he understands that there would be only minor differences in price. I wonder what he means by only minor differences in price. Would an increase of 10s. be more than a minor increase, because, if so, I feel very strongly that these extra costs will have to be looked at?
  There is another thing in the Scheme on which I wish to comment. It is the allowance for lime suppliers who establish a depot. The depôt has to be 75 miles away from the quarry and if it is established in Scotland then there is an extra subsidy of 17s. On that basis the cost in Wigtownshire could be kept down to about the same as it is at present. It would, however, be an extraordinary system, because once lime is loaded on a lorry it can be run in one day through to distances of about 150 miles from the quarry, which is well within the radius within which my area lies.
  To force a quarry owner to establish a depôt, which is bound to involve him in increased costs, seems to me to be completely unnecessary. Not only would it make increased costs for the lime quarry owner, but it would add considerably to the liability of the Exchequer. It has been calculated that if this is proposed as the answer for remote areas, it would be cheaper for the Government to give an 80 per cent. subsidy rather than approximately 65 per cent. as is proposed.
  There are two things which I should like to see done. The first is the realisation that the extra subsidy of one-sixth is not a subsidy for the lime quarry owner in Scotland, but a subsidy intended for the Scottish farmer. Therefore, it should be given whether the lime comes from an English producer and is used in Scotland or from a Scottish producer.
  Secondly, I should like the haulage scale to go considerably beyond the present limit of 100 miles and to have a flat rate rather than a tapered rate.
  1376
  There should be a flat rate of something like 4½d. per mile. In that case, the users in remote areas would continue to pay approximately the same for their lime as at present.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Clark: I am glad of the opportunity to raise some points to which, I hope, I may obtain answers, which I was unable to do when the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) suggested that I was out of order on a previous occasion. I do not want to go into the points fully at this stage, because my right hon. Friend the Minister has been kind enough to write me at some length. There are one or two anomalies which I should like to have cleared up.
  First, there is the question of the transport subsidy. Part III of Schedule 2, relating to Northern Ireland, shows that the subsidy is paid at the rate of 4d. per ton for every mile over 5 miles up to 20 miles, whereas in other areas of the United Kingdom the rate of 4d. per ton applies for every mile over 5 miles up to 30 miles. Northern Ireland is fortunate in having lime well distributed throughout the country, but there are certainly many areas where it must be transported more than 20 miles. The acid moorlands of County Deny, for example, are in many cases 40 miles from good supplies of lime. Why is the subsidy being cut down in Northern Ireland when, as far as I can see, there is no geographic reason for dividing Northern Ireland from the other regions mentioned in the Schedule?
  Secondly, why is it permissible to obtain a subsidy for exports of lime from Northern Ireland only to Bute County and Islay? The limestone quarries of my constituency are probably ideally suited for shipping lime to the Western Isles and to a great deal of the Scottish mainland. I do not suggest that this is simply preferment against Northern Ireland. I think that it is a stupid provision. The quarries in Northern Ireland are looking hard for new markets and they should not be ruled out of the markets of the Scottish islands further north than Bute and Islay. Will my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary look at this aspect again?

  1377
  There has been full consultation between the Ministry and the lime producers in Northern Ireland and they have ended up with definite disagreement on the terms of the Scheme. The lime producers in Northern Ireland feel that the reduced subsidy to be paid on burnt lime may well result in the redundancy of between 30 and 50 men in the quarries in Northern Ireland.
  There has been disagreement and there has been discussion. I want to make it quite clear that this Scheme is not fully acceptable in Northern Ireland. We are prepared to let it work, but I reserve the right to come back to the Ministry in a very short time if our fears are realised, because burnt lime is being penalised, and, equally, because no special recognition is given to the fact that hard limestone, with which a large part of Northern Ireland is supplied, calls for heavier grinding machinery than does the lighter limestone in other parts of the country.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. D. C. Anderson: I should like to focus attention on the points which pertain a little further east of the area dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis).
  The position in Dumfries-shire is that those farmers with whom I have been in touch with regard to this Scheme are unable to obtain supplies of lime from Scottish quarries. The Scottish suppliers are situated uneconomically further north, and in any event their total production is exhausted in meeting the demands of farmers in the central and eastern parts of Scotland.
  In Dumfries-shire the land is supplied with lime obtained from suppliers in the north of England—in Durham, Westmorland, and Cumberland. The result is that the Dumfries-shire farmers are unable, under the Scheme as it stands, to claim the additional one-sixth subsidy which farmers in other parts of Scotland further north can claim.
  That would not matter if the prices from the suppliers in northern England were one-sixth lower. I understand that the Scheme has been framed on the supposition that costs in England are, on average, to that extent lower than the production costs in Scottish quarries. My information is that that is not so, and that the cost ex-works of lime from the
  1378
  north of England is substantially similar to that from the Scottish suppliers. Dumfries-shire farmers are therefore at a disadvantage compared with those in similar occupations further north.
  A further point which was also touched on by my lion. Friend the Member for Galloway was with regard to the provision in the Scheme for the 17s. additional subsidy where the lime is channelled through a depót more than 75 miles from the source of supply. This provision in the Scheme costs the taxpayer more than if there were a straight flat rate based on distance alone because if, for example, the rate of 2d. per mile, which applies at present between 30 and 100 miles, whether the carriage is direct from the quarry to the farmer, or from a depót to a farmer, was extended at 2d. a mile for the remaining distance up to 200 miles, it would cost less in subsidy than the present system of giving 17s. if the lime is sent through a depót.
  Accordingly, while I welcome the general provision of the Scheme which departs from the 65 per cent. subsidy and embarks on a flat-rate system instead, I must point out that it is in the details of the flat-rate system that the farmers with whom I have been in touch find difficulty and unfairness.
  I should like, therefore, to hear my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's comments upon the suggestion either that the 17s. subsidy for channelling through a depôt should be out of the picture altogether, and the distance extended to 200 or even 300 miles, with appropriate flat rates, or that we should have this additional distance flat rate up to 200 or even 300 miles as an alternative.
  Secondly, I should like to hear what he has to say about the suggestion, that I feel strongly is advisable in equity and fairness, that the one-sixth should be made available to all Scottish farmers, whether their source of supply is from Scottish quarries or—as has to be the case throughout Dumfries-shire—from quarries in the North of England.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries (Mr. D. C. Anderson) has put forward an interesting argument. Apparently his main complaint is that this Scheme will cost the Government more than the

  1379
  old Scheme. I should have thought that this was an unusual complaint for the hon. and learned Member to make—
  Mr. D. C. Anderson: My point was that what would cost more would be not the difference between the old Scheme and the present one, but the difference between the present Scheme, with its depot allowance of 17s. for a distance, let us say, of 150 miles, made up of 75 miles to the depot and 75 miles thereafter, and a straight 150 miles without a depôt at all.
  Mr. Hoy: The hon. and learned Member is trying to base his argument on the flat mileage charge, but that is not what the Scheme seeks to do. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite are always complaining about subsidies for certain sections of the community. We have just had a debate about that. Apparently they do not find that any denial of what they are doing about this. We are here dealing with a subsidy. I raised this question on a previous occasion. One reason for this new Scheme is that the Public Accounts Committee has been going over these subsidies for a long time. Indeed, no hon. Member will deny that there was a considerable abuse of this subsidy, as well as of others, and that as a consequence the cost had to be met by the taxpayer. I beg to remind hon. Gentlemen that Ferrantis is not the only firm that has been doing well recently.
  Mr. H. Clark: Oh.
  Mr. Hoy: The hon. Member need not say "Oh." This was reported to this House, and certain prosecutions had to take place in connection with these subsidies. The Public Accounts Committee took notice of this and reported it to this House, and quite rightly the Minister and the Ministry have taken cognisance of it.
  We are not seeking to deny that this subsidy is an aid to agriculture, or to the fertility of the soil. That is the very purpose of it. If hon. Members would read the Explanatory Note at the back of the Statutory Instrument they would see that that is what it seeks to do. What the House was asked, and what it asked the Minister to do, was to see that when these subsidies were paid control was taken of them, to prevent any abuse taking place in future.
  1380
  Although we want to encourage agriculture in every form, we are not going to allow the taxpayer to be abused by it. In paragraph 8 it is made quite clear that the Minister and the Ministry will give approval to schemes which are being made, but the Minister rightly takes power to see that where people abuse these schemes he can withdraw the subsidies altogether. I take it that no hon. Member would object to that. We think that the Minister is quite right in this respect.
  I was interested to note the meticulous care to which the Ministry has gone to meet the needs of people in Scotland and elsewhere. One sees from page 11 of the Scheme that there is to be a 10s. additional subsidy? Does any hon. Member object to that? This has been gone into with great care. There are also considerable allowances for mileage charges in connection with depots from which supplies are drawn. They are dealt with on page 12. The Ministry has gone to a fairly considerable extent to meet the needs of farmers, not only in Scotland but in other parts of Britain.
  Although we welcome the subsidies, which will help in ensuring the fertility of the soil, we would point out that the Ministry also has responsibility to the taxpayer. I should like to know from him what the whole Scheme will cost. I think that it will be in the region of £9 million, which is a not inconsiderable sum to ask from the taxpayer. If the Minister proposes to pay £9 million in lime subsidies to fanners, to which we do not object, we should have an assurance from him before we give our approval that the Scheme will not be abused.
  10.56 p.m.
  Mr. John Mackie: I wish to raise a slightly different point from those raised by hon. Members opposite, although as a farmer I naturally deprecate any reduction in income which may come as a result of this Scheme. I appreciate—having been a victim of the malpractices that can go on in lime subsidies, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy)—why the Minister has had to bring in the Scheme.
  I draw attention to page 8, Schedule 1. I have had considerable correspondence

  1381
  with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on this subject. He will know that most of the lime which goes on the land is ground limestone. The different categories are given at the bottom of page 8. Was it really necessary to use these figures of 19s. 11d., 20s. 11d., 21s. 10d. and so on? This is all very well for Government Departments which have calculators and computers, but it presents many difficulties for those in the industry. Why do the Government adopt this system, which confuses merchants and leads to mistakes? I have had this point drawn to my notice and have had correspondence about it with the Department, but I have not been able to discover why these figures are adopted.
  10.59 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has given us an opportunity to debate this subject and for me to answer the various points which have been made.
  The House will realise that the reason for this change in the lime subsidy Scheme is in a sense the success of the previous Scheme and the extent to which it has stimulated the use of lime throughout the country and stimulated production. The response from both farmers and the lime industry has been remarkable. The second point is one made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and other hon. Members that it is a subsidy for farmers and not a subsidy for lime producers. It is there to help farmers meet their liming costs.
  It is rather a paradox that our major preoccupations in administering the subsidy so far, and more particularly in recent years, have been with the problems of lime suppliers, expressed either through their trade organisations or by individual firms. It would appear from the remarks made tonight that hon. Members on both sides have also received representations from them. This has been inevitable with a system where suppliers' prices and charges are controlled in various ways and in different degrees.
  1382
  By far the greater part of the discussion and negotiations about individual supplying firms which arise from price control should disappear as a result of the change to a flat-rate system. It remains inevitable, however, that the collective bodies representing the various parts of the trade, as well as other kinds of producers whose interests may not be covered by them, will still have their special concerns as traders in their relations with the agricultural Departments and the policies and workings of the subsidy.
  It underlines the paradox which I mentioned to think that nearly all the points raised tonight by hon. Members have been concerned with the interests of suppliers, rather than directly with the farmers' interests, although I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft began his speech by welcoming the Scheme and spoke of the amount of good it had done for the land over the years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft and several hon. Members have urged the establishment of a formal advisory committee to take part in the administration of the subsidy. But, as I have said, this subsidy is paid to farmers, not to lime producers. This is not to say that we will not listen to representations by other interested parties, including producers. We are, of course, always ready to do this and have done so on numerous occasions in the past. But the proposal before hon. Members now is rather different from that. I was somewhat surprised to hear hon. Members say that our relations with suppliers were not as close as they might be. Whatever the position, I hope that those relations will become even closer in future.
  As I say, the proposal of my hon. Friend—which has been put forward by several hon. Members, both tonight and in correspondence—is quite different and the question is whether we should refer matters for advice to a formal committee of this sort composed of those who have a beneficial interest in the workings of the Scheme. Indeed, as I understand it, the proposal is not merely to refer matters to this body, but to accept advice from it on whatever subject it wishes to offer advice.

  1383
  As I said, it has always been open to any association concerned with the Scheme—or, for that matter, any individual firm—to get in touch with officials of my Ministry or of the Scottish or Northern Ireland Departments of Agriculture and put forward their proposals or views or give advice or information on any aspects of the Scheme or its administration. It is not clear to me what advantage would be gained if proposals or advice came through a committee instead of coming direct.
  A further point is that it is, after all, the responsibility of my right hon. Friends to administer the Scheme. It is, I should have thought, also their responsibility to decide precisely what matters they need advising on and where they will go for their advice. The proposition which has been put to us and repeated tonight is that my right hon. Friends should depend for their advice on a committee composed of representatives of the buyers and sellers of lime, with terms of reference which seem very wide and general.
  I hope that the House will understand why we are hesitant about agreeing to the formation of a committee of this kind. This proposal for an advisory committee has been urged by some of the bodies representing lime suppliers, but I must make it clear to the House that the National Farmers' Union does not support it. The position is, therefore, that we have conflicting advice as to the suitability or otherwise of this kind of committee. If anyone wishes to see us, and suggest improvements, I have offered to meet them after we have had a little experience of the working of the new flat-rate contribution scheme.
  Both my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft and the hon. Member for Leith referred to frauds and irregularities that have occurred in the past. The hon. Member for Leith is correct in saying that it is our duty to safeguard public funds. It is also correct that there have been irregularities in the past, indeed, I have a whole list of irregularities, where those concerned have been taken to court, and where moneys have been recovered. These proceedings are continuing. The House will agree that, from our duty to safeguard the public funds, it follows that we must do everything
  1384
  we can to make certain that the new scheme is open to as little of any type of fraud as possible.
  I suggest that under this new Scheme the area for irregularities is greatly reduced. For instance, it will no longer be profitable to inflate artificially the cost of lime to the farmer—by, for example, concealing discounts and rebates and so attracting irregular subsidy payments. It is a pretty wide field, and we have been involved in a great deal of digging out of facts, and investigating cases where suspicion has arisen in the past, and we have now a great deal of knowledge and experience of these matters.
  This will be entirely eliminated now, except for those cases where owing to exceptionally low charges, a cut-off of 75 per cent. of cost has to be operated. But in the very nature of these low-cost limited. The scope for increasing subsidy by inflation of price is very limited indeed, but the possibility that claims may be made for inflated or even nonexistent tonnages remains, but our checking and policing system is very alive to this now after the investigations we have made in the past. We have at the moment a number of officers who spend their time checking on the Scheme and on its administration.
  My hon. Friend next mentioned that my Ministry seems to have advised farmers to use lime of higher quality rather than low-grade lime. If I understood him correctly, he said that this was inconsistent with the provisions of the Scheme. As he will know, the main quality of lime is its neutralising value—NV—or percentage of calcium oxide, and suitable materials range from around 25 to 90 units of NV. Nearly four-fifths of the lime used in the United Kingdom comes from limestone or from chalk. These fall for the most part in the range of 45 or 55 NV. One-eighth of the supply comes from waste lime, with an average NV nearer 35. Burnt limes, with a high NV, averaging 70–75, account for about one-twentieth, and in Northern Ireland for about one-fiftieth.
  Waste limes are cheap at source and although they usually need to be applied more heavily than processed limes, their

  1385
  cheapness in many circumstances offsets the higher transport costs involved in moving larger quantities. The burnt lime which my hon. Friend talked about is generally more expensive at sources unless it is surplus to some industrial demand.
  The fineness of the particle is the second quality, but it is not generally a critical one. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) referred to the classification of limes in the Schedule. The hon. Member will realise that the classification is the result of a great deal of experience and consultation with the industry and is the commonly accepted classification of the various types of lime. This is why there are so many subdivisions in the Schedule. The reasons for subsidy contributions like 21s. 10d., 20s. 11d., and 19s. 11d. per ton which he mentioned is that these are as exact a calculation as possible of 65 per cent. of the typical cost of production plus margins and spreading. This was a duty laid upon us by Parliament and this was the percentage of grant. Therefore, the flat-rate contribution must be made as exact as possible so that the farmer receives the precise benefit which Parliament intended him to have.
  These two qualities—the neutralising value and the fineness—give a balance between speed in action and length of effect, and farmers can choose which they want. But these standards are not critical, and material somewhat finer or coarser, if it is more cheaply available, is generally adequate to any farmer's need. The farmer has the choice of higher quality material with a higher neutralising value, which has a much lower transport cost because the weight per unit of N.V. is lower, or coarser material of heavier weight with a lower N.V. which has a higher transport cost. It will be found that almost any farmer has a choice of two or three types of lime which can be applied to his land, and he will receive roughly the same subsidy contribution—around 65 per cent.—of the cost of that lime to him.
  The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) has unfortunately left us. He spoke about the difficulties of lime producers and particularly of farmers in Scotland. He said that the farmers would have to bear the higher cost of
  1386
  the lime used on their farms. He quoted some figures, but we have had an extensive survey and sampling in Scotland and our figures do not agree with his, which are far and away higher. At sample levels it seems quite clear that there will be at most only a marginal increase in cost to my hon. Friend's farmers in obtaining their lime, as I have already told my hon. Friend in a letter.
  He also raised the question of supplies through depôts, as did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. D. C. Anderson). I am sure that it will be realised that it is a straight choice for the farmer whether or not it is cheaper for him to buy lime via a depôt, and get an extra depôt subsidy of 17s. a ton, or straight from the quarry which may be 100 miles or so away. It is entirely for him to choose. In South-West Scotland it may well be worth while for a supplier to set up a depôt, in which case the farmer will be able to receive a subsidy of 17s. per ton for lime coming out of that depôt as well as a contribution at a rate of 4d. per ton mile from the depôt to the farm.
  I think my hon. Friends will find when they work this out and consider its practical application that this is an equitable arrangement. Also it makes the situation more competitive, and farmers in my hon. Friend's constituency will be able to choose the cheapest places to obtain their lime. It may be that some high-cost suppliers will have to look at their prices and see whether improvements can be made. My point is that it will increase competitiveness. The extra allowance for depôts will assist areas such as my hon. Friends have mentioned. I stress that the one-sixth increase which is allowed for Scottish lime arises from the extra cost of lime production in Scottish quarries. It is solely for that purpose that the increase has been given.
  Finally, on the Scottish point, I would mention that the N.F.U. and the Scottish N.F.U. have accepted these rates and, no doubt, if there is difficulty in the future they will be the first, with my hon. Friends, to advise us of the fact. My point is that the N.F.U. and the Scottish N.F.U. seem to find these rates satisfactory.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) referred to the problems in Northern Ireland. His

  1387
  first point related to the difference in the transport rates in Northern Ireland as compared with elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I am sure he knows that few Northern Ireland farms will be situated more than 20 miles from a source of lime, and probably there is more than one quarry or other source available. In Northern Ireland the maximum distance between any farm and a source of supply generally speaking, is 30 miles. As a result, we have scaled down the mileage limits so that the Northern Ireland farmer will be getting transport subsidy on equivalent terms to his counterpart in other parts of the United Kingdom. This is different from areas like the Scilly Isles and elsewhere where the distance is greater and so the mileage limit is also greater.
  Mr. H. Clark: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the cost of transporting for 30 miles is the same in Northern Ireland as anywhere else, and we are therefore entitled to the same subsidy?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that most farms in Northern Ireland are situated within 20 miles of a source of lime and, therefore, they are getting a comparable rate of subsidy for every mile over five miles, as are farmers in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Clark: I am sorry to press the point, but I cannot let my hon. Friend get away with this. There are certainly some acid soils in the Sperrins and elsewhere in Londonderry. One has to pay for the transport of lime 30 miles, and I cannot see why for the last 10 miles we are getting only 2s. a mile whereas everybody else is getting the higher rate.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I do not want to weary the House with figures, but my hon. Friend will realise that 70 per cent. of farmers in Northern Ireland live within 20 miles of their source of supply of lime, whereas in England only 50 per cent. live within 30 miles of a source of supply. It is a question of scaling the subsidy down in proportion. I take my hon. Friend's point. I know that this has been worrying him, because he has written to me on the subject.
  He also referred to burnt lime, but he will realise that this represents a very
  1388
  small proportion of the lime used agriculturally. In fact, it represents about 2 per cent. of Northern Ireland supplies. It is of high quality, but it is expensive as well.
  My hon. Friend asked also about exports from Northern Ireland. The only exports I am aware of at the moment are to Bute and Islay, the ones to which my hon. Friend himself referred. If, and when, any other trade develops, or it seems likely to do so, we shall most certainly consider it and sec what it is necessary to do. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the Northern Ireland farmers are in no way worse off than their counterparts in England, and that the Northern Ireland producers are not being stopped from seeking other markets outside the country.
  I commend the Scheme to the House. I believe that, now we have gone over to flat-rate contributions, it will be seen that this is the correct and proper way of administering the subsidy. It will achieve two results.
  Mr. Hoy: What will it cost the taxpayer?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman gave the figure of £9 million, and that figure is correct, assuming 6 million tons of lime is used. Of that £9 million, Scotland takes about £2¼ million, England £5¼ million, Wales £500,000 and Northern Ireland £1 million. All this is assuming that the level of use is 6 million tons.
  Now that we have introduced the flat-rate system, and once we have got the Scheme working, we shall find that producers, suppliers and farmers will be able to work just as competently as in the past. It will, I believe, be much more difficult to commit irregularities or frauds, and public funds will, therefore, be safeguarded. If there are any difficulties, I hope that any supplier, producer or farmer will get in touch with us.
  I have said already that after the Scheme has been working for a few months I shall be more than willing to have a meeting of those interested in it. But I cannot accept the suggestion of a formal and statutory advisory committee. I shall gladly arrange a meeting of the interested bodies—organisations representing suppliers, producers and

  1389
  farmers—to examine the working of the Scheme, but I am certain that, after a little time, when the rough edges have been worn off, we shall find that this is a better Scheme which will work in a much better way and be greatly to the advantage of the farmer and the whole agricultural industry.
  11.24 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman answer one or two questions? First, as to consultations, he told us: about agreement with the National Farmers' Union and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, but did he also consult, and did he have agreement with, the limestone producers in Scotland? I have had communications from some in my own area. They are reasonably satisfied about the additional contribution in respect of home producers in Scotland—the one-sixth contribution meets the case at the moment—but they are concerned about the future. Do I take his answer about his willingness to meet interested parties after the Scheme has been going a bit to cover that point?
  What about non-returnable bags? They are quite expensive, in some cases 5s. per ton. In this connection particularly, I should like a definition of what is a Scottish isle. Does it cover islands as remote as the Outer Hebrides and as near as the Isle of Bute? Further, how will non-returnable bags be checked?
  May I take it that the additional voyages to the Scottish section reflect the pattern of supply? It might be argued against the 4s. charge from the mainland of Scotland to Skye, which might be supplied from Glasgow, that this charge represents a considerable distance while the 24s. in respect of Bute
  1390
  represents the cost of supplies which for many parts will be sent from close at hand. Would I be right in assuming that this reflects the pattern of supply and the pattern of trade?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that these contributions reflect the pattern of supply.
  The limestone producers were consulted and I would be very willing to see them after the Scheme had been working for some time, if they so desired, to review the position. I must re-emphasise that my offer covers the whole field and that I am more than willing to meet all those concerned after the Scheme has been working for some time to see how their interests are affected.
  Non-returnable bags can be worth using only when nothing else is suitable and the reason for their use is the lack of other containers.
  I will not go into the definition of the Scottish Islands. If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has any difficulties about that, he should get in touch with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. Ross: I have less difficulty than he has about definition.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am delighted to hear it.
  Mr. Prior: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Clerks to General Commissioners (Remuneration)
  Clerks to General Commissioners (Remuneration)
  Taxation (1951–52 and 1963–64)
  Taxation (1951–52 and 1963–64)
  Postal Workers (Dispute)
  Postal Workers (Dispute)
  Government Employees (Security Risks)
  Government Employees (Security Risks)
  Government Contracts (Refund of Excess Profits)
  Government Contracts (Refund of Excess Profits)
  Mutual Households Ltd.
  Mutual Households Ltd.
  H.M. Stationery Office (Westminster Branch)
  H.M. Stationery Office (Westminster Branch)
  British Forces, Germany (Costs)
  British Forces, Germany (Costs)
  Library (H.M. Stationery Office Publications)
  Library (H.M. Stationery Office Publications)
  Historic Houses (Transfer by Government Departments to National Trust)
  Historic Houses (Transfer by Government Departments to National Trust)
  Estimates Committee (Recommendation (xvii))
  Estimates Committee (Recommendation (xvii))
  Concord Project (Treasury Representation on Anglo-French Committee)
  Concord Project (Treasury Representation on Anglo-French Committee)
  Bank Rate
  Bank Rate
  Surtax
  Surtax
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  B.B.C. Transmitting Station, Wooferton
  B.B.C. Transmitting Station, Wooferton
  Wages and Salaries
  Wages and Salaries
  General Election Period (Programmes)
  General Election Period (Programmes)
  Reception, Yorkshire (B.B.C. 1)
  Reception, Yorkshire (B.B.C. 1)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Subscribers' Accounts (Calls)
  Subscribers' Accounts (Calls)
  Research Centre, Dollis Hill
  Research Centre, Dollis Hill
  North Riding
  North Riding
  Brentwood and Basildon
  Brentwood and Basildon
POST OFFICE
  Commemorative Stamp Issues (Battle of Britain)
  Commemorative Stamp Issues (Battle of Britain)
  Postmen's Wages (Payment)
  Postmen's Wages (Payment)
  Forth Road Bridge Stamps
  Forth Road Bridge Stamps
  Telegrams (Charges)
  Telegrams (Charges)
  Postmen's Strike (Form P18B)
  Postmen's Strike (Form P18B)
  Satellite Communications (Agreement)
  Satellite Communications (Agreement)
  Wages
  Wages
  Post Office Workers (Fringe Benefits)
  Post Office Workers (Fringe Benefits)
  Postal Workers (Dispute)
  Postal Workers (Dispute)
HOUSING
  Improvement Grants, The Hartlepools
  Improvement Grants, The Hartlepools
  Wycombe
  Wycombe
  Requisitioned Houses (Section 4 Tenants)
  Requisitioned Houses (Section 4 Tenants)
  Land, Sunderland
  Land, Sunderland
  House Building
  House Building
  Shrewsbury
  Shrewsbury
  Mains Sewerage
  Mains Sewerage
  Bathroom Facilities
  Bathroom Facilities
  Water Supplies
  Water Supplies
  Interest Charges
  Interest Charges
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  South-East Study
  South-East Study
  Working Men's Clubs (Rating)
  Working Men's Clubs (Rating)
  Site, Swynnerton
  Site, Swynnerton
  Storm Damage, Accrington
  Storm Damage, Accrington
  Rates (Allen Committee's Report)
  Rates (Allen Committee's Report)
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
  Location of Offices
  Location of Offices
  Councils (University and College Seats)
  Councils (University and College Seats)
  Office Building, London
  Office Building, London
  Probation Hostel, Cardiff (Premises)
  Probation Hostel, Cardiff (Premises)
KENYA
  Land (Resettlement Scheme)
  Land (Resettlement Scheme)
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND COLONIES
  Commonwealth Relations Office List
  Commonwealth Relations Office List
  Colonial Territories (Admiralty Jurisdiction)
  Colonial Territories (Admiralty Jurisdiction)
  Maritime Territories (Merchant Shipping Act, 1958)
  Maritime Territories (Merchant Shipping Act, 1958)
BRITISH GUIANA
  Racial Disturbances (Killed and Injured)
  Racial Disturbances (Killed and Injured)
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Living Standards, Unemployment and Education
  Living Standards, Unemployment and Education
FIJI AND ELLICE ISLANDS
  Air Service
  Air Service
ROADS
  Multi-Lane Highways
  Multi-Lane Highways
  Shrewsbury (Expenditure)
  Shrewsbury (Expenditure)
  Ring Road, Ilford
  Ring Road, Ilford
  Parking Regulations (Unlit Vehicles)
  Parking Regulations (Unlit Vehicles)
  North Orbital Road
  North Orbital Road
  Construction Contracts (Losses)
  Construction Contracts (Losses)
  Expenditure (1946–64)
  Expenditure (1946–64)
TRANSPORT
  Cars, Motorcycles and Scooters, North Riding (Registrations)
  Cars, Motorcycles and Scooters, North Riding (Registrations)
  Off-Street Parking, Greater London
  Off-Street Parking, Greater London
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Port Talbot (Women and Young Persons)
  Port Talbot (Women and Young Persons)
  National Research Development Corporation
  National Research Development Corporation
  Companies (Board of Trade Inquiries)
  Companies (Board of Trade Inquiries)
  UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS (RATIFICATION)
  UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS (RATIFICATION)
  AFGHANISTAN (LOANS)
  AFGHANISTAN (LOANS)
  YEMEN (MOUTAWAKILITE KINGDOM)
  YEMEN (MOUTAWAKILITE KINGDOM)
  UNITED NATIONS CONTRIBUTIONS (CONGO OPERATIONS)
  UNITED NATIONS CONTRIBUTIONS (CONGO OPERATIONS)
  LAOS, CAMBODIA AND VIETNAM
  LAOS, CAMBODIA AND VIETNAM
  STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY SYSTEMS (FREEZE)
  STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY SYSTEMS (FREEZE)
  BRAZIL (ASSISTANCE)
  BRAZIL (ASSISTANCE)
  MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SPEECH)
  MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SPEECH)
  SERVICE MEDALS (YPRES SALIENT FIGHTING)
  SERVICE MEDALS (YPRES SALIENT FIGHTING)
  EMINENT WORLD STATESMEN (DEATH)
  EMINENT WORLD STATESMEN (DEATH)
  ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE
  ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (LANG REPORT)
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (LANG REPORT)
  TREATY OF GHENT (150th ANNIVERSARY)
  TREATY OF GHENT (150th ANNIVERSARY)
  ARABIAN PENINSULA (MILITARY OPERATIONS)
  ARABIAN PENINSULA (MILITARY OPERATIONS)
  MERCHANT SHIPS (FOREIGN ORDERS)
  MERCHANT SHIPS (FOREIGN ORDERS)
  STEEL TUBES AND PIPES (SOVIET ORDERS)
  STEEL TUBES AND PIPES (SOVIET ORDERS)
  OFFICIAL HISTORIES (COLONIAL TERRITORDZS)
  OFFICIAL HISTORIES (COLONIAL TERRITORDZS)
  PENAL SYSTEM (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  PENAL SYSTEM (ROYAL COMMISSION)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Forestry Commission Houses (Electricity Supply)
  Forestry Commission Houses (Electricity Supply)
  Great Ouse Flood Protection Scheme
  Great Ouse Flood Protection Scheme
  Agricultural Machinery, East Riding
  Agricultural Machinery, East Riding
  Farm Improvement Scheme, Dorset
  Farm Improvement Scheme, Dorset
  Food (Import and Retail Prices)
  Food (Import and Retail Prices)
  Farm Improvement and Small Farmer Scheme, Cumberland
  Farm Improvement and Small Farmer Scheme, Cumberland
  Tenant Farmers, Cumberland (Rent Increases)
  Tenant Farmers, Cumberland (Rent Increases)
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL (DEPARTMENT)
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL (DEPARTMENT)
  ROLLS RAZOR LIMITED
  ROLLS RAZOR LIMITED
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Leave Warrants (Northern Ireland)
  Leave Warrants (Northern Ireland)
  Widows
  Widows
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Bonemeal, Manchester
  Bonemeal, Manchester
  Infant and Maternal Mortality, Hampshire
  Infant and Maternal Mortality, Hampshire
  General Practitioners, Hampshire
  General Practitioners, Hampshire
  Sight Tests, Manchester
  Sight Tests, Manchester
HOSPITALS
  New Hospital, Crawley
  New Hospital, Crawley
  Hospital Building, Hampshire
  Hospital Building, Hampshire
  Teaching Hospitals, Manchester
  Teaching Hospitals, Manchester
  Beds, Cumberland
  Beds, Cumberland
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Hampshire
  Hampshire
  General Certificate of Education, Dorset
  General Certificate of Education, Dorset
  Standards for School Premises Regulations, 1959
  Standards for School Premises Regulations, 1959
  Projects, Cumberland (Non-Selection)
  Projects, Cumberland (Non-Selection)
  Beverley Grammar School
  Beverley Grammar School
  Head Teachers
  Head Teachers
  Committee of Inquiry into the Organisation of Civil Science (Report)
  Committee of Inquiry into the Organisation of Civil Science (Report)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Cremation Regulations
  Cremation Regulations
  Sentenced Person (Service with Armed Forces)
  Sentenced Person (Service with Armed Forces)
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Rehabilitation (Cumberland)
  Industrial Rehabilitation (Cumberland)
  Retail Prices and Housing Costs
  Retail Prices and Housing Costs
  Brentwood and Basildon
  Brentwood and Basildon
  Industrial Earnings
  Industrial Earnings
  International Labour Conference
  International Labour Conference
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Computer Centre, Reading
  Computer Centre, Reading
SCOTLAND
  Fat Stock Guarantee Scheme, Fife
  Fat Stock Guarantee Scheme, Fife
  New Schools (Completions)
  New Schools (Completions)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Clerk of Parliament's House
  Clerk of Parliament's House
  Hyde Park (Catering Facilities)
  Hyde Park (Catering Facilities)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Viscount Torrington—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

EGG MARKETING INQUIRY
LORD HENLEY: 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 they expect to receive the report of the Committee of Investigation at present studying the Consumers' Committee report on complaints on the operation of the British Egg Marketing Scheme; and what immediate steps they intend to take to minimise known hardship.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am unable to forecast when the Committee will complete their task. Besides the report of the Consumers' Committee, they have also to consider a complaint by Messrs. Western Egg Pasteurising Co., Ltd. relating to second quality eggs, and it will be for the Committee to decide how they deal with those two matters.
As my right honourable friend said on July 15, the Agriculture Ministers do not consider that the degree of hardship disclosed by the Consumers' Committee report would justify them in taking immediate action by way of a temporary direction under Section 21 of the Agricultural Marketing Act for the purpose of preventing injury to the public interest.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I know that the Minister has already said that he would not make a special case of this under Section 21, but in view of the known hardship, and in view of the fact that we know that at least one company is going into liquidation because of this, would he not be prepared to reconsider his decision and make an order under
962
Section 21 of the Agricultural Marketing Act? All this would do would be to put us back to square one. It seems to me that this would be a reasonable thing to do, and it would not upset the scheme in any way.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord that the operative words of Section 21 of the Act are
"immediate action for the purpose of preventing injury…"
My right honourable friends do not believe that the report of the Consumers' Committee was sufficiently strong to indicate that there had been actual injury. It is injury, as opposed to hardship or expense, that is the operative factor.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that if a firm is forced into liquidation by methods which, according to the evidence, are distinctly questionable, that really is hardship? Can he deal with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on the point of immediate action? We shall be sitting only for two more days. What will happen to this particular firm is nothing is done, or if the noble Earl is unable to give an assurance that speedy action will be taken?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Committee of Investigation are looking into this matter, and it is after they have reported that the Minister should make up his mind what to do. It would obviously be improper for me to say now whether or not the Board is right or wrong, because that matter is sub judice.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could the noble Earl say when the Committee are expected to report, and when we may expect a decision from the Minister?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is impossible to give a clear date. All I can say is that in these cases it normally takes some two or three months, because the appellants have to provide their witnesses and so on, and on this occasion there are two subjects for the Committee to investigate. I cannot tell the noble Lord exactly how long it will take.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that this does constitute an injury? Would he say in

963
what way the scheme would be jeopardised by making an order under Section 21?
EARL. FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think that at the moment there is any evidence that it is an injury, because the Committee set up to investigate whether or not there is an injury have not yet reported. As my right honourable friend has indicated, I think it would be inappropriate at this moment to take action under Section 21.

DEARTH OF HERRING IN NORTH SEA
2.35 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether investigations are still being made by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea into the causes of the dearth of herring in the North Sea; and whether any reports have yet been received.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, investigations are continuing with all possible diligence on this complex subject, and our own scientists are making their contribution to the international study. A report was made by the Council to the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission at their meeting in May. The Commission have invited the Council to continue their study of the state of the stocks of herring in the Convention area, which includes the North Sea. A further report is expected to be made to the Commission at their meeting in May, 1965.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, will my noble friend bear in mind that the investigations of this Council take longer and longer, and the scarcity of herring, meanwhile, becomes greater and greater? Can he bring some pressure upon the Council to make their final report as soon as possible?
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, what the noble Lord says is, I think, fully
964
appreciated by the Council. As he knows, this is a very tricky subject for them, and there are many divergent views. But I think the whole of the area is concerned, just as is the noble Lord, about the herring problem.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if I may ask one more question, will my noble friend give a directive on the part of the British Government that these marine biologists have got to agree? They are almost as bad as the economists.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I do not think it is for Ministers to give directives to anybody, including your Lordships' House, that they have got to agree.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the amateurs on this subject what they do if they agree that there is a dearth?
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, if they agree that there is a dearth, they find out the cause of the dearth, and then they can, we hope, do something about it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May we know what?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord give a forecast as to when it will be possible to buy bloaters at the fishmongers?
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am afraid that is another matter, and the noble Lord should put down a Question.

PREVENTIVE DETENTION
2.48 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 what steps they will take, pending the passing of the necessary legislation, to ensure that no further sentences of preventive detention are awarded; and whether they will undertake a review of the sentences now being served by preventive detainees, with a view to the early release of men who were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for minor offences.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME I OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, the Government have no authority, without legislation, to restrict the powers of the courts to impose preventive detention; and pending the legislation which I foreshadowed in my statement of July 23, it would be premature to consider the position of persons now serving that sentence.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that already two preventive detention prisons, namely, Nottingham and Parkhurst, are no longer used for preventive detainees? If further sentences are awarded before the relevant legislation is passed by Parliament it will mean that it will be impossible for the preventive detention régime to be administered in any of Her Majesty's Prisons, because there will be no more preventive detention prisons. How do Her Majesty's Government propose to deal with this problem? Is the noble Lord saying that absolutely nothing can be done prior to introduction of legislation that the Government have now promised?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, it is a matter for the courts whether they continue to give sentences of preventive detention, and not a matter for the Government.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord now deal with the part of my Question on the Order Paper which he has not answered—namely, the review of sentences of men at present serving preventive detention sentences?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the Government's proposals are not simply to do away with preventive detention, but to put something in its place, and until this is done it is not possible to consider the sentences of existing preventive detention prisoners. I would point out to the House, however, that under the new proposals the vast majority of those serving preventive detention could have received sentences as long as those they already had.

THE LANG REPORT
2.40 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to in form your Lordships that at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will be making a Statement on the Lang Report.

WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SHELL COMPANY OF EGYPT BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid:
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session, namely the First Reading thereof on the 8th of April last:
That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages:
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (KING'S LYNN CONSERVANCY) BILL
House in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order):
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 20), Bill read 3a, and passed.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BIDEFORD HARBOUR) BILL
House in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order):
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 20), Bill read 3a, and passed.

POLICE PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) (No. 3) REGULATIONS, 1964
2.43 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations, 1964, a draft of which was laid before your Lordships' House on July 16, be approved. The Regulations amend the Police Pensions Regulations, 1962. Your Lordships will recollect that approval was given on July 7 to amendments to these Regulations contained in the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations, 1964. The No. 2 Regulations related to four matters: the pension arrangements for inspectors of constabulary; the commutation of part of a pension for a lump sum; the allocation of part of a pension in favour of a dependant, and the provision of a gratuity for the widow or dependants of a policeman who dies as the result of a murderous attack. The No. 3 Regulations now before your Lordships have the effect of replacing this last provision relating to a gratuity by a new provision.
I am aware that your Lordships felt some reservation about the scope of the earlier provision, and I endeavoured to explain that its effect would be to pro-
968
vide a gratuity to the widow of a policeman whose case has been distinguishable, and has been distinguished in the past, from those of other widows of other men who face danger and death in carrying out their duties including the hazards of police service. I explained that my right honorable friend the Home Secretary recognised also the claims of other widows and their need for a lump sum of money in the suddenly changed circumstances of widowhood, and that he had proposed that the provisions of the police pensions arrangements should be reviewed in comparison with the pensions arrangements of other services which provide lump sum payments in addition to a pension. Following your Lordships' approval of the No. 2 Regulations, the provision relating to the payment of a gratuity was the subject of debate in another place, and the Home Secretary undertook to lay before Parliament further draft amending regulations extending the circumstances in which a gratuity would be payable to the widow of a policeman. The further amending regulations are contained in these draft No. 3 Regulations.
Draft Regulation 1 inserts the new provision to replace the provision to which I have referred. It provides (like the former provision) that, where a policeman dies as the result of an attack, the widow shall be entitled to a gratuity, of an amount equal to twice the annual maximum pay of a constable, in addition to the special rate of pension which the principal regulations already provide. It also provides (and this is additional to the former provision) for the payment of a widow's pension at the special rate and of the same gratuity where a member of a police force, although not attacked, dies on or after August 1 next as a result of an injury received in performing duties for the immediate purpose of effecting an arrest or preventing an escape or rescue from custody. The entitlement of dependent children contained in the No. 2 Amendment Regulations will extend to the children of a member of a police force who dies in any of these circumstances: that is, the gratuity that would have been payable to a widow will be payable in equal shares to a policeman's children if he does not leave a widow or, in the case of a policewoman, if she was the children's only surviving

969
parent. Draft Regulation 2 consequentially deletes from the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations Regulation 8, which is now superseded by Regulation 1 of these present Regulations.
Draft Regulation 4 provides that the amending regulations shall come into operation on August 1 next. The Police Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland have been consulted and agree with the terms of the draft Regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1964, laid before the House on July 16, be approved.—(Lord Derwent.)
2.48 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we warmly welcome the Government's second thoughts on this matter. As the noble, Lord, Lord Derwent, said on July 7 when we approved this Order, we did so with considerable misgivings, which were expressed by my noble friend Lord Silkin and myself. This, of course, illustrates one of the difficulties we are always in with an Order of this kind, which we cannot possibly amend and can only either approve or reject. No one, of course, wished to reject a measure which would have improved the pensions position of police, their widows and dependants, but we felt that the Government's proposals in the original Order which we were asked to approve were inadequate.
I appreciate the difficulties in which the Home Secretary found himself then, in that he had not then been able to secure the agreement of the Police Federation to an agreed form of words. Paragraph 12A(b), which is now included in the Order is, I understand, the form of words which has been agreed with the Police Federation and is, therefore, wholly satisfactory. It means that dependants will benefit if a policeman dies either immediately or subsequently, not only as a result of an attack but in the course of the performance of his duties. This is exactly what we wanted.
The only minor point—I hope it is a minor point—is that we should have hoped that this provision would come into operation immediately on the Order's being passed by the House, and would not have to wait until August 1.
970
We can only hope fervently that no fatal accident befalls a policeman in the execution of his duties before August 1. Apart from that, we wholly approve this Order and are grateful for the Government's second thoughts.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think I must correct the noble Lord on one point, because in what he said there was a slip of the tongue. Compensation does not arise for death from injury received in the performance of any duty. I hope the noble Lord realises that. I must repeat the actual words, in order that this is fully understood:
"whose death is the result of an injury received…in the course of duties performed…for the immediate purpose of effecting an arrest or of preventing an escape or rescue from legal custody…"
Those are the terms of the Order. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Third Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1.—PICTURE OF THE HOUSE IN SESSION
The Committee were informed that demand for the coloured reproduction referred to in the notice circulated to Peers on the 8th July is insufficient to make the proposal economically feasible.
The Committee recommend instead that a high quality black and white photograph be made available for sale to Peers at 25s. They further recommend that permission be given to the Illustrated London News to publish a reproduction of the picture. After publication the Illustrated London News have agreed to place the block at the disposal of the House so that arrangements can be made to produce copies of this reproduction for sale to Peers at a reasonable price. Full details of these proposals will be circulated to Peers in due course.
2.—PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the appointment of Mr. Paul David Grenville Hayter as a Clerk in the Parliament Office from 29th June. 1964.
3.—OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITER
The Committee authorised the payment of an additional fee for the Official Shorthand Writer in connection with the new procedure on Judgments in House of Lords Appeals.
4.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishments Circulars:—

(a) E.C. No. 18/64 Central Pay Increase (Interim),

(b) E.C. No. 19/64 Interim revision of pay scales between the Principal's maximum and the Assistant Secretary's minimum

to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
The Committee sanctioned consequential increases in six awards under the Superannuation Acts.
5.—PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
The Committee sanctioned the payment for additional Police required for the opening of the Palace of Westminster to the public for extra days as required during the Summer Recess.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JOHN F. KENNEDY MEMORIAL BILL
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I have it in command from the Queen to acquaint your Lordships that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purpose of the Bill, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. When your Lordships met on November 25 last year to pay tribute to the late President Kennedy we all felt a great sense of shock at the news of the assassination. The most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of the feeling which was shared by millions in this country, and indeed throughout the world, that we must all do something to express our grief and to reaffirm our determination to live up to the ideals of President
972
Kennedy. It immediately became clear that the British public would wish this feeling to be reflected in an appropriate national memorial to a man who had been so firm an ally and friend. Accordingly, the Government, with the agreement of the Opposition Parties, set up a Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Franks, to consider suggestions and to recommend what form a Memorial might take.
Early this year they recommended that the Memorial should take two forms: a plot of land at Runnymede, laid out simply, with a plinth and steps, should be given in perpetuity to the United States in memory of the President; and, in addition, a scholarship fund should be established for young men and women from this country to go, as undergraduates or graduates, some to Harvard University or Radcliffe College, some to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The acceptance of these proposals by all concerned was announced on March 25. The Lord Mayor of London readily offered to make the President Kennedy Memorial the object of a Lord Mayor's Appeal, and this was inaugurated in May. My Lords, I think we would all wish to say how grateful we are to him for his hard work. Contributions have been coming in from all parts of the country, but still more are needed if the scholarship project is to be soundly based, and I hope that this will serve as a further reminder of the appeal, which I commend to your Lordships.
Meanwhile, a small Committee of three—of which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, was Chairman—had been entrusted with the task of supervising how the Memorial should be put into effect. It is thanks to their efforts that the plans are now so well advanced. Their proposal was that a body of eleven Trustees, selected from this country and the United States, should be set up both to manage the plot of land at Runnymede and to run the scholarship scheme. Two of these, the Governor of the Bank of England and the Lord Mayor of London, would be ex officio; six would be appointed by the Prime Minister, and one each by the President of the United States, the President of Harvard University and the President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
These suggestions were welcomed by all concerned and a Trust Deed was

973
executed on July 4—a very appropriate date. All the American Trustees have already been appointed, and so have three of the Prime Minister's nominees. These latter include two Members of your Lordships' House, the noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord Sherfield, and my right honourable friend Mr. Harold Macmillan. It is intended that, the three remaining British Trustees will represent British educational institutions.
The Committee headed by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, studied all possible sites at Runnymede and decided in favour of a small plot of land which at present forms part of the Crown Estate. Her Majesty the Queen has expressed Her wish that the land should be transferred to the United States as a gift. It is necessary to make statutory provision for such a transfer since the Crown Estate Commissioners are normally obliged to get the best price for any alienation of Crown Estate land. Clause 1 of the Bill accordingly makes provision for this. It also provides for the land, though vested in the United States, to be held in perpetuity under the control and management of the Trustees for the use and enjoyment of the public. Clause 2 gives the Trustees all the rights and powers of an absolute owner of the land, so that there is no hindrance to their management.
I think your Lordships will agree that the recommendations of the Committee which met under the noble Lord, Lord Franks, as embodied in this Bill and in the Trust Deed provide a proper tribute to the late President's memory. These recommendations represent the two most striking facets of his character and life, the consistently refreshing energy which he brought to the affairs of the world, and the solid and lasting qualities of the ideals for which he stood. It is particularly appropriate that these ideals of liberty, equality and tolerance should be commemorated at Runnymede from where so many of our own traditions of freedom are drawn. It is therefore my privilege to commend the purpose of the Bill to your Lordships, and to ask for your Lordships' co-operation in giving expression to the nation's tribute to the late President Kennedy. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Carrington.)
2.58 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I desire to associate myself and all my colleagues with the expressions which have been made by the Leader of the House with regard to the Memorial which is to be set up in respect of the late President John F. Kennedy. I said a few words on the occasion of his passing away and I do not wish to delay your Lordships at the present moment at any length, but I am bound to say that one feels an enormous sympathy with anybody who becomes President of the great American Republic at the present time or who has become President in recent years. The tasks have been stupendous. Great issues which have been with them for a very long time have had to be faced, and there was something quite magnificent about the way in which John F. Kennedy faced up to the practical ignoring, for decades, in many parts of the United States of what became embodied in the United Nations' Charter as the Article on "Human Rights". One cannot but think on an occasion such as this that there was a man who became a martyr to his loyal and continued support of the Bill of Rights, which was really to bring his nation into line with the provisions of the United Nations Charter in relation to human rights.
The Memorial which is to be set up is, I think, a very fine way in which our commemoration should be made, and we are grateful to Her Majesty for the statement which was conveyed to the House by the Leader of the House because it affects some land which she is prepared to give up for purposes connected with the Memorial. I note what the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, says about the appointment of Trustees. They are all excellent choices; but it would be rather nice if perhaps at some other time the Trustees would include, say, a representative or representatives of other parts of the great political democracy in this country. We shall never forget—none of us who have lived through these last decades—the great services which were rendered by America to ourselves, perhaps at the beginning of the war especially, and which we received from them at different times. I pray that nothing may ever arise which will be likely to divide the two great peoples,

975
British and American, from constant co-operation for these great ideals for which John F. Kennedy stood.
3.0 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I have no hesitation whatever in giving the full support of my Party and myself to this Bill to commemorate a very great man, and I would echo the thanks we all feel to Her Majesty the Queen for enabling this to be put forward and achieved in such a very imaginative way. We have on another occasion paid our tributes to the late President Kennedy, and I hope that the deep sincerity with which those were expressed has penetrated across the Atlantic to Mrs. Kennedy, his family and the people of America, who I sincerely hope know how deeply we felt at their loss and the world's loss.
The present proposal to inaugurate this Memorial has a two-fold aspect in a way. It is in memoriam of a great man, of the things he stood for and the ideals he held; in another way, it is a symbol of our hopes of what he might have done had he been spared to live. For that reason I believe that we are quite right in giving such a treasured part of this country of ours to the image of a man, to the life of a man and the possible future life of a man who did not continue his life in a great cause. We are proud to be able to do this and trust that our American friends will again see how very sincerely we feel in this matter.
3.5 p.m.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, it had not been my intention to address your Lordships' House so soon after entering it and I crave your indulgence, but the project which is enshrined in this Bill is one which I have had some small part in furthering and one which is close to my heart. As has been said, Lord Franks' Committee made some recommendations which were widely accepted, but they were in general terms and some practical work was necessary so that the Lord Mayor's Appeal could be launched, a Bill could be introduced into Parliament and a Trust set up. I was asked to undertake this task, and in it I had great assistance from my two colleagues, the United States Ambassador and Sir Humphrey Mynors.
One of our main tasks was to select and secure a site at Runnymede, and the operative part of this Bill deals with this.
976
The idea of a Memorial at Runnymede was, I think, an appropriate and indeed an imaginative one. But in practice it was not easy to find a suitable place. We were, in the event, fortunate in our quest. We have found a spot on Crown land which is accessible but, at the same time, secluded and unspoiled. It commands a fine view over the Mede and over Runnymede Island and it adjoins National Trust land over which there will be free access to it.
In securing and selecting this site we have had the help of a great number of people and organisations—the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and its officials, the Chairman and officials of the National Trust, the Crown Estate Commissioners, the local authorities, who quickly gave outline planning permission, the Crown tenant and sub-tenant, who readily agreed to give up their leases; and finally the lawyers of the United States and British Governments, who quickly found a way through some of the problems involved in the transfer of this land. And all this work was crowned by the generous gesture of Her Majesty the Queen in giving this land to the United States Government.
The design of the Memorial is obviously of critical importance. The concept on which the architect, Mr. Geoffrey Jellicoe, is working is a very simple one. It is to preserve to the greatest possible extent the natural beauty of the setting; to limit the monumental treatment to the minimum; and to make the Memorial a place to which visitors can go for quiet contemplation and repose. The final designs will, of course, be approved by the Trustees, with the consent of the Royal Fine Art Commission and the local authorities, and it is hoped that the Memorial will be ready for dedication by the time of the 750th anniversary of the signing of Magna Charta in June of next year.
The idea of a Memorial at Runnymede is rich in symbolism, but it is simple and straightforward in execution, and it will absorb only a very small part of the funds which are being raised by public subscription. The great bulk of them will be available for the scholarships at the three centres of learning in Massachusetts. The conditions for the scholarships and the terms on which they

977
are held will be a matter for the Trustees, but I think I can say that it was heartening to read the warm and enthusiastic terms in which the Presidents of Harvard, Radcliffe and M.I.T. welcomed these proposals, and to observe the alacrity with which they moved to appoint Trustees to represent their interests. Harvard, which for this purpose represents Radcliffe, has appointed Mr. Nathaniel Davis. M.I.T. has appointed Mr. David Shepard. Both are distinguished alumni of their universities, both have wide knowledge of this country, and both are well known to many people here.
I have heard it said that this scholarship scheme is not a very exciting proposal; that it is just one more scheme for the founding of scholarships on one side of the Atlantic or another, and that it lacks originality. I do not myself agree with that view. I think that there is a great deal more scope for the establishment of such scholarships, particularly in a Westward direction, and I cannot think of a more appropriate way of commemorating a young President who had outstanding intellectual gifts than the foundation of scholarships at his own University and at the great scientific institute across the river.
There is one more point. There is to be established in Boston by the Kennedy family a Museum and Archive in commemoration of the late President, and to this is to be added an Institute which is to serve as a centre of study for Kennedy Scholars from the United States and from all over the world and as a place where they can meet. It has been in our minds from the outset that Kennedy Scholars from this country should visit and study at this Institute when it is established. I have no doubt whatever that arrangements will be made at the earliest opportunity by the universities where these scholars are studying, with the authorities of the Kennedy Institute, to provide for such visits and study, and that these arrangements will, if necessary, be approved by the Kennedy Memorial Trustees.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, the scope of this scholarship scheme depends upon the response to the public appeal, and it is my understanding that while many people and a number of institutions have already given generously there is room for a
978
further and wider response if this is to be made a really comprehensive and worthy scheme.
Memories are short. I am sure that everyone in this country was deeply moved by the shocking event at Dallas. But nowadays emotions and even intellectual responses are quickly overlaid by succeeding events and crises, and I daresay that in this case the effect has been somewhat attenuated by the smooth transfer of power which is provided for by the American Constitution, and by the fact that President Kennedy's chosen successor, the present President, has had, not surprisingly perhaps, the strength and the skill in his own way to carry forward the policies of the late President and to realise them in essentials. But this does not in the least detract from—indeed, I think it enhances—what President Kennedy gave and did.
Perhaps it was the younger generation who were most affected by the death of the late President. Many of them, I think, found it almost intolerable that, in a world which seemed to be run largely by old men, the one representative of their own generation who had broken through to the summit of power was the one to be struck down. I think that this project will serve as a living memory of the President, and that it will appeal particularly to young people. I am glad to have had the opportunity of supporting it.
3.13 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, it is a great honour for me to congratulate the noble Lord who has just spoken upon the excellence of his maiden speech. No one is better qualified than he to speak on this subject, and I am sure that he has welcomed the opportunity of making his first speech in this House in praise of the memory of President Kennedy. The noble Lord brings great gifts and wide experience to the service of this House, and we shall look forward to hearing him speak often on the many matters in which he is so well qualified to address this House.
May I, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, give our full support to this Bill? In these days of rapid communication across the world it is possible in a short time for those who are

979
placed in conspicuous positions of leadership to impress the quality of their character and ideals upon everybody in a manner which was denied to their fore-fathers. We have in the last few years had two conspicuous examples of the way in which this can happen: one concerned an old man, one a young man. In the course of his short reign, of a few years, Pope John XXIII, through the patent goodness of his character and love of peace, brought a sweetness and understanding to relationships both within and without the life of the Church which will long endure. He died in the fullness of his years. President John Kennedy, by the vigour and charm of his youthfulness, his courage, his love of freedom, gave inspiration and new vision to the whole world. He was struck down by a cruel assassin's bullet in the full flow of his life and his ability. Yet in those few years he has left the mark of his person and his ideals upon the whole of humanity.
Many of your Lordships no doubt sat up late on that momentous night when the President spoke over the radio of the action he had decided to take in the Cuban crisis. We wondered whether we should be alive next day. Never has any single man had such a weight of responsibility laid upon his shoulders, or had to take so awful a decision, as he did at that time. The courage of his decision and the statesmanship he displayed in the handling of the situation which followed placed us all in his debt. It is eminently fitting that there should be in this country, which has been the cradle of modern political freedom, a Memorial to this champion of human freedom. It is fitting that it should be at Runnymede, with all the historical associations that that name conjures up to the mind. This Bill is an expression of the gratitude that we in this country feel for the leadership of President Kennedy. I am sure that its significance is appreciated by all of us.
3.16 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, as one who has had the honour of being Rector of a Great British University with a tremendous international tradition extending over the centuries—I refer to the University of St. Andrew's—I would add just one sentence to what has been said.
980
I believe that international scholarships offer one of the greatest hopes for the world in the future; and in that I entirely agree with the noble Lord to whose delightful maiden speech we have just listened. As one who personally knew President Kennedy, I am quite certain that this manifestation on our part of his memory would have been more agreeable to him than anything else.
3.17 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that in normal circumstances I would add anything more, since the support your Lordships have given the Bill has been unanimous and most movingly expressed. But I think that perhaps on behalf of my noble friends behind me, and I am sure for noble Lords opposite as well, I might say how much we welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. It seems rather an impertinence to congratulate him since he has had such a distinguished career in so many walks of life, not least, I think—indeed, perhaps most of all—when he was British Ambassador in the United States. It is therefore more than appropriate that he should have chosen this occasion to make his first speech in your Lordships' House. I join with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester in hoping that he will speak to your Lordships many times again, and in tones so elegant and so brief. I hope that your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 20), Bill read 3a, and passed.

MALTA INDEPENDENCE BILL
3.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE, MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

981
My Lords, I should first like to express my thanks to your Lordships for facilitating the passage of this measure. It is the outcome of many months of hard work and deep consideration, and of many weeks of detailed and intensive negotiation. I regret that your Lordships should not have had more time in which to study the Bill, the proposed Independence Constitution and the proposed Defence and Financial Agreements, which all form part of the arrangements for Malta's independence.
The Bill itself follows the normal pattern of other Independence Bills. Clause 1 provides for the transfer of sovereignty on a date to be appointed by Order in Council. It is expected that this will be in the latter part of September. Clauses 2 and 3 deal in the normal form with questions of British nationality consequent upon Malta's attaining independence. Clause 4 provides for the amendment of existing laws to take account of Malta's independence, and repeals the earlier constitutional instruments which will be replaced by the new Constitution. I do not think that your Lordships will wish me to go into further detail about the provisions of the Bill which, as I have said, follows the general pattern of other independence Bills, but I feel sure your Lordships will wish me to say something about the new Constitution and about the Defence and Financial Agreements.
It is just a year since we held the Malta Independence Conference here in London, attended by representatives of all the Maltese political Parties. The proceedings and outcome of that Conference are described in the Conference Report (Command Paper 2121). The Conference confirmed that the two main political Parties, holding 42 out of the 50 seats in the Legislature, were seeking early independence. Although these two Parties were in complete agreement on seeking early independence, they could not reach agreement on the form of the Independence Constitution. The three smaller Parties, with eight seats in the Legislature, said that independence at the present time would be premature, and they asked that a referendum should be held to confirm that the majority of the people of Malta did, in fact, favour early independence. My right honourable friend explained to the Conference that, from the large number of votes cast for the two pro-independence Parties at the
982
last Election, it appeared that a substantial majority favoured early independence. However, since this conclusion was disputed by the three smaller Parties he suggested that any possible doubt on this question should be eliminated by a referendum, and that in the meantime further discussion of the Constitution should be deferred. As it was not possible to reach agreement between the Parties on this proposal, it had to be abandoned.
In these circumstances, and bearing in mind that the request for early independence had been a principal feature in the electoral programme of both the main Parties, my right honourable friend announced a target date for independence not later than May 31, 1964. My right honourable friend requested the Prime Minister of Malta to have further consultations in the meantime with the leaders of the other Parties, with a view to reaching compromise on the form of a Constitution. By the end of the year Dr. Borg Olivier had not been able to achieve any agreement in Malta, and further consultations took place in London, again without result. This led to a request by Dr. Borg Olivier that the British Government should them-selves settle the Constitution. As your Lordships know, the principal difficulty had centred on the position of the Roman Catholic Church, and my right honourable friend was naturally reluctant to intervene in such a delicate matter of this sort.
The Prime Minister of Malta then decided to hold a referendum in which the electors were asked to vote for or against the Constitution for independence which the Government of Malta had published and for which they had received the endorsement of the Malta Legislature. The result of the referendum in fact added nothing to the information already available. Forty-two per cent. of those qualified to vote cast their votes in favour of the Constitution, and 35 per cent. against. The smaller Parties, which did not dissent from the main features of the Constitution, instructed their supporters either to spoil their papers or to abstain. In other words, the referendum merely confirmed the position reached at the Conference; that is, that the great majority of electors supported the Parties who were asking

983
for early independence, but neither of those Parties was prepared to agree to embark upon independence under a Constitution acceptable to the other.
My right honourable friend then decided that the only way to bring the matter to a conclusion was to work out a solution acceptable to Malta which would also be acceptable to the British Parliament and which would conform with the principles which had been adopted in other Independence Constitutions. The problem was to secure the acceptance of the Malta Government to the amendments which we considered necessary to their proposed Constitution. It was also necessary to obtain the agreement of the Malta Government to the terms of the Defence Agreement and to the financial settlement.
So far as the Constitution was concerned, the changes made were as follows. First, a clause—Clause 46 in the proposed Independence Constitution—was inserted prohibiting discrimination on racial or religious grounds. This is a normal feature of Independence Constitutions. Secondly, Clauses 48(10) and 48(11) of the Malta Government proposed Constitution were omitted. These clauses would have had the effect of exempting the Roman Catholic Church from the application of the code of human rights. We fully understand the special position of the Roman Catholic Church in Malta, and have not forgotten that when the people of Malta voluntarily entrusted their country to King George III they secured a pledge that the special position of the Church would be preserved. But the Roman Catholic Church is itself a protagonist of the rights of the individual, and no doubt it was for this reason that the Malta Government, with the good will of the ecclesiastical authorities, have agreed to omit these clauses.
I turn now to the Defence Agreement and to the Financial Agreement, which it is intended should come into effect immediately after independence has been achieved. Malta has an important part to play in the defence of the Free World, and the Defence Agreement enabling British Forces to remain in Malta for a period of ten years affords them very much the same facilities as they have at present. This will be to Malta's benefit
984
not only because of the substantial expenditure by our Services in Malta, but also because of the employment which the British Forces also generate. At the same time we do not overlook the fact that such expenditure will be at a lower level than it was in the past, because of the Services run-down which became necessary a few years ago.
This inevitable consequence of changes in defence requirements imposes a need to develop and diversify the economy of Malta; and that need, my Lords, is recognised in the Financial Agreement. The terms of that Agreement are, I think your Lordships will agree, generous. They provide for aid of up to £51 million over ten years. There is a firm commitment to make available up to £18·8 million in the three years to March 31, 1967—the period when Malta's needs will be most acute. Up to £31·2 million will be available in the subsequent seven years, subject to the continued operation of the Defence Agreement. In addition, we will provide up to £1 million for the restoration of historic buildings now occupied by our Services.
The Government of Malta sought from us a firm commitment to provide aid for their recurrent Budget for as long as it might be needed. They foresaw that such a need might exist until 1970. We have undertaken to provide budgetary assistance of up to £600,000 in the current financial year, subject to Parliamentary approval. We told the Prime Minister of Malta that we could not enter into an advance commitment as regards budgetary aid for future years, but that we should be prepared to consider any requests for such aid which the Malta Government might make from time to time. We have, however, agreed to one measure which will relieve the Maltese Budget during the operation of the Agreement on Mutual Defence. The Malta Government accepted the provisions which are normal where forces are stationed in independent countries, for duty-free entry into Malta of imports for our Service needs. But in view of Malta's difficult budgetary position we propose, again subject to Parliamentary approval, to make good each year the loss to their revenue which would otherwise result from this arrangement.
My Lords, it is the sincere belief of Her Majesty's Government that the

985
people of Malta will make every endeavour to ensure that this liberal Constitution shall become the foundation of their democratic liberties. The history of Malta has been a noble chapter in the annals of European freedom, and I am sure that Malta will remain true to her great tradition. I know that your Lordships in all parts of the House will join in wishing Malta Godspeed. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
3.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH THE EARL OF PERTH rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be now read a second time; to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "This House, while approving the principle that the people of Malta should be free to choose their destiny, is of the opinion that no specific proposals should be passed by Parliament until the Maltese people have been consulted either through new elections or by referendum, and therefore declines to give a Second Reading to this Bill."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Before I go further in my speech, I want to make three points absolutely clear. The first is that I am, as it were, speaking on my own. I am not speaking on behalf of anybody in Malta, whether they be ecclesiastical authorities or anybody else. Indeed, in the past week I should scarcely have had time to get in touch with anybody in Malta. The second point is that I do not intend to discuss the Bill or the Constitution or anything to do with it, for, though others may wish to, I do not think it is appropriate to do so. Thirdly, I am not against independence for Malta if that is what the Maltese want. I doubt that very much, but I will come on to that point later.
Perhaps, before I go into further detail, I might recall that my first political assignment was at the Round Table Conference with many of your Lordships who are here to-day. At that time, which was some eight years ago, I paid my first visit to Malta and during that visit I learned to have deep affection for the Maltese people and developed
986
interest in and respect for the island. There were its memorable towns and churches, its great fortresses which bastioned us against the attacks of our enemies over the centuries, its trusting people, its many and happy children, and, above all, their daily way of life of which religion is a natural and simple part.
In 1802, when the Maltese chose to seek our protection, there were something fewer than 100,000 Maltese on the island. To-day, 160 years later, there are well over 300,000, and the reason for this is largely that we have fostered and developed the people of the island. Bearing this in mind, surely it is our responsibility to be satisfied that what is happening at this moment, what we are proposing to do, is right in their interests as well as in ours. Their future is in our hands to-day.
We have had, all of us in both Houses, less than a week in which to consider and decide upon what has been negotiated—I was going to say, almost in secret—whether on the Constitution, whether on defence or whether on assistance. In less than six hours another place gave their approval to the Bill, and we are expected in a few hours to-day to give our approval also. My Lords, is that the way in which we should fulfil our responsibilities to an island which has been in our care and served us so well for so long? If there were a good reason for this hurry I could well understand it, but is there a good reason? Is there in Malta to-day a clamour and demand for independence which, if not satisfied, will cause undying hatred among the Maltese people? Is there a smouldering, burning resentment against us, which will break into insurrection if they do not get independence in the next several weeks?
What has been happening in recent times? The Prime Minister of Malta has felt so satisfied about things at home that he has been able to spend weeks, nay, months, in listless negotiation over here. So your Lordships will see that there is no urgency coming from the people of Malta But yet, as I have said, during the night, Constitution, Defence and Assistance Agreements have all been initialled and sprung upon us, and we are asked to rubber stamp these Agreements.
There has been no chance for the Maltese people to react, although I myself feel confident that it has struck a chill into many of their hearts. There has been no chance for any of us to question, to probe, to discuss, to try to discover what is the attitude of the Maltese people. There has been no chance for public opinion to express itself. No, my Lords, the Government know best and we must accept all they are saying! Even if they do know best, even if they are right, is it really the way to treat us, that in this short space of time we are called on to approve these very important Agreements on this very important question?
I can think of reasons for this hurry. For example, some may say, "Well, we have got a pretty good Defence Agreement with the present Government of Malta. If we wait longer, if we wait till somebody else is in power or till there is a new Prime Minister in Malta, maybe we shall not get terms of these kind. It may be that it will cost us more money; so let us take what we can now." My Lords, as we have heard the noble Marquess say, there is some doubt about even this Defence Agreement. Otherwise, he would not say, "No aid after three years if you do not carry out the terms of the Agreement". That shows that it is recognised that, once the country is independent (and this is a point which I think we are sometimes apt to forget), it can do what it likes. It can make agreements, it can break agreements; and we have no recourse.
My Lords, I am no defence expert, and many of your Lordships may be. But I am clear about one thing—this has been borne out by history, and I do not believe that history changes, regardless of the weapons that may be developed: that he who controls Malta controls the Mediterranean. My Lords, let us be clear about this. The idea of Malta standing on its own as an independent island, or independent islands, does not really hold water. It cannot, in fact, be independent. Sooner or later someone around the Mediterranean is bound to get control of the islands in one way or another. We are throwing away this great prize for which we have given so much. We shall be throwing away all in the next day or two, unless, as may possibly happen if I
988
move my Amendment, I have your Lordships' support.
I think there is another reason why there has been this hurry, this hustle. We have heard from the noble Marquess that this particular set of negotiations started a year ago. But, of course, when you start negotiations like this, and when they have dragged on month after month, impatience develops, and you have a vested interest in securing the success of the negotiations without paying attention to anything else that may be happening. Your whole effort and your whole thought is, "Let us get these negotiations through". Then, suddenly, as we have heard, the chance arose, and the thought was, "Grab it. It is one more tick on the blackboard; one more country independent". This, I believe, is one of the reasons for what we have seen.
My Lords, over the last month I have tried, and some friends of mine have tried, again and again to influence the Government, to persuade them to think again about granting. Malta independence now. I think there is little or no evidence that the people of Malta want it. We have heard the figures of what happened at the last elections. Out of 50 seats, 42 went to Parties which had independence on their platform. But, of course, when Mr. Mintoff's Labour Party put independence on their platform, Dr. Borg Olivier's Party was bound to follow—"Who's for liberty? We are all for liberty". It is true that two or three of the smaller Parties had the courage to say that they still did not stand for it and wanted to wait. In any event, that Election was not fought on independence. Your Lordships will all recall what it was fought on. It was fought on the question: For or against Mintoff? Your Lordships will remember the bitter struggle there was; and the whole of the forces of the country were thinking purely of that. And because Dr. Borg Olivier's Party was the largest and the oldest Party, those who wanted to keep Mintoff out said, "We will vote for him; we will vote for Dr. Borg Olivier; his Party offers us the best success". That, my Lords—and this is my point—is what the Election was fought on, not independence; and the figures of who got what in the way of seats have no possible bearing.
I could, of course, be wrong in my belief. Very well; let us test it—and this

989
is what we have asked. Let us test it by a referendum. But for some reason which has never been clear to me—and we have heard the noble Marquess say it again this afternoon—the Government abandoned the request for a referendum because the two major Parties did not want it. My Lords, is that not rather curious? Have we not our responsibilities? Have we not got a responsibility to find out what the people of Malta may want? It is very curious that we should say, "Because these people do not want it, we will therefore not have it". Either they are already independent or, if we have a responsibility, we should not have abandoned the referendum; we should have asked. A referendum was held, but it was not on this question. It was a complicated question that was asked, and it got a complicated answer, and, as your Lordships have heard from the noble Marquess, it did not tell us anything new.
My Amendment calls for "no specific proposals" being put before Parliament until after there has been a referendum or new elections. I have used the words "no specific proposals" because I want us to test out something other than independence for the people of Malta. What I have in mind is coming back again to the proposal which was originally put forward at the Round Table Conference and was subsequently voted upon in both Houses and accepted. I refer to the thought of integration. I would add to the thought or the suggestion of integration that with integration should go economic equivalence. Unhappily, integration failed five years ago, and it failed because the then Prime Minister, Mr. Mintoff, put forward new demands just at the very moment of success—new demands for money, new demands for guaranteed employment—and the Government at that time felt that this was both unreasonable and unfair. I was myself Minister of State for the Colonies at the time, and I fully supported in every way the Government's decision. But, my Lords, I have often since wondered whether I was right.
I recall that at that time I went to see Mr. Aneurin Bevan, who was a good friend of Mr. Mintoff and very keen on integration. I told him the whole of the story, hoping that he would be able to influence Mintoff to change his demands. He listened to
990
what I had to say, and he recognised my sincerity. Then he commented that they were good arguments for a banker, but he wondered whether politically it was wise. I have often since wondered whether politically it was wise. Is it too late now? There is just one chance, and it is in your Lordships' hands: that we should, before independence, seek to discover whether the people of Malta would rather opt for integration.
Integration would solve the three great problems which will otherwise plague us for many a year to come. It would solve the economic problem, because I have no doubt that if Malta were a part of the United Kingdom then, with its climate, its skilful people and its many workers, industry would flock there. Tourism would be a thriving industry, and the spectre of unemployment, which so much occupies the Maltese to-day, would disappear. The problems of the Church, about which we have heard, would disappear, because over the last 160 years the Church has seen how well we in this country behave in such ecclesiastical matters and it would undoubtedly have no hesitation in putting its trust in our continuing as we have in the past.
Lastly, what about defence? Malta would be part of us, so our defence anxieties would all vanish and the Western World would be that much happier. I believe that if we asked the Maltese this question they would welcome it and jump at the opportunity. It might be rather a happy thing if, for a change, instead of finding everybody wanting to leave us, we should find somebody who said they wanted to join us. I believe they would do just that.
I must repeat that, over the months, I and my friends have been asking the Government again and again to test Maltese opinion. Now we are at, not the eleventh hour, but one minute to twelve, or even later. The seconds are ticking on. I myself do not see quite what we can do unless your Lordships join me in refusing this Second Reading. This is a pretty unhappy thing to have to ask you to do. But I have had one thought—and I have warned the noble Marquess of the question I am going to ask him. That is, if the people of Malta show in the next weeks, by a

991
petition or some other means, that they wish for integration and economic equivalence, then will Her Majesty's Government consider the position anew, and consider it sympathetically? I know that one of the easy answers to my question is: "It is a hypothetical question and we never answer hypothetical questions". But I think that this is too important a matter to allow that sort of reply. I am not asking for a firm undertaking that, in the event, they will be given integration; I am asking that we get a sufficiently encouraging reply from the Government, so that if the Maltese wish for this opportunity they can organise themselves to seek it.
Your Lordships may say: "Why not later?" The answer is that later vested interests will have developed, a pattern will have grown up, and undoubtedly it would be too late. I shall attach great importance to the answer to the question I have put. If I get sufficient encouragement, then I feel perhaps my Amendment should be withdrawn; but, if not, I think one is in duty bound to consider the position most carefully. I deeply believe that integration offers not only us but the Maltese the best solution and a new era of happiness. Surely it is worth while asking the Maltese this question; or shall we throw away the chance all of an afternoon? I beg to move.
Moved, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert:
"This House, while approving the principle that the people of Malta should be free to choose their destiny, is of the opinion that no specific proposals should be passed by Parliament until the Maltese people have been consulted either through new elections or by referendum, and therefore declines to give a Second Reading of this Bill."—(The Earl of Perth.)

THE FERRANTI BLOODHOUND MISSILE CONTRACT
3.54 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL NAVY (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, with your permission, I will repeat a Statement that has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation. The Statement reads as follows:
992
"Sir John Lang has now reported on the circumstances of the Ferranti Bloodhound I contract. This report will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon. In the light of Sir John Lang's findings, my Department reopened with Ferranti Ltd. the question of a refund to be made to the Government by the company on these profits.
"Ferranti Ltd. have offered to refund a total of £4,250,000.
"Their offer has been accepted and discussions will now take place with regard to the discharge of this liability. The correspondence relating to this will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT."
My Lords, that is my right honourable friend's Statement. I may perhaps add that copies of the report are available in the Printed Paper Office.
Following is the correspondence referred to in the Statement:
"21st July, 1964.
"Dear Mr. Ferranti,
You will remember that during the period October to December, 1963, we had several discussions about the profits made by your Company on certain contracts for the production of components for the Bloodhound Mark I missile system. When Sir John Lang was asked to carry out an inquiry into this matter, however, we agreed that any further discussion should be deferred until after his report.
This has now been received and I enclose a copy herewith. In the light of its observations I must ask you whether you are now prepared to make a refund to public funds in respect of the contracts covered by Sir John's report.
Yours sincerely,
R.G.K.WAY.
Sebastian de Ferranti, Esq.,
Ferranti Limited,
Hollinwood,
Lancs."
"Ferranti Ltd.
Hollinwood,
Lancashire.
28th July, 1964.
Sir Richard Way, K.C.B., C.B.E.,
Ministry of Aviation,
Horse Guards Avenue,
London, S.W.1.
Dear Sir Richard,
Thank you for your letter of the 21st of July, 1964. As you know when this matter was first raised with me I said that we had never had any desire to make more than fair and reasonable profits on defence contracts, and

993
that our aim has always been, and will continue to be, to perform those responsibilities which H.M.G. might choose to place with us in the most efficient and economical manner. I also indicated a readiness to make an 'ex gratia' payment to settle the matter.
There are a number of factors to be considered in arriving at what would be a proper repayment. The contract was for the production of an entirely new type and design of weapon system of which neither we nor the officers in your Department had had previous experience. Exceptional inspection standards were demanded. An exacting time schedule was set. The work therefore carried special risks, but it was nevertheless completed on time and met the very high performance standards which the Department required.
We were able to achieve exceptional production efficiency by closing another department of our business and transferring its technical and production team to the Bloodhound work as soon as production could be started. When the Bloodhound work comes to an end we shall be faced with heavy terminal expenditure. Neither of these factors is taken into account in calculating the costs charged to the contract, but which nevertheless represent substantial expenditure which we have to incur.
The profit allowance by the Ministry of Aviation included in the contract price was £810,353, but, as you pointed out in your evidence to the Select. Committee, contractors are entitled, and are expected to augment the profit figures allowed in fixed price contracts by achieving economies in the operating costs allowed for by the Department at the time when the prices are agreed. Whilst I cannot accept all the findings of the Lang Committee either so far as they concern my own company or the Ministry officials, I recognise that the profit arising on the Bloodhound I contracts was greater than we expected when those contracts were negotiated.
In order finally to dispose of all aspects of the Bloodhound I contracts between us we are willing to make a refund in respect of these contracts of a total of £4,250,000.
I would like to discuss with you arrangements for the discharge of this liability.
I would be grateful if you could assure me that there will be no discrimination against Ferranti Limited so far as future contracts are concerned in consequence of what has happened.
Yours sincerely,
SEBASTIAN DE FERRANTI."
"28th July, 1964.
"Dear Mr. Ferranti,
Thank you for your letter of 28th July, 1964.
I fully understand the points you make regarding the unique production problems which you faced in carrying out these contracts; and I recognise the success you achieved in overcoming them.
I am glad to know that in order finally to dispose of all aspects of the Bloodhound I contracts you are prepared to refund a total of £4,250,000 and I am ready to discuss with
994
you arrangements for the discharge of this liability.
I can assure you that there will be no discrimination against Ferranti Limited in the allocation of future contracts.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) R. G. K. WAY.
Sebastian de Ferranti, Esq.,
Ferranti Limited,
Hollinwood,
Lancs"
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for letting us have this Statement. Those of us who have to comment on it were glad to have the opportunity to see the Statement earlier and also the correspondence that is going to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I thought it rather strange that the letter making the offer should be dated to-day, July 28, the same day as it is made to Parliament, and that it appeared in the Press before the Statement was made in Parliament. I thought that was exceedingly curious. It is not, of course, possible—and I think my noble friends behind me would agree—to make any detailed comment at this stage, nor is it the right thing to do in view of the business we have to discuss in the House to-day, but I think we ought to study the Sir John Lang report when we get it from the Printed Paper Office. We may learn something more from it. At present, so far as I can see, the great responsibility for this matter is going to lie on the Government themselves. We may have to come back to it at some future date.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, obviously we cannot discuss a document we have not even seen. It will be equally obvious in all quarters of the House that we shall want to consider at some stage, in all its aspects, the whole question of the placing of these experimental contracts and the terms on which they are placed. Those of us who have been Defence Ministers know how difficult that often is and how much more complicated it becomes as all the new scientific developments become more complex. What I should like to put in the form of a question is: will it not be for the benefit of all of us and of the country that people should not take this up as a Party issue? There may be a great deal to be criticised in this matter, and if it is not

995
made a Party question constructive criticism will come quite as much from one side of the House as another. We should be able to approach it and give full consideration to it with a view to seeing that, whoever has the placing of these contracts in the future, they may be placed on the most businesslike and effective basis that they can be.
LORD MORRISON or LAMBETH: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether there is in the report of the Lang Committee proposals for improvement in the accountancy or methods of controlling the handing-out of contracts by the Government with a view to this not recurring? It looks as if in this case the firm was more efficient—and I am all in favour of efficiency—than the Government were in the handling of the nature of the contract. The other point is that, by courtesy of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, I have seen the correspondence. There is a letter or letters from Sir Richard Way who, I gather, is a civil servant, in which he appears to be conducting the correspondence personally, because it does not carry the usual introductory phrase: "I am directed by the Minister of Aviation", et cetera. Therefore I ask the question whether the Minister of Aviation authorised these letters or not, because the form of them is very unusual in Civil Service transactions, assuming that Sir Richard Way is a civil servant.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, I should like to say that I entirely agree with him and with my noble friend that we can best discuss this matter more fully when we have all had more time to read Sir John Lang's report. Perhaps I should mention, in part answer to my noble friend and in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that Sir John Lang's report covers only the first part, properly speaking, of his terms of reference. The second part of his terms of reference read:
"and to recommend whether any changes in organisation or procedure are necessary to ensure better assessment of prices for similar contracts in future."
Sir John Lang will be making a further report covering that aspect of the matter,
996
and I understand that he should be able to make that report by the Autumn. But that is awaited. Perhaps I should add, though it is implicit in the present report of my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation, that he has already instituted a comprehensive review and taken certain action, parallel with that review, to avoid this type of situation in future.
As regards the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I can confirm that Sir Richard Way is a civil servant. He is Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Aviation, and I am quite certain that the correspondence with Ferranti had the full approval of my right honourable friend.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Earl perhaps make representations to his right honourable friend that what strikes us prima facie is that it is an extraordinary thing that such a margin of £5 million should be discovered long after the payment for the contract was made? There seems to be great fault in the Departmental or ministerial side of it, Why should all this money be paid out without ascertaining what the profit was?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, of course I shall be glad to convey the noble Earl's observations to my right honourable friend, but I think that we are now verging on that substantive criticism which he was anxious to avoid without a perusal and study of the report itself.

MALTA INDEPENDENCE BILL
4.3 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think that I am in order to ask your Lordships to return to the subject of Malta and to the noble Earl's Amendment. I am sure that we all appreciate the noble Earl's deep concern for Malta and the valuable services that he has rendered Malta, both as senior Minister at the Colonial Office for a number of years, and before that as a member of the British delegation that attended the Malta Round Table Conference in Malta

997
in 1955. I can speak from my own recollection, which I am sure will be confirmed by the noble Earl's colleagues, in saying that he did more than anyone else at that time to smooth out the path with the Church authorities in Malta, and he helped us very considerably in obtaining general acceptance for the integration scheme. I also share his regret that that integration scheme was later dropped, because I believe that it was the most promising scheme that was ever put forward for the future of the island.
I should like to make clear at the outset what our attitude is to the noble Earl's Amendment. The purpose of this Amendment is to ask your Lordships' House to reject this Bill. We oppose this proposition for two main reasons. First, as your Lordships are aware, we do not oppose the Second Reading of Bills that have been passed by another place. We should regard this as an abuse of the power which undoubtedly rests in your Lordships' House, and we consider this to be an important constitutional principle. The second reason why we oppose the noble Earl's Amendment is that we do not want to delay indefinitely the attainment of independence by Malta. The effect of the noble Earl's Amendment would be that this Bill would be thrown out, and then independence for Malta would be indefinitely delayed.
There is very little that the two major Parties in Malta—the Nationalists and the Labour Party—agree about, but I think that the one thing on which they do agree is in their desire for independence; and in this respect, at least, they represent the wishes of the majority of the people of Malta. I must confess that I did not agree at all with the noble Earl when he said that there was no evidence to show that the people of Malta want to be independent. Moreover, I think that your Lordships will agree that Malta is a politically mature country, with long administrative experience. Malta has had internal self-government since the Diarchy was established by the Constitution set up after the First World War. Many of us had experience of that Diarchy, which did not work particularly well, but in respect of self-government Malta was far ahead of the great majority of colonial dependencies. Indeed, some of your Lordships may remember a former
998
Prime Minister of Malta during the period, the late Lord Strickland, who took an active part in the work of your Lordships' House. Therefore, I think that nobody can say that Malta lacks political and administrative experience to manage her own affairs. Indeed, in this respect, Malta is a good deal ahead of a number of countries that have already obtained independence.
Malta is a Mediterranean country, politically conscious and politically expert, and we could have no reason for denying it independence if we thought, as we must think, that this was the wish of the majority of the Maltese people. I think that I should tell the noble Earl here and now that, if he asks the House to divide on his Amendment, we should feel obliged to support the Government in the Division Lobby. I very much hope that he will take the course of withdrawing the Amendment.
Having said all this about the noble Earl's Amendment, because I thought that was the right course to take—I hope that your Lordships will agree—I should now like to turn to the merits of the Bill, and of the Agreement that goes with it, and to the way the Government have handled this measure. I do not think that many of us can be satisfied by the conditions under which Malta will obtain her independence or by the way this Bill has been sprung upon Parliament. The Government have asked us to pass this Bill through all its stages this afternoon. This means that we have to approve also the Independence Constitution which will be established by Order in Council, after the Bill is passed into law, as well as the Agreements about defence and financial aid that will come into force when Malta becomes independent.
The Government have not given any of us sufficient time to consider these vastly important matters with the care they deserve. I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he said that we were really being asked to "rubber-stamp", decisions which the Government have already taken. This Bill passed through another place on Thursday. It will pass through your Lordships' House to-day. This means that the Government have given Parliament less than a week to decide the whole future of Malta, after 162 years of close

999
and friendly association in war and peace. I ask your Lordships whether that is treating Parliament with proper respect.
I believe that the Government could have avoided springing this Bill upon us in the last week of the Session. I have this suggestion to make of the way this could have been avoided. If the Secretary of State had had the wisdom to delegate more of his work to junior Ministers, the noble Marquess opposite, who has handled this Bill so ably and taken such a valuable part in the negotiations that led up to it, could have been negotiated with Dr. Borg Olivier while he was sitting at the Savoy Hotel waiting for Mr. Sandys to dispose of Northern Rhodesia and, before that, of Aden. We all know that Mr. Sandys is a very overworked Minister. But surely that is no excuse for making small countries like Malta wait at the end of the queue for ministerial decisions, or for obliging Parliament, as has been done, to rush through a Bill that will decide the future of this country for all time.
What has held up the achievement of independence (and this point, I think, was clearly made by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in his speech) has been the failure of the Maltese Parties to agree about a Constitution; and, of course, this disagreement continues. Our main objection to the Constitution that goes with the Bill is that it is to be imposed on Malta and we have no reason to suppose that it will be acceptable to the Maltese people. I would only remind your Lordships that when the Malta Constitution, the referendum Constitution (a Constitution very like this one, but not exactly the same) was submitted to the electorate in the early part of the year, only 42 per cent. of the electorate voted in favour of it. This Constitution, therefore, has the support of less than half the electorate in Malta, and is opposed, for very different reasons, by all the political Parties, apart from the Nationalist Party.
The imposition of this controversial Constitution, against the wishes of the majority of the people of Malta, must give us the gravest concern about the future of the island. According to The Times of Friday, Mr. Mintoff, the Leader of the Labour Party, the second largest Party in Malta, has already said that his
1000
Party intends—and here I quote what he is reported in The Times to have said:
"to make every possible effort to abrogate these agreements at the earliest opportunity".
Mr. Mintoff, of course, is referring to this Constitution and to the interdependent Defence and Financial Aid Agreements. There will be another General Election—because that is based on the lifetime of the Malta Parliament—not later than the spring of 1966. What will happen if Mr. Mintoff gets a majority? How long can we expect this Constitution and the Defence Agreement to last? What will be the attitude of Malta to us and to the Commonwealth in this event? These grave unresolved questions show that we have good reason to be anxious and apprehensive about the future of Malta.
I do not myself blame the Government for failing to get the agreement of the Labour Party in Malta to the proposed Constitution, but I do blame them for not making sufficient effort to do so. Mr. Mintoff has not been consulted, although he was in London this summer and asked to see the Secretary of State about this final version of the Constitution. I cannot recall any other case since we started to de-colonise when the Opposition there have not been consulted about the final form of an Independence Constitution.
I also hold the Government responsible for not agreeing to have a General Election in Malta on the issue of this Constitution—and on that point I agree heartily with what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. Surely, with a country deeply divided, as Malta is, this is the only way to test opinion. In other Colonies we have always insisted on a General Election before independence if a new Constitution is not in our view acceptable to the great majority of the people. We are, for example, insisting on a General Election in British Guiana before independence. There, as in Malta, the Parties are profoundly divided about the Independence Constitution. Surely it is reasonable and democratic that the electorate should be allowed to decide grave issues of this kind when Parties differ about what the people want. That is certainly what we should do in this country, and I do not see why we should deny the same right to the people of any country for which we are responsible.
The proposed Constitution is certainly a much more liberal document than the

1001
referendum Constitution submitted by the Government of Malta at the referendum. I welcome the alterations that have been made, and particularly that to which the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, referred, which makes the Roman Catholic Church in Malta subject to the Constitution, including its provisions about human rights. It has been widely reported in the Press that the support of the Vatican was secured by the Government for the changes they propose to make in the Constitution. If that is the case—I do not know whether or not it is, but it was reported in reliable newspapers—it is a good omen for the future. For the free and peaceful development of Parliamentary government in Malta will depend not nearly so much on any paper safeguards that may be put into the Constitution as on the actual relationship, on whether there is good-will or ill-will between the ecclesiastical authorities in Malta and the political Parties. Let us hope that the Vatican will use its liberalising influence to persuade the ecclesiastical authorities in Malta to adopt very much the same attitude to politics as the Roman Catholic Church already adopts in other Catholic countries.
May I pass on for a few moments to the defence-cum-financial agreement? I think we all welcome the 10-year agreement about the British base in Malta. It will be useful to us, though not, of course, as useful as it was in the past, for our Armed Forces. But to my mind the especially valuable part of the Agreement is Article 5, which will deny Malta to the forces of any other nation without the consent of the two Governments; that is, the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Malta. I think this is a very useful provision indeed.
Malta will, of course, continue to be the Mediterranean headquarters of the NATO forces in the area. I would ask the Government to consider this proposal. I hope that the Government will encourage Malta to ask for membership of the NATO Alliance, and will support her application if she decides to apply for admission. The strategic importance of Malta should make it, in the long run at any rate, a continuing NATO base, in which capacity it will be of great value to the whole of the Western World; and it may be much easier to keep it as a NATO base than as a British base.
1002
But, whatever may happen in this respect, the base will be valueless, either to us or to NATO, without the good will of the people and the Government of Malta. We have often found in the past that we have lost the military value of a base because we have lost the good will of the people of the country where it was located. I do not think that the financial aid which is attached to the use of the base after the first three years of the agreement have elapsed will do anything to secure the good will of the people of Malta. I think it is the sort of thing that is really rather an irritant to national pride. But let us hope that, when these first three years have elapsed, and after another General Election has taken place, there will be the same good will between us and the Government of Malta as exists at the present time.
As to the Financial Agreement, it is a very generous one; indeed, uniquely generous, I think, in relation to the population of Malta. But, I do not grudge one penny of the £50 million that we are to give to Malta during the next ten years. It is our duty, surely, to help Malta to change over, as it is trying to do from a fortress to a civilian economy. If we do not succeed in helping Malta to do this, there will be mass unemployment when the rundown of the British Forces ends in about four years' time.
That is all I have to say, except this. This is probably the last time that we shall discuss the affairs of Malta in your Lordships' House. Those of us who have visited Malta, even for a short time—and I believe there are many noble Lords who know Malta—have come away with an indelible impression of the friendliness of the Maltese people and of the beauty of their country. Where else could you find small villages each with a cathedral? Where else could you find such a combination of man-made and natural beauty? I do not think that we should say our Parliamentary farewell to the people of this lovely island without thanking them for their innumerable services to us and to the Commonwealth in time past; without saluting again their extraordinary gallantry during the last war; without hoping for their friendship in the future, and without wishing them, from the bottom of our hearts, good fortune and happiness in time to come.
4.21 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I welcome this Bill and I oppose the Amendment. I welcome it because I see no point whatsoever in further delay. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, the Prime Minister of Malta was over here for weeks, and possibly months; and from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, one learnt that he was staying at the Savoy Hotel. That is an indication that this was not a rush job at all. There was a very long process of debate and argument, consideration, arrangements and conferences with the Church in Rome, with the apostolic delegate, with the Archbishop, with the Government of Malta and with every possible person or interest concerned. There has never been a case in the history of any of our colonial territories where there has been so much consideration and discussion as in the case of Malta.
What is the point of dragging it on again? If you have another General Election, I doubt whether it will show any different result from the one that has already been held. You can have another referendum. It will give the same result as the one we have already had. At some time or another in these cases one has to take a decision. I think Her Majesty's Government have been quite right to take the decision they have, although I agree that they should have taken it a little earlier and that it is unfortunate that they have left it so late in the Session. But it had to come now. It is not possible for us to go away, and possibly not resume again in this Parliament except on a formal basis, without deciding on this Bill and on the future of Malta. The argument of the mover of the Amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, was that he wished to give the people of Malta the opportunity of presenting a Petition for integration to the Government. I was against integration when it came up before. I am on record as to that in this House. I think I was almost the only person who was against it.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Oh, no!
LORD OGMORE: I am glad to hear that. I do not remember vocal support from the noble Earl, and I am glad to think that I have his support now, if he was not particularly vocal at the time. So far as I can recall, there was no
1004
other noble Lord as distinguished as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who opposed it last time. Integration, of course—I say this for the benefit of those of your Lordships who have not followed this question extremely closely—means integration of the Island of Malta and the Island of Gozo with this country, and Members being elected in Malta and Gozo to sit in the British House of Commons, the complete integration coming under the Home Office. The only reason why that did not come off—it was supported, I may say, by the Government and the Opposition—was because Mr. Mintoff was too greedy. He put up to the British Government at that time proposals which no British Government could accept. I was very glad at that time to support the refusal of Mr. Mintoff's suggestion. That is the reason why integration did not come off, otherwise at this moment we should not have been discussing the Independence Bill for Malta. We should have had several M.P.s from Malta sitting in the House of Commons. I have forgotten which noble Lord on the Benches opposite speaks for the Home Office—I think it is the noble Lord, Lord Derwent—but he would have been answering questions about the water supply in Gozo. Although he is a very accomplished noble Lord, I think he would have had a little difficulty with some of the questions he would have been asked.
I hope the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, will be against this proposal. I hope he will not give way. We must settle this matter once and for all. I think the Government have made a very generous settlement indeed to Malta—far more generous than to many other countries. Only last week we were discussing Northern Rhodesia. Speaking from memory, I think their farewell golden handshake was £5 million, and with Malta it is £50 million. Compare the population of Malta with the population of Northern Rhodesia. In Malta, it is 300,000, and in Northern Rhodesia, six million. When your Lordships compare those figures, you will see that this is a generous settlement. I am all in favour of it, and I am glad that the Government have been generous. They are being generous, and not miserly or niggardly.
I should like to compliment the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, on the work

1005
which I know he personally put in during the course of these difficult negotiations. I feel that Malta's future is a challenge for Malta and for us—because this is not the last we are going to hear of Malta. We shall hear a lot more of Malta from now on, and it is a challenge to us, and one which I hope all Parties in the House will live up to. Malta is a delightful place. Many of your Lordships have visited it and know it. It has this ancient history of which the people are particularly conscious. In mythical times they were visited by Ulysses. In historical times, St. Paul landed there. It was rather an involuntary landing, because your Lordships will remember that he was washed up on the shore when he was being taken under escort from Jerusalem to Rome. He had a very happy reception at first, and then conditions deteriorated somewhat; but good relations were restored in the end. This history, in my experience of Malta, is very much in the minds of people there.
One thing which impresses all of us when we visit Malta is the extreme beauty of the little towns, to which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred, and the cleanliness of the atmosphere, the colour in the churches. I do not think I have ever seen anything like it. After the rather foggy, grimy, sort of atmosphere one so often gets in Western Europe and in other industrial countries to-day, the brilliance of the paintings in the churches on the coats of arms, and that sort of thing, was a revelation to me, and perhaps shows what our own country may have been like at one time.
These small Christian communities, living in the Mediterranean—we have one in Cyprus, for example, and another in Malta; there have been others, of course, in Constantinople and other places—were always beleaguered in a sense; they always felt themselves either under an alien occupation or the possibility, or probability, of an alien occupation. Therefore, quite naturally, the Church tended to have in these centres a much greater power and authority than it has in other countries without, as it were, that fortress outlook. I think this is one reason why the Church, whether Orthodox or Catholic, has such an enormous influence on the lives of people there. One can understand it if one remembers the historical background. The reason why Archbishop
1006
Makarios, for instance, is a Prime Minister and an Archbishop—which is rather an unusual combination in the Western World—is this historical reason. In the old days, under the Turks, the Christian community was run and controlled very largely by the Archbishop because it was a Christian community.
The position of the Church in Malta—which is to some extent the reason and cause of a great deal of this controversy, as has been stated—is very clearly set out in the Constitution. Article 2 says:
"The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion"
The State guarantees to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church the right freely to exercise her proper, spiritual and ecclesiastical functions and duties and to maintain her own affairs. Later on it says:
"Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic faith shall be provided in all State schools."
So we can see from that that the position of the Church is maintained in a very powerful manner, and I think rightly so, in view of the history of the country and of the type of situation in which the Christian Church is, and has been for centuries, in this part of the world. Mr. Mintoff has been quoted as being against it. He is against this Agreement. He said that the British Conservative Government have negotiated a new, so-called Independence Constitution, a Defence Treaty and a Financial Agreement solely with Maltese Ministers who are unfairly elected to office through the infliction of spiritual injuries by local representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.
I would say that the matter does not end here. There has been an Agreement—and I support it—but I also entirely support what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said about the future attitude of the Church in Malta. I do not think it would be right for us just to pass over this point to-day without saying a word on it. The fact is that the Church in Malta must—and I believe it will: at least I hope it will—remember that this is the second half of the twentieth century, and that the need to-day (and we all recognise this, to whatever Church Communion we may belong) is for Christian unity and for a new spirit in the Churches, whether they be the Roman Catholic, Anglican or Free Churches. The

1007
most reverend Primate the present Archbishop of Canterbury is and his predecessor was very prominent in this field, I am glad to say. In the Free Churches, including my own, our various leaders have also expressed very firmly this desire for unity. So have the last two Popes, Pope John and the present Pope Paul.
We therefore hope that the Church in Malta will come forward into the general feeling of unity, the general desire for unity which is so strongly expressed in the Western World at this time. Particularly, perhaps, they might look again at the position of Protestants in Malta. We must remember that Malta is an important military, naval and air base, and this Defence Agreement is a very important treaty. There will be large numbers of Protestants living and working in Malta, and considerable numbers of Maltese coming over here to work, and I feel that the position of the Protestants and of Protestant marriages in Malta or by Maltese should be looked at very carefully indeed by the Roman Catholic authorities in Malta.
I want to turn now for a moment to a point which I consider is very important but which I think has not been touched on by anybody so far. The success or otherwise of an independent Malta is really going to turn on the economic development of the island; and this rests, I think, on five pillars. The first is migration. Malta has never been able, at any rate over the last couple of hundred years, to absorb all its population. Therefore we and other parts of the Commonwealth must be prepared every year to take quite a number of people from Malta to work here and in other parts of the Commonwealth—Canada, New Zealand, and elsewhere. This should be a real Commonwealth effort, and after the wonderful success of the Commonwealth Conference, about which we shall be talking to-morrow, this is one matter where we can help the small island by giving a real welcome to many of the people of Malta.
The second pillar is industry. This is a difficult one in a place like Malta, which is off the coast of Africa, where the Maltese language is a dialect of Arabic and where, though there is not exactly a water shortage, one has always to be careful of the water situation. It is also a country where there are no
1008
primary products. This makes the problem of industry all the more a challenge to be tackled imaginatively and with a sense of urgency. The third pillar is agriculture; and here again I believe we can do a great deal to apply to Malta the latest discoveries of agriculture at Rothamsted and other of our own agricultural research institutions. There is a great deal of information on our own and on tropical agriculture, both at Rothamsted and at the School of Tropical Agriculture in Trinidad and other places which at present, perhaps, is not always being used.
Fourthly there is tourism. I myself, having been a tourist in Malta, can assure your Lordships who have not been there that it has potential if it is properly developed and if there is real organisation. It means that the authorities and the Church must co-operate: we must have the right type of hotel, the chalet type, for young people; and we must have arrangements with airlines and tourist agencies. Tourism will need a considerable combined effort.
Finally, the fifth pillar is the defence installations, particularly the NATO base. I do not much like using the word "base" for the island; let me call it the NATO headquarters. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who raised this question about defence, I would say that NATO is there; in fact, it is mentioned (in, I must say, a somewhat churlish way) in Article 5 of the Defence Treaty. The NATO forces can come in. There are arrangements for them to operate under Article 5 of the Defence Treaty. That is the answer. Malta is not going to be wide open to anybody who likes to walk in. Under the Defence Treaty the only forces that can operate in Malta are the Maltese forces, the British forces and such other forces as we agree on, together with member forces of NATO. I think that that disposes of the argument of the noble Earl. I personally should like to see NATO headquarters there expanded, and Malta used very much as a rest centre for NATO forces, naval, military and air, of which there are very large numbers. For instance there are the American Fleet and other units in the Mediterranean area. Development is a challenge. It is a tough assignment, but with united effort, as I have

1009
said, of both British and Maltese, it can be done.
There are two other points that I should like to make very shortly. First of all, there is nothing in the Bill about an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, although there is mention of it in Clause 103 of the Constitution. We usually put it into the Bill. There is probably some draftsman's logic about it, but at the moment I do not know why it is not in the Bill. Then I would mention the three "hardy annuals" that I have raised for many years on this point in Independence Bill after Independence Bill. Could the noble Marquess try to persuade the Judicial Committee occasionally to visit Malta? Secondly, could the noble Marquess persuade them to have more members from Commonwealth countries other than Great Britain; and thirdly, could the noble Marquess persuade whoever is responsible to have some younger members?
I should like, before I close, to welcome the provision in paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 relating to the Commonwealth Institute. I hope that Malta will play her full part in the affairs of the Institute when she becomes independent, and when she will be entitled to have a representative, who is usually the High Commissioner, upon the Board of Governors. As a Governor, I look forward very much to welcoming the representatives of Malta in our counsels, and I hope that Malta will play a full part in all the work of this quite remarkable organisation, the Commonwealth Institute, which the noble Marquess knows quite well. I think that far too little is known in this country about the Commonwealth Institute. It is one of the few of the Pan-Commonwealth organisations that exist, and as the various countries become independent we are only too glad to welcome their High Commissioners as colleagues of ours on the governing body. Finally, I wish the people of Malta every possible happiness and success in the days ahead. I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
4.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, as is customary on these occasions, I crave your indulgence. I had not intended to venture to address you so soon after I had taken my seat here but when I
1010
saw that a Motion on Malta was on the Order Paper I felt I might be able to make some contribution. I have recently returned from Malta, where I was the last Flag Officer, Malta. I got back from there last year when my job was abolished by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty. I do not wish this afternoon in any way to oppose the very proper aspirations of the Maltese people for independence within the Commonwealth. But my concern is whether we have the timing right, whether the Maltese are in fact ready to assume these responsibilities, or in fact possess the wherewithal, and whether the results and effects of this measure are fully understood in Malta and in this country.
As the noble Marquess told us, the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Malta have been long, protracted and at times frustrating. I believe it would waste your Lordships' time if I were to go over the old ground. I myself believe that the present Constitution is the best that can be devised in an extremely complicated political situation. A great deal of play has been made over the special position of the Church in Malta. I do not believe that a Protestant country or the Government of a Protestant country should attempt to impose their will any further in this matter. It is probably not known to all your Lordships that in Malta there is no local government of any sort in the towns and villages, and it is traditional, inevitable, and possibly right, that the people in the villages and towns should turn to the parish priest for guidance and advice and in the village he is possibly the best man to give it.
I feel sure that the amendments already made by the Secretary of State will provide adequate safeguards. Nor do I believe that anything is to be gained by a further election before independence. The last election only took place not much more than two years ago and the wishes of the Maltese people were very clearly expressed then. The referendum which took place only a short time ago seemed to reinforce that view. If Malta is to be given independence now, I believe that the setting is possibly as favourable as it will ever be.
What I am not yet absolutely convinced of is whether we ought to give her independence at this moment. What will be

1011
the effects, particularly on Malta, of independence? It has been said so often that the problem of Malta is economic that I must apologise to your Lordships for having to say it again. Here we have two small islands, grossly over-populated, with only one natural asset; that is their magnificent harbours. They have been conditioned for many years to a fortress economy, and they have very little chance, I believe, in the near future of increasing their industry sufficiently to give employment to their people. They have an infant tourist industry facing many great difficulties. And, last but not least, as has already been said, to retain for those who remain in the island that high standard of living to which they have become accustomed they have to rely to an increasing extent on emigration.
Malta cannot in the foreseeable future be economically independent. She will require British, foreign or Commonwealth aid for many years to come. In view of that, I think we are entitled to ask how political independence is going to help her in tackling this problem. It will inevitably raise her status in the world. At the same time, she will have to spend money on foreign embassies and all the trappings of a sovereign State, which I doubt whether she can afford. The British connection will become a little more remote, and the last safeguard against political exploitation will have gone. Even in Malta itself, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has told us, there appeared, two or three months ago, at any rate to be no very great impatience for independence.
The Church is, to say the least, apprehensive. The centre Parties, which have more influence than their meagre numbers in the Assembly might suggest, have been fighting very hard against it. The business community and a large number of Maltese in all walks of life in Malta are quite definitely doubtful, and some are extremely hostile to the idea. Here I find myself in close agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Perth. The only point on which I disagree with him is that I fear his Amendment comes too late. The tragedy is that it was never put to the Maltese people as a straight issue: should it be independence now or later? Had that been done, we might have had a different answer. But as the Secretary of State has already said in another place, A is now too late to go back to the
1012
independence issue. Having come very recently from Malta, I fear that he is right. But the more the pity!
Now may I turn to the implications for Britain and the Commonwealth? This aspect has already been touched on, but in my view it is rather more serious than any noble Lord has so far stated. For well over a hundred years the balance of power in the Mediterranean has been guaranteed by a powerful British fleet based on Malta. Already the times have changed. Our own sorry reduction in our Armed Forces in the Mediterranean area and the appearance of the American Sixth Fleet has considerably changed the picture. Yet is it really the policy of Her Majesty's Governmet to remove the British presence altogether from the Mediterranean?
I think your Lordships will agree with me that our days in Cyprus and Libya are numbered. We must regard Gibraltar as an outpost of the Atlantic. That leaves only Malta. I am entirely confident that the present Prime Minister and his Government will adhere loyally to all the provisions of the Defence Agreement which is to be signed immediately after independence. But we have already plenty of evidence that a successor might wish to abrogate this Treaty or, even worse, tear it up in a fit of pique. That has happened before now. Should that happen, we, the British, will be out of the Mediterranean with no hope of returning. This is a very serious thought.
There is one more point that I should like to make: it is that we possess in this extremely difficult and delicate situation one enormous asset. That asset must not be forgotten and must not be lost. As a sailor, I have known Malta and the Maltese for the best part of 35 years. Never in all this time has the good will between British and the Maltese in the Island been better. It was my unhappy duty, as the Admiral for Malta, to have to announce the rundown of the naval base rather less than two years ago. This, combined with smaller reductions in the other two Armed Forces in Malta, was a terrible blow to the Maltese, and might well have caused serious unrest and a great deal of hostility. The news was, in fact, received with a great measure of understanding and even good humour. If the granting of independence is going to deepen and strengthen the

1013
good will which already exists, then perhaps the timing is not so far wrong.
I hope that the granting of independence by Her Majesty's Government and the present of £50 million will not be regarded as the final pay-off of our responsibility to the people of Malta. They are going to need aid for a long time to come. I am well aware that in relation to the other colonial territories they have for a good many years been in a privileged position as regards financial aid. I am also a great believer that an independent country should learn to stand on its own feet. But, whatever is done and however much is achieved, Malta will still need help, and it is my hope that no Prime Minister of Malta will ever have to look further than Britain or the Commonwealth to provide his essential needs. Finally, may I echo what has been said by so many of your Lordships to-day, many of whom I see have a deep affection for Malta and its people—that is, simply to remember that we owe this Ally a great deal in both peace and war. I should like to add my good wishes for their great success in this new endeavour.
4.54 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, it does not fall often to a Member of your Lordships' House to follow twice in the same afternoon noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches, and to be able to congratulate them on having overcome this considerable hurdle with flying colours. What strange working of Providence has bestowed this great honour upon me, I cannot think, but I count it a great honour to be able to be the first to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, upon the brilliant speech which he has just delivered to this House. Those of us who have a great affection for the Navy and a passionate belief in its greatness will regard any strengthening of the naval contingent in your Lordships' House as being a good thing. We therefore welcome the noble Earl most warmly for what he is. The speech which he has made has whetted our appetite, and we look forward to many contributions from him in the future.
All those who have experienced the beauty of the Island of Malta and the kindliness of its people will want on this occasion to wish them well at this moment in their history, as they stand on the
1014
threshold of their independence. My own memories of Malta are, I suppose, as dramatic as any that any other noble Lord may possess. I first saw the Grand Harbour of Valetta on November, 1940, from the quarter deck of H.M.S. "Barham" as we escorted the last convoy but one from West to East across the Mediterranean. I have never forgotten the tumultuous welcome that we received from people who were standing on the Fortress as we went in. I was to return to Malta three years later in H.M.S. "Howe", to partake in that occasion on which Andrew Cunningham sent his famous signal:
"Be pleased to inform their Lordships that the Italian battle fleet now lies at anchor under the guns of the Fortress of Malta."
Between those two visits, the Island had taken its terrible punishment. As an outpost of the Free World, face to face with a Europe under the yoke of the dictators, it had been the target for a concentrated attack, the savagery of which has seldom been equalled in the history of war. The Maltese people won the respect and admiration of the Free World for their steadfastness and courage, and it is fitting that on this occasion in the development of their long history we should remember our debt to the people of Malta and once more salute them for their achievements.
In those momentous years, Malta was a bastion of freedom and a symbol of what the Free World was fighting for. It is because those memories are so precious that I venture to voice certain misgivings about features of the Constitution which goes hand in hand with this Bill and which forms the major part of the decision which is required of this House to-day. I speak of these things with considerable reluctance, for I should not wish it to be thought that I was using this occasion for stirring up any animosity.
Malta is an intensely religious Island, and we all respect the faithfulness and the devotion of its people. When, in 1802, the Maltese placed themselves under British rule they were assured of the continuity of their religious tradition. That that should be safeguarded is, I am sure, something that we should all accept. The draft Constitution honours that pledge, and I fancy that there are few, if any, of your Lordships

1015
who would wish it to be otherwise. But as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has reminded us, there is a considerable population in the Island which does not belong to the Roman Catholic Church—people who live in Malta, people who visit the Island. It may well be that the Royal Navy will not be based on Malta to the same extent as it has been in the past, but for many years to come—indeed, the very prosperity of the Island demands it—Malta will continue to be a cosmopolitan centre. People of differing nationalities and creeds will come to the Island. They have their rights, and it is essential that the Constitution should safeguard these things.
Misgivings on this score are not new; nor are they confined to members of my own Communion. In what I have to say, I speak not only for the Church of England, but for the British Council of Churches. As soon as the draft Constitution was published in 1961 there were long and protracted negotiations between ecclesiastical leaders in this country and the Colonial Office, in order to ensure that the rights of minority, non-Roman Catholic groups should be adequately protected. The question of the validity of mixed marriages in the Island was of particular concern. Those expressions of anxiety were somewhat reluctantly withdrawn, because it was pointed out that Section 13 of the Constitution provided that
"All persons in Malta shall have full liberty of conscience and enjoy the free exercise of their respective modes of religious worship.
"No person shall be subject to any disability or be excluded from holding any office by reason of his religious profession."
It was argued at the time, I understand, that if there should appear to be any discrimination in the administration of the marriage law this would be "a disability" within the meaning of the Constitution and that therefore there was sufficient safeguard.
The next document that we come to is the Constitution for Independence, published by the Government of Malta. In that document Clause 41 repeats the two subsections of Section 13 of the 1961 Constitution which I have just quoted, but adds a third subsection which states:
1016
"Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent or in contravention of subsection (1), to the extent that the law in question makes provision that is reasonably required in the interests of public safety, public order, public morality or decency, public health, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof, is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society."
Your Lordships may feel that the provision for "public safety, public order, public morality or decency, public health, or the protection of the rights or freedoms of others "or what" is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society" throws open the doors very wide and considerably minimises the safeguards which were provided by the 1961 draft. But at least in the Malta document the disability clause remains.
But the document before us to-day goes considerably further even than this, and in the opinion of many virtually removes the safeguards which had been sought and which it was understood had been assured. Section 41(1) repeats the first subsection of the 1961 draft and the Malta versions. Subsection (2) repeats the questionable subsection of the Malta version. But the really vital section of both previous documents giving the assurance that "no person shall be subject to any disability" now disappears. This is a very serious modification and one which has caused considerable concern to those who expressed their misgivings in 1961 and withdrew their opposition only on the understanding that such a section should be included.
No doubt attention will be directed to Section 46 of the Constitution which provides against discriminatory legislation of any kind. But paragraph (4)(c) specifically provides that
"this section shall not apply to any law so far as that law makes provision with respect to adoption, marriage, dissolution of marriage, burial, devolution of property on death or any matters of personal law not hereinbefore specified".
In other words, the Constitution before us specifically excludes from the ban on discriminatory legislation that province of the law which deals with marriage, which is the very area in which we have for a long time asked for reassurance and guarantee. If, therefore, the religious rights of those who are not Roman

1017
Catholics are to be preserved, it is essential that Section 13 of the original draft, which provides that, no person shall be subject to any disability for conscience sake, should be restored, so that there may be no doubt whatever on this score.
There is one further aspect of the situation to which I must draw your Lordships' attention. I refer to the protection of church buildings in the possession of Communions other than the Roman Catholics. Clause 38 provides
"Protection from deprivation of property without compensation",
but the protection is tenuous. There are Christian Communions which I understand have buildings situated on land at present held by one of the Services. It would give much assurance if this matter could be re-examined and an assurance given to safeguard at least the existing buildings owned by Communions other than the Roman Catholics in the Island.
It is extremely distasteful to me to have to voice these considerable misgivings, and I hope it will be understood that I do so in a spirit of charity. Non-Roman Catholics will recognise with gratitude the statesmanship which has resulted in the removal of subsections 10 and 11 of Section 48 of the Malta Constitution which appeared to set the Church above the law. But it is of concern to many of us that in this day, when so many human rights are threatened and when, the world over, freedom is in jeopardy, we should appear to approve of legislation which in the slightest degree condones the continuance of restrictions and disabilities on religious grounds. This new Constitution is, in the opinion of many, a backward step from the 1961 draft. We ask that the protection from disability should be restored; and that church property should be protected without question. With these provisions in the Constitution we should be able to support the measure before us; and we sincerely desire to do so, for we wish Godspeed to the people of Malta.
5.7 p.m.
THE EARL, OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken has voiced some very sincere misgivings which I certainly would not attempt to dispel at a
1018
moment's notice. I will leave it to the noble Marquess who is to reply to answer the right reverend Prelate. I can only hope and believe that the misgivings of the right reverend Prelate will prove to be misplaced. I should like to say that I entirely agree with him in the tribute he paid to the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow. The right reverend Prelate is much better qualified to eulogise a naval Lord and to refer to the powerful addition being made to "the naval contingent". I suppose the best I can do is to express my satisfaction at the powerful addition which has been made to the contingent of Earls. Here the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will join with me; and if the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, refuses to have anything to do with us because we sit in this House as Barons, I will pray in aid my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who has the advantage of being a noble Earl and a naval Lord and who is everything that makes him best qualified to congratulate the noble Earl.
I am not going to deal with general topics, but only with one particular aspect. I must just say, as the first spokesman from this side since the very interesting maiden speech of the noble Earl, that he is completely mistaken if he supposes that a Labour Government would repudiate the Defence agreement. They have publicly supported it elsewhere, and no doubt would do the same again in all circumstances. So I hope the noble Earl can remove those misgivings from his mind.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, may I just interrupt to make it clear that I was in fact referring to a Maltese Prime Minister—not to the Labour Government in this country.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Then I apologise. I know that I was not the only noble Lord who misunderstood the noble Earl, so I am glad we have been able to clear it up together.
I have never ventured before to address this House on the subject of Malta, though I have tried to keep in touch with events there. When I paid a visit—it is now a good many years ago—the very capable Governor was the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, who has kindly given way to me and

1019
will speak later in this debate. If I venture to speak to-day it is purely in an individual capacity. As a Roman Catholic I have often spoken and have often uttered opinions on Catholic matters. I have told the House what I thought was the state of Catholic opinion, though I was never quite sure whether I was right—perhaps sometimes I was, and sometimes I was not. But to-day I am rather better qualified to give the House a brief account of the Roman Catholic attitude in one or two matters. May I say that I know that all noble Lords who have spoken about my Church have done so in a spirit of charity. I should like to thank particularly the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for what he said about the helpfulness of the Vatican, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the right reverend Prelate were trying to be as helpful as possible.
I should like, then, to assure the House of the sincere good will of the Roman Catholic authorities at all levels in Malta, and still higher up, if I may so put it, towards the settlement which is now being arrived at, on which they rest their high hopes for the future. I should like to emphasise, in view of a question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that there is, I am assured, complete agreement between the Vatican and the authorities in the island. I do not know the past history, but to-day there is complete agreement between all Catholic authorities on this matter, and I should not like the impression to get about that somebody had been coerced by somebody else. The Holy See, as I have good reason to know, wishes every possible success to Malta and the people of Malta in the new era of independence that is now beginning.
The Catholic Church looks upon this arrangement as no doubt imperfect, like everything human, but as the foundation of what should be many years of progress and concord; and certainly all Catholics hope that past misunderstandings, and in some cases bitterness and antagonism, will be overcome and forgotten. The Catholic Church hopes that it is possible for all sections of opinion, religious and political, including all political Parties, to be reconciled on the new basis and in the new atmo-
1020
sphere. If I am asked whether what I am saying seems to me an olive branch held out by the Roman Catholic Church towards those with whom it has been in conflict, I can only reply that that is how I understand it——
LORD HOBSON: Or vice versa.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD:—and I hope that everywhere, and not least in your Lordships' House, it will be received as such.
5.14 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, since I relinquished the office of Governor of Malta fifteen years ago, I have studiously refrained (I except the previous occasion when a Constitution for Malta was put before us) from speaking in public about the affairs of Malta. I have done so because these matters have been very hotly contested in Malta, and I thought it better that one who had held that responsibility should be extremely careful in his conduct, and should not run the risk of saying something which might conceivably be interpreted as a reflection of official opinion in this country. But, my Lords, this is presumably the last occasion on which we shall be called upon to discuss a Constitution for Malta, and I feel that I should be lacking in my duty to this House if I refrained from saying something this afternoon.
The three questions which we have to ask ourselves are these. Should Malta be granted an independent Government; if so, should it be granted now; and is the Constitution proposed a suitable one for Malta? To those questions, my Lords, I answer unhesitatingly, Yes. I think that the time has arrived when Malta should have its complete independence. We must remember that this is an ancient and proud society, which has a long tradition of civilisation and culture, and that political questions, and particularly constitutional ones, have been actively agitated in Malta for many years. At first, perhaps, this was more a subject of discussion among a minority of educated Maltese. But to-day it is a subject of discussion among Maltese of every rank, because Malta is a country which is educated politically and there cannot be the slightest doubt that the majority of the Maltese want independence in some form or other.

1021
Therefore, I say that Malta should be granted its independence, and that it should have it now. There is no point to be gained by any further delay. It will only create an impression of hesitancy and shiftiness upon the part of the British Government, and that impression ought not to be created. The time for decision has arrived and the Maltese should now have their complete independence. As to the third question, whether the proposed Constitution is reasonably suited to the needs of the Maltese people, I say that the answer is, Yes. It is in its general pattern similar to many other Constitutions that have been granted to colonial territories in recent years. It has in it a number of adaptations which are dictated by the legislative system and conditions as they have grown up in Malta over many years, and on the whole I think that these adaptations are right.
I know that it is strange to us in this country to find in the Constitution a provision which says that the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion is the religion of Malta. But that has, in fact, been part of the Statute Law of Malta for many years. It is merely a statement of a truism, for at the present time the vast majority of the inhabitants of Malta are adherents—and mostly, I think, very devout adherents—of the Roman Catholic Church. I sympathise to a certain extent with the points which the right reverend Prelate has raised with regard to this matter. It is perfectly true that the position of other religions in Malta is somewhat anomalous because there is in Malta no civil law of marriage. Marriages can take place there only according to the rites and customs of some particular Church. But the fact that has continued to be the position in Malta is something for which this country cannot excuse itself if it is wrong, because we had the opportunity on many occasions, when the government reverted completely into British hands, to alter it if we considered it advisable to do so.
On this point, and on the whole question of safeguards for individual liberties and freedoms of all kinds, I think we have to recognise that, in the long run, the ultimate sanction for these things in a democracy lies in a realisation, such as I hope we have achieved in this country, and such as I hope has been achieved, and will continue to be expressed, in Malta, that basic freedoms
1022
in a democracy in which all can vote depend ultimately upon respect by the majority for the rights of the minority. This is absolutely fundamental for the working of any democracy in which the Legislature has absolute power. If we are not prepared to respect the rights of minorities, democracy ceases to serve its real purpose and there arises a dictatorship. Therefore, I would express the hope that a Government of Malta will one day see fit to establish civil laws relating to marriages of those who are not Catholics, at any rate, which will be in accord with what normally exists in Western countries. I think that that stage is bound to come, and I venture to express the opinion that the Catholic Church, which has shown a desire for reconciliation with other Churches, would be well advised to encourage or facilitate any such legislation in the event of its being proposed in the future.
My Lords, there remains one other matter to which I would briefly refer, and which has been mentioned by previous speakers, and particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, to whose speech we listened with so much attention; that is, the economic position of Malta. I have mentioned this question before, when I have spoken to your Lordships about Malta. There is no doubt that the position is an extremely difficult one, because the island is lacking in almost all natural resources. A large part of it is bare rock, and the remainder, with its scanty coating of earth, is not capable of feeding more than one-fifth of the population. The Maltese have therefore to exist by what industry they can create in a country which has no basic raw materials, and where, therefore, they must live by the natural advantage which the sun has given to them by tourism, or by adapting themselves to manufactures in which skill predominates much more than raw materials. Even so, the economic position of Malta is, and is bound to remain, extremely difficult so long as the population continues to increase. In fact, this difficulty has been met only by emigration and by a very liberal financial support from the taxpayers of this country. Continued financial help is being guaranteed to the Maltese, in a very generous fashion, for ten years. But it would be wrong, I think, to let them believe that it will necessarily continue

1023
to the same extent and indefinitely after the end of ten years.
Therefore, one of the greatest responsibilities which will fall upon Maltese Governments in the future, of whatever Party they may be, will be to foster the economic ability of Malta and its inhabitants to support themselves to the greatest possible extent. This is a very great responsibility which they have to undertake, and, for my part (and I have the greatest affection for the Maltese people: I have enjoyed the many contacts and, indeed, the many friendships with them that I have had and still have), all I can say is that we must wish them the wisdom, the judgment and the energy to cope successfully with that responsibility and to show that self-government in Malta is something to be proud of and to be respected.
5.28 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I rise to join in the warm welcome given from most parts of the House to this Bill, and I should like particularly to congratulate my noble and gallant friend Admiral Lord Glasgow on his maiden speech. I first met him in 1923, when we were new boys in the same house at the same school on the same day. Forty years later we celebrated that anniversary when he was the Flag Officer, Malta, and I was the General Officer Commanding. We were both members of the Consultative Council, the Heads of Services Committee and the Defence Committee; and I think no one knows better than I how very much he had the wellbeing of the people of Malta at heart. When he left, a unique distinction was paid to him when the leading trade union leaders wrote to him and to the Press deploring his departure at such a critical time, when they so greatly valued his help. I hope we shall hear him many times in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, much as I welcome this Bill, I regret that it comes at a time of acute economic crisis. I think the financial agreement is very generous, but it has come only just in time. I know the treasure chest of the Island is nearly empty, and though the money will help for the time being, and I hope for a long time to come, and will get things going properly, it will not solve the problem of unemployment. When I left last
1024
December, 11 per cent. of the islanders were unemployed. I do not know whether my noble friend who is to reply to the debate can tell us what the present figures are, but I should be very grateful to know. But this is a very serious matter and unless the money that is going to Malta is invested in measures to improve the economy and create more jobs, then in ten years' time when the money is spent Malta will be no better off than it is to-day. We do not know what our defence requirements will be in the Mediterranean then.
I wish we saw in Malta more confidence among the Maltese in investing their savings in their own island. There has been very little of this in the past. Huge sums every month are sent from Malta to England and to other countries. No one will have confidence in an island, now to be an independent country, that has no confidence in itself. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, touched on the question of emigration. The population is rising quickly, the birth rate rises very much more than the combined numbers of those who die and those who emigrate. I was in Australia earlier this year and I was glad to find how well the Maltese immigrants there are doing. I was also glad to play a small part myself in opening the doors of New Zealand for Maltese immigrants. I hope that these two great countries will do all they can to take these admirable workers, and that other countries in the Commonwealth will assist in the same way.
I deeply regret the reception given to this Constitution by the Malta Labour Party. I am certain it is the best possible Constitution we could get in the circumstances. I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State and my noble friend Lord Lansdowne because I know well the hours of work and discussion they have put in over the last two years—not one year, but over two years. There were countless consultations with the political leaders time after time, both in Malta and in this country, and they have shown patience and understanding at all times. From my own small acquaintance with Mr. Mintoff, I like him. We met only at official affairs, as he was one of the most efficient architects for the War Department, and we occasionally had a pleasant glass of beer together while

1025
discussing the work to be done. But I do not think for one moment that it is the wish of even a few of his supporters that the British connection should be terminated in favour of whatever country will pay the highest price.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said there was a chill in the hearts of the Maltese about forthcoming independence. It is quite true there was a chill; but I do not believe there is a chill now. I believe that, with this Constitution and with the Financial Agreement, they will be quite satisfied; and I am sure that we shall get no further forward and do no good by postponing it. I strongly urge your Lordships to reject the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I have said that I regret that independence comes at a time of economic crisis, but it is too late now to go back. If we accept this Amendment there will be bloodshed and bitterness against us. As your Lordships have heard, there is now a wealth of affection and trust towards the British in the Island. This I think would be seriously threatened.
I congratulate the Government on the Defence Agreement, and I hope that the Minister of Defence will take full advantage of it. The more ships, soldiers and aircraft that can go to Malta for training or stationing there the more we shall help the economy of the Island. The Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm would have tremendous advantages in training in the Mediterranean at all times of the year, which is not always possible in this country.
There is no mention in the Defence Agreement about the Royal Malta Artillery, and I have not heard any noble Lord or any Member of another place mention it. I should like to say just a few words about it, and to ask the Minister one question. The Royal Malta Artillery is part of the British Army. It has at the moment one Regular regiment in Germany which drives lorries and does a job similar to the R.A.S.C.; and the regiment is doing it extremely well. The second Regular regiment is in a cadre form on the Island. There are two Territorial Gunner regiments and a Territorial infantry battalion. They have a very proud tradition. The Regular officers of the Royal Malta Artillery are eligible for staff appointments all over
1026
the world, as are officers of any British unit. They go to Sandhurst to start with and to the Staff College and numerous other schools. They are commanded by a most capable and efficient Maltese officer, possibly the best they have ever had. They would not welcome the termination of this long connection with the British Army, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that some formula can be found to keep up this great connection, because I know they would hate to see it go.
As a Protestant I have avoided the controversial subject about the power of the Church. I believe that this Constitution marks a big advance, but in another place and in your Lordships' House serious doubts were expressed about the freedom of religion. I am personally quite confident that that will work out very happily. Only a year ago I attended a large service in St. John's Roman Catholic Cathedral on behalf of passengers on a cruise of the World Council of Churches. At the service I saw there the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter, a Presbyterian parson, a Benedictine monk and the canon of the Roman Catholic Cathedral lead the whole party in the Creed and the Lord's Prayer in English. I thought it was a wonderful thing. That that should happen in the great cathedral of the Knights was, I feel, an example that things were moving a great deal faster towards understanding and unity than we had expected. I therefore congratulate the Government most warmly on this Constitution and on the Defence and Financial Agreements. I should like to send affectionate greetings to my many friends in Malta, and I hope that your Lordships will reject the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
5.39 p.m.
The EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, having had as Secretary of State for the Colonies to guide the destinies of Malta through some difficult years in the early 'thirties, I should like to add my warmest welcome to this Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will remember that we had had some difficulties with the Bishops and the Church then. In fact the Constitution had been suspended—I am not quite sure whether it was by his Government or by ours—owing to the quite unjustifiable intervention of the Church of Rome in the

1027
Elections, under, I must admit, a certain amount of provocation from the late Lord Strickland. Fortunately, wiser counsels prevailed and we came to a wise agreement. The Church withdrew the extreme pretensions it had exercised, and I would say without any hesitation that if there had been another Constitution then, in 1931, and the same provisions about the Church that are in this Constitution and, still more, the spirit which obviously is being displayed now by the Church in Malta and by the Vatican as well, we should never have had these difficulties. But I believe that they are all things of the past.
I have no doubt that this Bill should be passed and that the Amendment of the noble Earl should be rejected. Of course, it is tiresome that the Bill comes to us at such short notice and that we have to pass it at the end of the Session, but we should be doing a terrible injustice to Malta and, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, we should be arousing the maximum of suspicion in a Malta which now trusts us, if we hesitated to pass this Bill. If there is one thing that is certain about Malta, with all its differences of opinion, it is that at least 90 per cent. of the people want independence. It is surely not any question of independence being granted too soon. All parties in this country would have been willing to grant independence to Malta months ago—probably years ago—if only we could have got agreement between the statesmen in Malta as to the form the Constitution should take.
I am quite sure that we should pass the Bill now. I am equally sure, if I may venture to say so without undue dogmatism, that it will be wrong to pass the Amendment which is down in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel (I do not know whether he means to move it) giving Malta complete self-government now, but saying that that should not come into force until there had been a General Election in the near future. I think that would be entirely unusual. If it is right to pass this Bill at all, it is right to bring it into force in Malta as soon as possible.
I would add not only that it would be very unusual and I think very unfair and unwise to do that, but that surely much
1028
the best way of testing opinion in Malta on the Constitution, on the British connection and on the value of the Defence Agreement will be when this Bill is passed and the Constitution is put into effect and a Government responsible to the Legislature has the responsibility of carrying on the government of the island under the Constitution. I feel sure that that would give the people of Malta a chance of seeing the Constitution in operation, would dissipate all the propaganda and counter-propaganda, often extremely tendentious, and would bring the Government and the Opposition and the people of Malta face to face with realities. I do not think we could do them a better service than to give them that opportunity. Finally, I would join my noble friend, Lord Glasgow, who made an admirable speech, and my noble friend, Lord Thurlow, in giving our best wishes to the people of Malta in going forward in their new independence to what I hope may be happiness and prosperity.
5.45 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I have listened to most of this debate, but unfortunately I had another enagagement and missed one of the speeches about three-quarters of an hour ago. I must say that I am glad the debate has gone as it has so far. The noble Earl who put the Amendment on the Order Paper is, as he has always been, a genuine friend of Malta, but I think he is very mistaken in putting this Amendment on the Order Paper to-day. As my noble friend Lord Listowel said earlier, we will be bound to vote against it, if it were to go to a Division. I beg the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment.
On the other hand, developments arise in a debate like this which are exceedingly interesting and test our individual consciences with regard to the proper protection of the ordinary, normal freedoms in a free State. Whilst it is true that in the provisions of the new draft Constitution there are some changes from the attitude of the Church some years ago which are an improvement, nevertheless I must say that the great pressure upon us to get this measure through, as all Parties have promised to do, in a one-day debate in each House has not enabled us—and I confess it—to examine the draft with

1029
the same detailed attention as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester has shown he has done. I must say that it lands us in a bit of difficulty. We are under a promise, made by all three Parties through the usual channels, to see this Bill through in one day, and that arrangement cannot be upset. But when we come to the changes which have been made in respect of the freedoms which had been secured in the draft Agreement of 1961, and detailed for us this afternoon by the right reverend Prelate, I think that strong notice ought to be taken of this—very strong notice indeed.
How best can we deal with the matter at this stage? Whatever the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, may think about our attitude in regard to any Amendment we may have put forward on Committee stage, it is important to make sure, even if under the agreement we have already made to take the Bill in one day we cannot get an Amendment included, that we draw the attention of the Maltese authorities, of both the Church and the Government in Malta, to the disabilities which must inevitably arise in Malta in the freedom sense unless we can restore to the new Constitution those safeguards which were agreed in the draft Agreement of 1961.
How is that to be done? I am sorry to have to put this question to the noble Marquess who is in charge of the Bill in this House, but he may be able to advise me as to how best it can be done. Two or three of my colleagues have discussed this question with me, and I think it would be possible to deal with the matter, if the Government could give us now an undertaking that they would proceed to examine closely the speech of the right reverend Prelate and the revelation he made of the safeguards which have been omitted from this new constitutional agreement, and which were in the 1961 Agreement, and undertake that they will take up with the Government of Malta, without in any way breaking the arrangement to pass the Bill through all its stages to-day, and have that put right. This could be done, so far as I can gather, by an amendment to the Order in Council. If I understand the position correctly, the Constitution does not come into operation until there has been an Order in
1030
Council. Will the Government undertake to discuss at once with the Maltese authorities an amendment to the new Constitution, so that, before independence begins to operate, or as soon thereafter as possible, they may agree to the reintroduction of the freedoms which were in the 1961 draft but have been left out of this Constitution?
I do not want to speak at length; I just want to get over this problem. If it would help the noble Marquess to deal with this matter if we put down a manuscript Amendment, so that we may discuss it in more detail and the rest of the House can have an opportunity to put their views on the situation, I think that could be arranged. But in the meantime, in the winding-up of this debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, may we have an assurance from the Government that they will go into this matter and seek to reintroduce those vastly important safeguards which were in the 1961 draft but have been left out of this Constitution?
5.52 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the debate, I wonder if one who has spent less than a fortnight in the Island, but like so many others fell completely in love with it for its beauty, its architectural glory, its heroic history, and its archaeological wealth, may say how much I have been impressed by some speeches in this debate. One cannot learn very much, perhaps, in so short a visit, but I was very fortunate indeed in enjoying the kindness of my noble and gallant friend Lord Thurlow who was at that time G.O.C., Malta; and in his hospitable house I had the good fortune to meet the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, who was commanding the Navy there. You can imagine with what joy I heard the brilliant speech he made to us this afternoon. I found out, not for the first time, how our soldiers and sailors can be both most knowledgeable on the problems of the stations where they are serving, and most enlightening to occasional visitors. I also had the good fortune to meet and have the advice of the Governor and of Sir Edward Wakefield.
I am completely convinced by the advice given by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow. I must admit that I had had some doubt and regret, which has been

1031
shared in many quarters, at the necessary brevity of our proceedings in both Houses on this great Bill. Nevertheless, having heard those noble Lords, and my noble friend Lord Swinton, who has had such great experience in these matters, I have no hesitation in following the Government on this occasion.
5.55 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, if I detain your Lordships for just a few minutes, it is not particularly because I have lived in Malta and know the Island and her delightful people fairly well, but far more because I was in Malta at the time of the last General Election. I think it may be of some interest to your Lordships to be told the atmosphere in which that Election took place. It is my conviction that such were the practices of one Party, at any rate, in Malta, that it is quite impossible to regard the present Maltese Government as having a mandate from the Maltese people. We in this country are so used to democratic practices, and are so disinclined to accept or believe the outrageous, that I do not think we always make enough allowance for those who know their own country better than we do and know when they have cause for alarm.
There are in this proposed Constitution a number of loopholes, some of which have appeared in other Constitutions and can be described, I believe, as common form, but which, in fact, are extremely dangerous if they are not operated in a strictly democratic manner. There is the rule against discrimination on any ground. The right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chester, said that this would probably be quoted in extenuation of the omission of the protection for non-Catholic communities. That may be. But, on the other hand, there is the succeeding section which makes a number of exemptions, which are intended, I believe, to allow the exclusion of Communists from the public service. This may seem not unreasonable. But it is so worded that it could be used to exclude anybody.
I regret that, owing to our constitutional attitude, I am unable this afternoon to go into the Lobby with the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I should not have gone in with him entirely on the
1032
same grounds as he would go himself, but I should have liked to go with him because I believe that if this Bill had not been rushed through Parliament with such precipitous haste it would have been possible to amend and improve it to give to the people of Malta the assurances which it is clear from the quotations from papers we are now getting from Malta they desire. It would be possible, I think, to put in qualifications which would set their anxieties at rest. But none of this is possible in the circumstances of a Bill which has taken less than a week to go through both Houses of Parliament. For that reason, I deeply deplore the, frankly, unseemly haste with which this Bill has been thrust through this House and another place.
As has been said by many speakers, there are two other documents as well as the constitutional document. These seem to me, on the whole, to be admirable. I think that both the Maltese and the British Governments can congratulate themselves on the Defence and the Financial Agreements. The Financial Agreement, in particular, shows great generosity, and a generosity which I hope and believe, if it is not enough, will be reinforced with additional funds at a later stage.
But it is no use supplying yourselves nowadays with a Defence Agreement with a country that does not want you on its soil. I do not believe that the Maltese want to be rid of us; far from it. In fact, I took exception to the remark from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who implied that Mr. Mintoff was anti-British. Perhaps I misunderstood the noble Lord. If, however, he did imply that, I can most authoritatively contradict him. Mr. Mintoff I count as my friend; I know him well, and his affection for his English friends and for England itself is, I think, second only to that for his own country. But quarrels can arise, and particularly on matters of defence. It seems to me that in order to have the greatest use of a Defence Agreement you must have the general acceptance of it by all the people in the country to which it refers.
I will not detain your Lordships further. I will only, if I may, say one more word in appreciation of the admirable speech of the noble Earl, Lord

1033
Glasgow. I admired immensely the eloquence and the fluency with which he spoke without any notes, much less reading any. I hope that we shall hear him very often, and that he will maintain his good habits and continue to set an example to the rest of us. I appreciated in particular his tribute to the people of Malta. They are, I think, the friendliest, kindliest, most hospitable of people among whom I have ever been. I have travelled pretty widely, and I know of no other country in which the visitor is made to feel so much at home and so little a visitor. The kindliness and the affectionate reception one gets in Malta is really remarkable, and one never gets that feeling one so often has in some other countries, that perhaps what is most interesting to the host is what one brings in one's pocket. That is never so in Malta. Therefore, although I think this, Bill is wrongly introduced and far from perfect in its form, apart from its having some good qualities, I join with other noble Lords in wishing a very happy birthday to Malta and a very happy future.
6.2 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, in this very interesting debate there has been one common thread running through all the speeches of noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House—and of this I feel very conscious—and that is the obvious deep affection that we British people have for the people of Malta. This has been apparent in all the speeches to which I have listened, and I have listened to them all. I think perhaps it would be wise if I were to deal with the matter which was raised by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chester, to which the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has just referred. I think this is a matter which is of the greatest importance, and I think your Lordships would perhaps wish that I should deal with this first.
I wish to make it perfectly plain that it was never the intention, either of the British Government or of the Maltese Government, that the Constitution, as amended in our White Paper, should in any respect provide less effective safeguards against discrimination of any kind than were provided by the earlier version of the Constitution which was
1034
submitted to the recent referendum in Malta. The right reverend Prelate referred to the Constitution of 1961, and he also referred to the Constitution put to the referendum. I will not confuse your Lordships with the different paragraphs, but in each of these Constitutions the same paragraph occurs. I wish to make it perfectly clear that all amendments subsequently made by us were specifically designed to strengthen the existing safeguards.
It was for this same purpose that the wider provision of the new Clause 46, to which the right reverend Prelate referred, was substituted for the more limited provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 41 of the earlier Maltese draft; that is, the draft submitted to the referendum. Clause 46 follows closely the lines of similar non-discrimination clauses which have been accepted again and again by Parliament in the Independence Constitutions of other British Colonies.
But I accept that the right reverend Prelate, and the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, have drawn our attention to what appears to be a weakness. I can give the noble Earl an assurance that my right honourable friend will immediately get in touch with the Prime Minister of Malta and draw his attention to this anomalous situation which has emerged by mistake; because, as I have explained, everything that we did was designed to strengthen the existing safeguards. If by some misfortune we have in fact done the reverse, this is a result which certainly the Prime Minister of Malta did not wish to achieve; nor, of course, did Her Majesty's Government. So I can give the noble Earl this assurance. Beyond this I cannot go but this is a very serious matter and, of course, we will deal with it with the utmost expedition. This I assure noble Lords in all quarters of the House.
The right reverend Prelate also referred to the question of the tenure of land of religious communities. I am assured—and I have looked into this very carefully—that there is nothing in the Constitution which affects adversely the tenure of any owner of property, or which need give the churches any anxiety at all. The only provision in the Constitution relating to property is Clause 38, which provides that there shall be no

1035
compulsory acquisition of property without compensation. But I know of no reason why the State should wish to acquire compulsorily any property belonging to the churches in Malta. I hope that what I have said will reassure the right reverend Prelate on that other important point which he raised.
Naturally, there has been criticism from noble Lords in all parts of the House about the speed at which we have been obliged to ask your Lordships to deal with this very important measure. Indeed, I have already expressed my thanks to noble Lords for assisting us in facilitating the passage of this Bill, and I recognise the inconvenience to which noble Lords have been put. I should like to explain why, in the Government's view, that speed was unavoidable. I believe that the Constitution and the Defence and Finance Agreements which have been published are the best that can be obtained in all the circumstances. I was greatly encouraged to see the number of noble Lords, from all parts of the House, who have expressed a similar view. As several noble Lords have mentioned, there have already been eighteen months of discussions, and I do not believe that there would be any prospect of a wider measure of agreement being obtained if there were further delays and further conferences.
I was also glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, say how important he feels it is that there should be no further delay. This view was expressed by other noble Lords of equal experience, and I feel that certainly if we were to delay further there would be the risk, as the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, said, of arousing grave suspicions in Malta, and even perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said in his admirable speech, of more serious trouble. My right honourable friend fixed a target date for independence of not later than May 31 this year, and it is unfortunate that this target could not be achieved because negotiations were not concluded in time. I really cannot accept the observations of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that this was due to some lack of energy on the part of my right honourable friend. It is true that he has a very full programme, but I can assure the noble Earl that he always finds time to
1036
squeeze forty-eight hours into twenty-four. So it was not because he was not prepared to delegate his authority that these negotiations have been very protracted indeed. I have borne my full share, and I can assure the noble Earl that the Prime Minister of Malta was not sitting in the Savoy Hotel doing nothing.
My Lords, I think it would be most unfortunate if, by failing to pass this Bill now, independence were to be deferred further; and, as I see it, if it were deferred further, independence could not come for Malta before probably the beginning of next year. Once a country has been promised independence and the arrangements have been made and the agreements reached, surely it is most unwise to give any appearance, however unintentional, of wishing to hold back; and this, I feel, we should certainly be doing.
There are also good, strong economic arguments for going ahead now. The Government of Malta are most anxious to press ahead with planning their economic development and, as I explained in my opening speech, the Financial Agreement which we have made takes account of the Malta development programme. As noble Lords know, this Agreement will not be signed until after independence. If, therefore, independence were delayed, so would progress on the development programme be delayed.
I was very glad that the noble Lords. Lord Douglas of Barloch and Lord Ogmore, and also the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, in his admirable maiden speech, referred to the importance of economics and the development of Malta. Of course, this is an absolutely vital matter, and we realise that, due to the run-down, the economy of Malta has indeed suffered. But Malta is going to set up a Development Corporation, and under Article 4 of our Financial Agreement the way in which it will be set up and function is to be agreed with us later on. We hope also that the Commonwealth Development Corporation will be closely associated with it. I noticed the interest expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. Of course he could not refer to the Commonwealth Development Corporation but I am hopeful that his interest will in fact continue in the development of Malta.

1037
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, asked me one or two questions about the Royal Malta Artillery and as, judging from the way he phrased his question, there is some misapprehension, I hasten to try to put the noble Lord right. The position is this. There will, in fact, be no change in the present status of the R.M.A. It will continue as part of the British Army on the same basis as at present, although the numbers in Malta will be run down, by limiting the intake and taking advantage of normal wastage, towards the number actually required as backing for the R.M.A. in the B.A.O.R. Its position will be reviewed in 1965 in the light of British Army recruiting at that time. But if the need for them still exists, the British Government will presumably be ready to retain the R.M.A. after 1965 as part of the British Army. I hope that that will assure the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.
The noble Lord also asked me for some figures on unemployment. The latest unemployment figure I have, which was for June, is 6,749, which represents a little over 7 per cent. of the estimated Maltese work force. There has, in fact, been some reduction in recent months from the peak figure, which reached 7,484 in February.
Several noble Lords have referred to the whole economy of Malta, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, particularly referred to investment in Malta by the Maltese. This is a question to which we have given considerable attention. The amount of private savings being invested outside Malta has been steadily rising and is now running at an annual rate of something in the neighbourhood of £4·8 million. In the financial talks which we have had with the Maltese the need to divert these savings to investment in Malta's own development plan has been very strongly stressed by us. The Maltese naturally accept that this is desirable, but they have not been 'very convincing about their ability to check the outflow. Nevertheless, I believe that if the various development projects can be got under way—and I see no reason why they should not—then confidence will rise and Maltese money will be directed towards Maltese investment.
Several noble Lords referred to emigration, and on this I can only say that the
1038
situation is good. We have had great help from the Commonwealth countries; and to give noble Lords an indication I will quote a few figures. In 1962, emigration totalled 3,641, of whom over 2,000 went to Australia, 1,129 came here and 371 went to Canada. In 1963, the total increased to 6,579, of whom over 4,000 went to Australia, 1,332 came to the United Kingdom, and 905 went to Canada. The British Government have made a substantial financial contribution in this field in the past, and have agreed, as noble Lords will see in the Financial Agreement, to continue to provide financial assistance towards the cost of emigration. I was so glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that in his recent travels in Australia he was able to see for himself how well the Maltese are fitting into the Australian life. This I have heard on many occasions myself, but I was glad to hear it confirmed firsthand from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, put a question to me about a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the fact that there was no provision for this in the Bill. The reason that this is not in the Bill is that Malta is remaining as part of the Queen's Dominions and there is no strong reason for anticipating that it will become a republic in the near future. I think that answers the noble Lord's question on that point.
My Lords, I wish now to turn to the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Perth. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I accept at once the absolute sincerity which has prompted my noble friend to table this Amendment. I know full well, like other noble Lords who have spoken, the deep affection the noble Earl has for Malta, and how much he did for Malta when he occupied the position in the Government which I now hold. But I am bound to say that I am convinced that his suggestion is not in the interests of the people whom he wishes to serve. I feel that it is not in the interests of the Maltese people and not in the interests of Anglo-Maltese relations. His speech seemed to me to be a nostalgic speech, a speech of regret, a speech regretting that integration, in which he believes so strongly, had failed.

1039
With great respect to him, and with great regard for his most certain conscientious thought and careful consideration, I put it to noble Lords that this is not a proposal that can be considered at this time. We have passed this point and the Maltese now are thinking of themselves as very shortly to be going into independence. The Prime Minister of Malta returned to that country and received a very warm welcome indeed. And now—not at the eleventh hour: for we are past the eleventh hour—to suggest that we could in some way pull back seems to me to be quite unrealistic. And to introduce, at the last minute, some new element would surely call in question everything that has so far been agreed. I earnestly advise my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment. While respecting the motives which inspired him to put it down, I hope that he will think again and withdraw this Amendment.
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate, and it is possible that I have omitted to reply to some of the questions. I have made a list here, and I see a few that I have overlooked. Several noble Lords referred to the association with NATO of Malta. Of course after independence, this will be a matter for Malta herself. But I should like to echo the hope that has been expressed by a number of noble Lords during the course of this debate, that the NATO headquarters, at least, will remain in Malta. I was gratified to note how many of your Lordships gave a warm welcome to the Financial Agreement that we have been able to arrange and to the Defence Agreement. This is most encouraging after the many weeks and hours of hard work. I do not think, in all humility, that in the circumstances they could have been improved upon.
In conclusion, I would echo the words of my noble friend Lord Glasgow. He said that one great asset that we have in Malta is the good will of the Maltese people. Let us not do anything to-day to risk losing this good will, which I believe to be so valuable to the British people as a whole and perhaps, in the long term, so valuable and important for the peace of the world.
6.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I said at the beginning when I moved this Amendment that I was not going to comment on the Constitution, on the Defence Agreement or on the question of aid, and I remain firm of purpose on that; although I must confess that several times in the debate I have been much tempted to challenge remarks on those subjects made by various noble Lords. I have also not had from my noble friend Lord Lansdowne a satisfactory answer to the question I put to him, about what would be the attitude of the Government if it became clear that the people of Malta wished some other solution than independence now.
All the same, so far as the people of Malta are concerned, I hope that, if they really want this, I have pointed the way to them. So I am not going to press my Amendment. I must confess that I was mightily tempted to do so, after hearing the splendid speech of my noble friend Lord Glasgow, who has had at least as much experience as anyone else and who, broadly, I heard to be on my side in this question. Just as I am not going to press my Amendment, I shall not take part in any further proceedings to do with this Bill—and I am sure your Lordships will understand my reasons for that. So I take this opportunity, along with many others, to wish my gallant friends and all those in Malta, one and all, every good fortune, every happiness and blessing in their new venture. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, before we give the Bill a Second Reading I should like to thank the noble Marquess for his willingness to undertake to look into the matter I mentioned. I had a draft Amendment ready to put down on Committee stage. I should also like to ask the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester whether he is satisfied that the course I put to the noble Marquess will satisfy him.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, that is the case. I am very grateful indeed to the noble Marquess for the understanding he has shown over this. We do attach the greatest possible

1041
importance to this word "disability", and as this was in the 1961 draft and the Malta referendum draft, we very much hope that it may be possible for that clause to be inserted in the White Paper before us. I am most grateful to the noble Marquess for the assurances he has given.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 20):
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRANG in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Fully responsible status of Malta]:
1.—(1) On and after such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint (in this Act referred to as "the appointed day") Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of Malta.
THE EARL, OF LISTOWEL: I beg to move the manuscript Amendment in my name. With your Lordships' permission, I will read it. The Amendment is to add to subsection (1), at page 1, line 8:
"Provided that no such Order in Council shall be made until after the dissolution of the present Legislative Assembly of Malta and the holding of a General Election there."
Repetition is one of the deadly sins of Parliamentary debate and I hope I shall not commit it. The object of this Amendment is quite simple; it is to ensure that there should be a General Election in Malta before independence. The reasons for desiring this have already been stated, I think, fairly fully, but I would make 'two brief comments by way of reminding your Lordships of what was said.
The first is that in this country it is a constitutional convention that if there were a serious disagreement between the two major Parties about a change in the
1042
Constitution there would be a General Election and the matter would be referred to the electorate. We are asking for the same constitutional convention that we apply here to be applied in Malta.
The second comment is this. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said that this would be a rare and unusual practice. That is really not the case. On the contrary, it is the normal thing that if Parties are divided before a country becomes independent there is a General Election; and I should be surprised if any noble Lord could quote the example of any country in the Commonwealth which has obtained independence where, if there was a serious division of opinion in that country about the Independence Constitution, there has not been a General Election. So we are asking only for the same constitutional convention that we accept for ourselves to be applied in Malta, and for the general practice in promoting the independence of our Colonies to be followed in Malta. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD OGMORE: I was against the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and I am against this, for much the same reasons. I believe that Malta has for many years past been plunged into turmoil over these constitutional matters. It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government have allowed for a fair solution of the problems of Malta. It is not perfect but in human affairs few things are perfect. I believe that what is required in Malta is that everybody should be quite certain, as they are, as to what the Constitution is; that the Constitution should be put into effect without any further delay, and that everybody should get down to working it in a responsible manner.
I reiterate what I said before, that the great problem in Malta is the economic problem, and that until this Constitution is in being, and the Finance Agreement and other Agreements are in force, no real start can be made with the serious problem of tackling the economic problems of Malta. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I have nothing to add to the argument which I have already advanced against

1043
delay. I am most grateful for the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and I feel that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, himself must see that here again is another risk of arousing suspicions. We cannot I think at this late hour introduce another condition before the people of Malta are given independence. I hope that noble Lords will reject this Amendment.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I should like to say that of course the question of putting down this Amendment was to emphasise the points which had been raised in another place by the Party to which I have the honour to belong, and which is as good a friend of Malta as any other Party. I would say that the remarks of my noble friend Lord Faringdon in the Second Reading debate were also evidence that there was a great deal to be said for proceeding along the lines which are indicated in our Amendment.
The Amendment was not carried in another place, but I felt it was our duty to put the point to this Committee from that angle, because in the previous election, especially in the circumstances referred to by my noble friend Lord Faringdon, there was good reason to suppose that, if it had not been for the extraordinary practices that were carried out then, it may well be that you would not have had the same type of Government as you have at the present time, and with whom the present agreement is being made. However, it is not, I think, essential that we should go into the Lobby on this matter. We have done our duty by repeating what was done in another place, and if the Government like to treat the matter on the basis that we do not withdraw our Amendment but that it will just be negatived, that is the course we shall adopt.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments not affecting the law of Malta]:
6.36 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. This deals with an obvious mistake in
1044
the Bill, and I had hoped that by drawing attention to the mistake it might conceivably have been possible to treat it as a mere mistake and to print the matter correctly. But I dare say it goes beyond that, and therefore I beg to move the Amendment, which makes sense of the Schedule. Section 2 of the 1949 Act provides as follows:
"For section four hundred and twenty-seven of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, (in this Act referred to as 'the principal Act'), there shall be substituted the following section"—
and then there is a completely new section which paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 amends. It is quite obvious that when you substitute "B" for "A", "A" is replaced by "B"; it is not substituted by "B", which makes nonsense. I therefore beg to move the Amendment that makes the matter grammatically correct and good sense.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 37, leave out ("substituted") and insert ("replaced").—(Lord Conesford.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think it is probably dangerous to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, on legal matters, but I have taken legal advice on this and I am advised that the noble Lord is in error. In the first place, the word "replaced" would not be correct since Section 2 of the Act of 1949 did not replace Section 427(2), as it would have done if Section 427(2) had been repealed by the Act of 1949, and Section 2 had instead been enacted as a new substantive enactment. What Section 2 in fact did was to substitute a new version of Section 427 for the original version of that section.
Secondly, one Independence Act after another over a period of many years has contained, as the noble Lord is well aware, this provision using the word "substituted". However, I will admit that perhaps the wording is inelegant, and in future in any other Independence Bills perhaps we will have a look at this matter to see whether the intention can be expressed in a more elegant way. But I do not think that the noble Lord's Amendment is correct, that we should substitute the word "replaced" for "substituted". I therefore hope that noble Lords will reject this Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: I can see a possible argument against "replaced", but I can see no conceivable argument in favour of "substituted". The word that I should be quite content with, if the noble Marquess would agree, would be "amended". Nevertheless, as this appears to be the sole Amendment now left, and as I think I shall interpret the wishes of the Committee correctly if I do not press it, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment; Report received; Bill read 3a, and passed.

EXTENSION OF PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
6.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN rose to call attention to the proposals for the extension of the Palace of Westminster; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name. I may say that I would willingly have moved it a little earlier, had the matter lain in my hands; but this matter was debated in another place a fortnight ago and I thought it proper that your Lordships, who live and work in this same Palace of Westminster, should also have an opportunity to express your views on the important subject of any possible additions to the Palace of Westminster before any final decisions are taken.
The Speaker's Committee in another place produced, rather to my surprise, a unanimous Report. I think that that is a matter which should be looked into, because I am not quite sure whether they are completely right—but I will go into that in a moment or two. The Lord Privy Seal said in the other place that the Government endorsed in particular the need for additional accommodation. That word "endorsed" I repeat, because I could not understand why he did not merely say that he agreed to it, or something of the sort. When I looked up the word "endorse" in the Oxford English Dictionary, I found that the Lord Privy Seal was not trying to put over "a fast one", because I find that it means,
1046
among other things, "to confirm". It bears no relation in this context to having one's licence as a motorist or as a publican "endorsed"—which means (again to quote the Oxford Dictionary) "to have a record of offence written on the back". In this case it means to confirm the need for additional accommodation.
The Motion in the other place went on to refer to
"the redevelopment of the Whitehall area as a whole"
and invited Her Majesty's Government
"to pursue the necesssary technical and professional inquiries…and subsequently to report…"
At any rate, nobody is in any way committed to anything at this stage. Therefore, this debate will provide a useful opportunity to air our views on the subject. I agree about the equal importance of the development of the whole Whitehall area: that is to say the Foreign Office, Scotland Yard, the Home Office and so on, but on this occasion I will restrict myself to the alterations affecting this particular Palace in which we sit. I do not intend in any remarks I make to go into matters of cubic capacity, accommodation or floor space, because I have no idea as to how much additional accommodation may or may not be required. The Lord Privy Seal merely admitted the necessity for additional accommodation.
This is a matter which some day a new Parliament and a new Government will have to face, no matter what their political complexion may be. This is not, of course, a Party matter; I am glad to say that there is nothing between us, and everybody who speaks will speak for himself. My intention is to consider solely the outside aspect of what other additions may some day be built, either additions to this existing edifice or additions built, as I shall suggest, on the other side of Bridge Street.
The late Mr. Oscar Wilde referred to the fact that this time of year in Parliament is a time when tempers are apt to get frayed and people get tired; and he referred to the Parliamentary troubles in July before Parliament rises as "the last rows of summer". I merely wish to say that if there are any rows here this evening it will not be my fault. I will endeavour to be brief, and one reason why

1047
I am speaking at this moment is to make way shortly for my noble friend Lord Hailes, whose knowledge of these subjects is much greater than mine. He was a Minister of Works in a recent Government, and the only reason why he is not speaking at this moment is that it will be his maiden speech and I have undertaken the task of "kicking off", so to speak. I wish him well.
I have three points I will try to make. First, whether one admires this building or not, the fact is that it is with us, and whatever is done to affect it or alter it in any way will be noted by an almost world-wide audience. It is not just the place where Parliament works and has its being; it is literally the heart of the Mother of Parliaments. Indeed, in a large area of the world pictures of this building are regarded as a sort of trade mark or hall mark of democratic institutions everywhere. We must therefore do nothing to damage it or its chief characteristics—and when I mention chief characteristics, I have in mind particularly Big Ben. We do not want any cucumber frames leant up against Big Ben. Secondly, in my view, if there are to be additions along Bridge Street into Palace Yard these must not square with the existing design.
I am not necessarily opposed to the plan produced unanimously by the Speaker's Advisory Committee. If anybody at any time wishes to see a drawing of what they propose I have one in my possession. It is very attractive to look at, but what I am worried about is the fact that it is going to block Bridge Street. I am no traffic expert; nevertheless, I know that Bridge Street carries an enormous amount of traffic which turns to the left along the Embankment to the City, or goes over the Bridge to Waterloo Station and the South. It seems to me a curious idea that it would be quite simple to divert the traffic towards Scotland Yard and then to bring it back again to the riverside, so that it would have to take a sharp corner alongside the river for a few yards and then left again over the Bridge.
If that is an objectionable suggestion, then my third and last point, which is the most important one—and I hope that the experts who are to consider these matters will give it serious thought
1048
—is the question of burrowing under Bridge Street. On the way some car parking places could be built, which would be of great value to Members of Parliament. If desired there could be a moving passage for those who were too tired to walk, and there could be a building in the modern style or whatever style was wanted. Lytton Strachey said of the architect of St. Pancras Station Hotel, "He built that building in a style entirely his own." So here there would be no strings attached, but of course the plan would have to be approved.
As regards Palace Chambers, which I used to occupy a certain amount when the Conservative Party had its offices there, I have often thought that they would do well with a new front, a new inside and a new hack. Then one comes to St. Stephen's Club, to which I sometimes used to go, and I think that that is not a very attractive edifice either. I am informed that Scotland Yard has already been sold. No doubt it is just a book entry by which the present Ministry of Works or the Home Office have bought it from the Government. At any rate, there is plenty of room over there to create a new building which need not be Gothic. As I say, I am not entirely opposed to the Committee's unanimous Report, but I think that the alternative of going across Bridge Street deserves very serious consideration and I hope it will receive it. I beg to move for Papers.
6.52 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, for having raised this matter in order to enable some of us to give preliminary thought to the whole question of accommodation in the Palace of Westminster. I think it must be preliminary thought, because even the Report upon which this debate is based is an Interim Report and it is, I presume, without prejudice to even the Committee itself having second thoughts.
This is not the first time that the question of accommodation has been considered. So far as I can gather, there was a Joint Report of the House of Commons and the House of Lords in 1944–45, and there have been a number of Select Committees and other investigations since then. The interesting point

1049
is that the only time when the House of Lords has been brought into the picture was in 1944–45. Since then it is only the question of the accommodation of the other place which has been considered. It seems to me a fundamental qualification for considering accommodation in the Palace of Westminster that the requirements of both Houses should be taken into account and not merely the requirements of one. I have read the Report of the Committee presided over by Sir James Duncan and the Report of the Speaker's Committee, and in both of those, as well as in the early ones, they considered the requirements of the other place.
It is interesting to note, incidentally, that as time has gone on these requirements have substantially increased. The requirement in the Report of the Joint Committee was such that possibly all the necessary facilities could, by making certain alterations, have been provided within the Palace of Westminster. But in the Report of the Duncan Committee, for instance, there was a requirement, of 50,000 square feet. In the latest Report the requirement is 100,000 square feet, and perhaps it is as well that we should settle this matter very quickly; otherwise, requirements may increase still further. My first point is that I fail to understand how we can settle the requirements of Parliament in the Palace of Westminster without considering, also, what are the requirements of this House.
I am going to follow the example of the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, and not go into any detail as to what these respective requirements are, but any noble Lord who takes an active part in the work of this House will appreciate that there is a good deal that can be done to make the task of noble Lords who are active here more agreeable, to enable them to work more efficiently and to discharge their duties in a more effective way. I think the same kind of case can be made for this House as is being made in another place. So I hope that when we come to reconsider this matter, as no doubt we shall do in the next Parliament, the requirements of both Houses will be taken into account at the same time.
The Speaker's Advisory Committee put forward a number of proposals which, as
1050
the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Find-horn, said, were unanimously accepted. The first was that there was a need for more accommodation, and I think we should all agree, although we should not particularly want to identify ourselves with any particular area. I would suggest in passing that there are possibilities of economising in, as well as of increasing, accommodation.
One of the suggestions that I might make is that there would appear to be no particular reason why we should have two organisations for the provision of refreshments. We might do worse than enjoy something like the facilities that are enjoyed in another place. At any rate, I see no serious objection to a common Kitchen and to a number of other common services, such as the Library. I see no particular case for having two separate Libraries occupying a good deal of space. So I hope that when we come to consider the question of the facilities of the Palace of Westminster, we shall also take into account the question of whether, to some extent, we might enjoy common services such as those I have mentioned. But, having said that, I would repeat that in my view the case for increased facilities for both Houses has been made out.
Then comes the question of where the extra accommodation should he, and we have the proposals made by the Speaker's Advisory Committee. Here, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, there is a conflict between the convenience of Members of Parliament and the convenience of the general public. Undoubtedly, the recommendations which were unanimously agreed upon would cause serious dislocation of traffic. I know that the Ministry of Transport is giving consideration to the matter and they have not said their last word, but, on the face of it, it would seem that here is a main arterial road, from North to South, carrying an enormous amount of traffic which would have to be diverted if Bridge Street were actually built upon. It is a matter for very serious consideration whether it is right that the convenience of the public should be subordinated to the convenience of Members of Parliament. We might easily find our way to the new quarters, the additional quarters, by means of a subway. I

1051
have never seen the reason why that is not practicable. I have heard it said that it would not be dignified, and that you would not get the atmosphere of Westminster. I should have thought that Members would be capable of creating an atmosphere of their own, a new atmosphere, and that that would not be very difficult.
However, these are matters which ought to be considered, and I hope that, when we come to consider them, we shall not rule out the possibility of there being a subway which would connect the new accommodation with the Palace of Westminster. Many of us have lived quite outside the Palace of Westminster but within the Division Bell area. I can remember many a time, when I lived in North Court, making my way to Gt. Peter Street, running along in time for a Division. I did not feel any inhibition; and the distance from a building on the site of St. Stephen's House would be no greater—in fact, rather less—than the distance that many Members of Parliament have to travel within the Division Bell area.
The other question is the architecture, and that seems to me to be an extraordinary question even to think about before we have made up our minds as to the kind of building we want. Surely the architecture is the last thing you settle, not the first. It is assumed that, even if the new building were contiguous to the existing Palace, it must be in the same style of architecture. But, really, that must depend upon what kind of building you are going to put up. The architecture is to a very great extent determined by the height and size of the rooms and where the windows are placed. To have a Gothic style of architecture in a modern building would be completely unsuitable and false. Nor do I accept the assumption that any other type of architecture would necessarily be out of harmony with the Gothic—or should I say the mock Gothic or neo-Gothic?
One has only to go to Venice to see one of the most beautiful cities in the world, with buildings of different ages and different styles all harmonising, with no discord at all between them. There are even parts, not necessarily in the same style, added centuries later to existing buildings, and nobody going to Venice
1052
complains that there is any lack of harmony or any conflict in style between them. Even in this country, in some of our most beautiful towns, the buildings are not all of the same style or period. Even in the vicinity of Whitehall we have a conflict of styles; and, really, are you going to stereotype the one style of architecture for all time and say that this is to be the style under which we have to live for centuries? No, my Lords; I think this question must be determined by the kind of buildings we put up; and I hope very much that, when we put up the new accommodation, it will be of a modern style with rooms of reasonable height which it will be possible to keep warm, not too big for comfort and not too small. It is these which, to a great extent, will dictate the style of architecture.
My Lords, these are my provisional thoughts. To summarise, they are, first, that we must take into consideration the requirements of this House as well as of the other place; otherwise, we are not doing the job properly. Secondly, the need is established for additional facilities, but we ought also to see how far we can economise and have common facilities between the two Houses. Thirdly, I think the site should not be contiguous to this House, but should be on the St. Stephen's House site. Perhaps I have some prejudice here, because I was forced out of St. Stephen's House to make room for this accommodation. Lastly, we should keep an open mind as to the style of architecture and not necessarily commit ourselves to any particular style.
7.6 p.m.
LORD HAILES: My Lords, in a maiden speech earlier to-day the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, apologised for making his maiden speech so soon after his introduction here. This has put me on a spot, because I have to apologise in exactly the opposite sense. All I can hope is that this fault may be mitigated, at least to the extent of the five years spent a long way away from these shores.
As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, this is not the first time that this question of accommodation has been raised. Much time and money has been spent over the years to try to solve the need for more accommodation for Parliament. It is really the insoluble problem of trying to put a quart into a pint pot.

1053
I had some experience of this when I was Chief Whip in another place, and then Minister of Works; and, although we now hear of the alleged existence of vacant, dusty rooms, I should in my time have been more than glad to have had a sight of some of these. I remember that when the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was out of office he asked me whether I could find some corner where he could write his letters and interview his constituents. All that could be found for him was a small cell—I can hardly call it more than that—in a pinnacle, with a long flight of stone stairs, and no lift. Although cheerfully accepted by him, as one would expect, it was not a worthy or appropriate offer.
Of course, the only way to solve the problem is to build not only for present needs but also for likely future expansion. The provision of accommodation, affecting, as it does, nothing less than the health, good spirits, reasonable comfort and efficiency of all who serve in this building, must be the first consideration; but, in planning for this, surely everything must be done to avoid doing any hurt to this famous Palace. It is on this aspect of the question that I should like to say a few but heartfelt words. As the problem concerns the crying needs of another place—and I think both noble Lords who have spoken agree with this—it would not be appropriate to discuss in detail in your Lordships' House what form such accommodation should take.
Of course, the question of the surrender of some of your Lordships' accommodation to another place has often been raised, and still seems to be with us. I am not at all sure that I myself have not been guilty in this sense in former times, but, even if that is so, I hope I need not present myself at this time as poacher turned gamekeeper, first, because in my time it was not a question of a new building; and, secondly, because it is quite unrealistic to pretend, whatever arrangements may be made, now or in the future, which are mutually convenient to the Houses of Parliament, that the basic need of another place can be satisfied, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, by redistribution of the present accommodation. We are credibly informed that the provision of 100,000 square feet of usable
1054
office space is what is necessary for all purposes and, because of the extent of new building this implies and no less because of the highly controversial proposals contained in the Interim Report of Mr. Speaker's Committee on Accommodation, it is only right that this matter should be raised in your Lordships' House following the debate in another place, for any proposals which would radically alter the well-known form and outline of this Palace must be a matter of real concern far beyond the confines of your Lordships' House or of another place.
From an architectural point of view, the building proposed in the Interim Report, which is a large high addition, connected at all floor levels to the present building and running northwards across Bridge Street and then down over Bridge Street to Parliament Square, would radically alter in my opinion (as anybody can see from the plans and drawings) the appearance of this Palace, planned as it was to stand as a complete and balanced whole; and it would effectively destroy what was so well described in an issue of Country Life as
"that noble conception of a great mass of building anchored north and south by two mighty towers."
It is true that Sir Charles Barry did prepare a design for an addition to be built in the area of New Palace Yard, but if it had ever been built—and I am glad that it was not—it would not have destroyed the noble conception to which I have referred. After all, an architect does try to avoid doing that sort of thing to his own masterpieces. However, the relevant point for us is that this addition was never built.
So this Palace, ever since it rose again after being destroyed by fire in 1834, has retained throughout the last hundred years—perhaps the greatest in our history—the form that all have come to know and love. And it is not only we who know it. As my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn said, the splendid view of the Palace of Westminster, particularly from across the river, is known all over the world. But perhaps even more revered is the picture of the almost free-standing tower of Big Ben. I do not want to overstress sentiment; but I do not have to remind your Lordships of what those deep tones meant to millions of people in their

1055
darkest hours, those tones which miraculously were never once stilled during the whole of the war. It is the picture of the apparently free-standing tower of Big Ben which still remains, in so many minds abroad, as a symbol of that freedom which so many people felt it represented in the war. Therefore, for many reasons, I support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn. Surely, my Lords, the answer is a separate building in Bridge Street connected with the Palace of Westminster by an underground passage.
From the practical point of view, I should like to refer to some of the suggestions in paragraph 2 of the Interim Report of Mr. Speaker's Committee. In the first place, I cannot understand why it is considered necessary that the new building must be part of the Parliamentary precinct and must seem to be so, as the Report says; which it certainly would be. The new addition, wherever it is built, is not, as I understand it, to contain anything of high national or symbolic importance, no Ark of the Covenant, but simply an assembly hall, conference rooms, rooms for Members of Parliament and their secretaries and so on. Of course, if communication by an underground passage would mean a serious sacrifice to convenience that would be a great mistake. But would that really be so?
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, touched on this point. The Palace of Westminster is so vast that one can easily find oneself within its own walls at a greater distance from the two Chambers and the Lobbies, which you may call the heart of the business, than would be the case from Bridge Street, with the aid of an underground passage. In fact, I wonder whether communication from a Gothic addition, built over Bridge Street, as proposed by Mr. Speaker's Committee, would in fact be any easier. Nor does one suppose that the underground passage would be a cold and dark tunnel, calculated to make honourable ladies in another place feel nervous or lonely; but something well-lit, well-aired and, I hope, attractively decorated, so that it could seem to be just another passage in a great complex of buildings.
Nor do I understand why it is thought necessary to build over Bridge Street. We know that practically the whole
1056
area (except for New Scotland Yard), bounded by the Embankment, Bridge Street, Parliament Street and Richmond Terrace, is to be rebuilt for Government purposes. And of this area the necessary 100,000 square feet can be found, leaving sufficient room for a large Government building as well—and all this without building over Bridge Street and so, incidentally, creating those traffic problems to which the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, referred, and to which other noble Lords may refer later.
I have not so far mentioned the burning question of architectural style. If the proposals by Mr. Speaker's Committee to build in New Palace Yard and over Bridge Street were unfortunately to be adopted, I think the only thing would be to try to build in imitation of Sir Charles Barry's Gothic. But if so, then this is a further argument against these proposals, for we know that such a building would cost at least four times as much as a more simple building of the same size: and with all the intricate carving, and so on, it would take an infinitely longer time to build. I have the very unpleasant feeling that if the proposals of Mr. Speaker's Committee were ever to be adopted, we should in the end, when it was too late to say "No", be asked, because of the great expense and the time factor, to settle for the worst thing possible—"modified" Gothic. A building on the other side of Bridge Street, however, would not have to be executed in such a style. Indeed, it could be a building in quite a different style.
This raises another matter which is not just the simple one rather repulsivey referred to as "Mods versus Goths". It is foolish to think, as some people affect to do, that contemporary architecture is all bad. New materials and techniques are forming an architecture which at its best is original and exciting, although I do not think we have as yet achieved the best of this in this country. But we do not want to be aggressively avant garde in this matter unless we can be sure of producing a masterpiece, or at least a building of exceptional quality. I trust that what is eventually built to provide additional Parliamentary accommodation will be neither a feeble imitation

1057
nor a second-class contemporary building or extravaganza, but something of sufficiently high standard to conform (and this fits in with Lord Silkin's remarks about Venice, because "conform" is the operative word) with the varied group of buildings which lie in the very heart of our national life. I am glad that we have been given assurances that no proposals for additions to the Palace of Westminster will be seriously considered until Sir Leslie Martin has reported on the whole Whitehall scene, including the future of the Foreign Office site. That, of course, is entirely right, and no doubt the noble Earl who is replying will confirm that this is still so.
I have a feeling that the suggestions of Mr. Speaker's Committee on accommodation may already be dead or dying; but while it may seem rather mean to flog a dead horse or kick a Report when it is down, I do not think anybody who feels strongly should be prevented from stating his or her view on these matters before it is too late; so that when the time does come for the serious consideration of all these proposals the views expressed in your Lordships' House, in another place, and out of doors, will be clearly on the record.
7.22 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hailes has made a most admirable maiden speech, on which I know the whole House will wish to congratulate him. We all know that he is an informed lover of the arts, including architecture, and he has shown that by his choice of this first opportunity to address the House. We all recognise that he had every excuse in absence abroad for the postponement of giving us that pleasure. I intend to be brief because, like many others, I am looking forward to the maiden speech that is to follow my speech.
The need for extra accommodation for the Commons is, of course, not disputed. Though the extent of that accommodation may be a matter of controversy, I do not think it is a controversy in which it would be profitable for this House to indulge. I think we can safely leave that to the Members of another place. But the location of the new accommodation of the Commons is a
1058
matter which does not concern the Commons alone, nor, indeed, does it concern Parliament alone. It is the business of everybody, including Parliament, to study and respect the need for town planning.
The most shocking part of the proposals of Mr. Speaker's Committee, in the view of many of us, is their complete dismissal of all considerations of town planning. In the debate of the 13th of the present month, in the opening speech by my right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons, we find a sentence to the following effect—I am not quoting the whole sentence, but paraphrasing it, because of the convention in dealing with speeches in the present Session in another place. He said that it was not their function to examine witnesses about traffic and town planning.
That may be. But if it was not their function to examine witnesses on these subjects, it is surely somebody's function to consider these subjects before any decision of any kind is made about where the location of the new accommodation is to be. I find it astonishing that any body of men should assume that they were entitled to close Bridge Street for their own convenience. I find that an astonishing proposition. Nor, in my view, is any defence to be found in paragraph 9 in the Report, to which my right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons referred, which states that after they had decided that what they would like would be a great building on the site of Bridge Street joining on with the present Palace, then, for the first time, they consulted some of the Ministries concerned, not to see whether this was desirable or a good thing, but to see whether it could be done.
Let me read some of the actual words:
"Having formed this preliminary view of the site and nature of the new accommodation, we invited the Minister of Public Building and Works to discuss our proposals with us. The Minister informed us that in his view it would be"—
note the word—
"feasible to make available for Parliamentary purposes"
the area which I have described. It would be feasible—it could be done—it would be possible. It was not said

1059
that it would be a good thing or desirable or that the values destroyed might not be infinitely greater than the benefits the House of Commons might derive. So much for their consultation with that Minister.
What about the consultation with the Minister of Transport? The Report says:
"The Minister also informed us that the Ministry of Transport considered that such a road offered the least objectionable substitute"—
I am not joking—
"for Bridge Street."
That was the utmost that could be obtained from the Minister of Transport.
Unless Parliament has gone mad, is it conceivable that we should decide great questions of town planning in a historic part of our capital city on the footing that the House of Commons say what they would like and then Government Departments, which ought to consider the requirements of town planning, consider whether it could conceivably be done and whether something is less objectionable than something else? It really is not good enough. I am delighted to find that I am not raising points which were not raised by honourable and right honourable gentlemen in another place. Remarks nearly parallel to what I am saying were said, at the beginning of his speech, by the honourable Member who sits on the Socialist Benches and represents Dagenham. What would be said by either House of Parliament if any outside body were to suggest that they would block one of the main arteries of traffic for their own convenience? It would be recognised at once that it was quite intolerable.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewelyn-Davies, asked a Parliamentary Question on May 11, shortly after this Report had been received. I ventured to ask a supplementary question, because I was interested to know the position of Sir Leslie Martin's inquiry. Shortly before Mr. Speaker's Committee reported, he had been instructed to prepare an outline plan for Parliament Square, Bridge Street and Whitehall. I asked my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, who had answered the noble Lord's Question, whether legislation would be required to carry out the proposals of the Committee, to which the answer was, "Yes". Then I asked
1060
[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol.258 (No. 73), col.4]:
"Secondly, am I right in assuming that the Instructions to Sir Leslie Martin to prepare an outline plan for Parliament Square, Bridge Street and Whitehall, still stand and are quite unaffected by a proposal recently emanating from a Committee of another place?"
To that, again, I got a satisfactory answer from my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. He said:
"My noble friend is quite right in his second assumption that the terms of reference given to Sir Leslie Martin stand."
I hope that they still stand.
Now I will come at once to the point that causes me some alarm. I want to be assured—and I think the House wants to be assured—that Sir Leslie Martin is going to advise, not whether the closing of Bridge Street is feasible, but whether it is desirable. That I regard as absolutely vital. The reason why I was somewhat alarmed was the remark in the final speech of my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works in the debate the other day. This is what he said:
"Some solution of the traffic problem wider than the closing of Bridge Street may have to be adopted."
I find those words alarming. What they suggest to me is that the closing of Bridge Street may not itself be sufficient and something wider may be required. I hope, on the other hand, that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will be able to assure the House that it does not mean that, and it means that Sir Leslie Martin will be entirely free to say, what I believe is the conclusion of every serious town planner who has considered the matter, that the closing of Bridge Street would be a crime against town planning.
I wish to speak mainly, as I say, on the complete ignoring in this Committee's Report of the requirements of town planning, as was pointed out, I am glad to say, by several honourable and right honourable Members of another place. I wish to say a few words on the aesthetic matter that has been raised. The most pathetic and extraordinary feature of this whole Report is that the members of the Committee recommended a Gothic building on this site, in order, as they thought, to show respect for the work of Barry and Pugin. They really thought they were helping Barry

1061
and Pugin by completely destroying the balance of their building and making something which was described in an admirable letter to The Times, on May 8, as "something ludicrous in appearance". It would be completely ludicrous in appearance. Here I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Hailes. If one, in fact, built on this site, one might have an almost insoluble problem as to what the architect could do: because there is nothing he could do which would not destroy such value as the present group of buildings has. But, as my noble friend said, that is another argument against putting a building there.
As has been suggested by all the speakers who have preceded me—my noble friends Lord Stuart of Findhorn, and Lord Hailes, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—the right place for the development is the other side of Bridge Street. The letter in The Times was signed by Sir Robert Matthew, President of the Royal Institute of British Architects; Colin Buchanan, who is not only a traffic authority but the President of the Town Planning Institute, and by John Summerson. You could not get a more influentially signed letter. The letter pointed out that architecture, town planning and the preservation of an historic building all had claim to our respect. Every one of those considerations is destroyed by the proposal of this Committee.
All the points I have raised—and especially the architectural points—will, I know, be much better put by my noble friend Lord Esher and others. But I beg the House to realise that, while the need for increased accommodation for the Common s is not challenged, while the amount is not a subject which we wish to discuss in this House, the location of the new accommodation concerns us all, concerns the British public and concerns the future of our capital city and the self-respect of the nation.
7.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships would have wished, as I do, that my father could have spoken in this debate. I think it is the sort of subject that would have suited him. Lord Chesterfield advised that
"those who possess wit should wear it like a sword in its scabbard and not brandish it to the terror of the whole company".
1062
My father never had much regard for that recommendation, and I doubt whether he would have had much this evening.
I must confess that when this Report of the Speaker's Committee was read by most architects and planners their reaction was that it could not be taken seriously. With the passage of time, the joke has worn thin and ceased to be particularly funny, and I shall try this evening, so far as I can in a short speech, to take it as seriously as I believe one should. I shall take it, first, as a planning problem, and secondly, as a problem of architecture. As a planning problem, this is in miniature the problem of London as a whole. Cities grow in two ways: they grow by extension, and they grow by thickening up in the middle. One can see this thickening-up process in its early stages in any primitive African or Asian village, where family compounds increase and begin to impinge on one another. In London, this has been a worry for centuries. I believe that in the time of Queen Elizabeth I Parliament tried to nut a stop to the congestion in Central London, but without success. The Third Schedule of the 1947 Planning Act, by which people were allowed an extra 10 per cent. of the volume of the buildings already on their sites when they rebuilt, was a sort of latter-day recognition of this ancient and, by now, obsolete principle of growth.
Only recently have planners come to realise that it must stop. I think it is true to say that any business or industry in Central London that must expand has only three ways of doing it. The first, of course, is to move right out; the second is to decentralise partially; and the third, if it can afford it, is to buy more land and develop close by. The one thing that we can no longer tolerate in Central London is that expansion should take the form of the eating up of amenities, open space or road space. Yet this is what Mr. Speaker's Committee in fact proposes to do.
We cannot prejudice the report of the consultants, but it seems impossible to believe that the proposal to place a building across the approach to one of the busiest bridges in Central London will commend itself to Professor Buchanan as a helpful contribution to

1063
the traffic problems of the Metropolis. It seems so obvious that in these circumstances one keeps one's fighting troops in the line, and one pulls out one's administration, one's ancillary units, whatever they may be. I am not naïve enough to suggest which they should be. The essential point is, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and other noble Lords have said, that Parliament must fit in to a rational pattern for Central London, and must not itself break the rules it imposes upon other people.
I come to questions of architecture. When people argue about the style for a new project, it generally means that something is wrong either with the arguers or with the project. Your Lordships will remember the fuss about whether the chimney of the Bankside power station should be designed as a campanile because it was embarrassingly close to St. Paul's. This question arose, of course, because a power station should never have been placed in such a position. The famous argument about the style for the new Foreign Office could be said to have been not a question of a bad project, but of something wrong with the arguers.
The Speaker's Committee, having settled for a bad project, a bad scheme, finds itself advocating, and having to dress it in, a dead style. Now I dare say a group of ancient pensioners could be gathered together at great expense to carve the stone, or maybe what Sir Basil Spence calls regurgitated stone would have to be used. Has anyone considered the interior? The insides of buildings and their outsides must have some relationship. They have to share the windows, for one thing. Is the interior to be in Puginese? Are the desks and furniture to be what most of us hoped never to see again when we said goodbye to our headmasters in their studies? But, of course, we were wrong. What a spectacle for the Mother—or should one say the Grandmother?—of Parliaments. It is true that Barry had plans for extending the Palace of Westminster. Barry also had plans for demolishing St. Margaret's. Great architects make great mistakes. I should perhaps add that one should still consult architects about buildings—having first made sure that they are still alive!
1064
So far as living architects are concerned, I think we all accepted Mr. Speaker's Committee's Report as a useful indication, not of how the problem should be solved, but of how strongly the Committee felt that it should be solved in a handsome and imaginative way. We saw it as part of the build-up of the brief now in the hands of Sir Leslie Martin. Many of us also accepted it as an implicit and deserved rebuke to the kind of dehumanised architecture of which we have seen too much recently in the centre of London. We accepted appeals made in another place for a bit of fantasy in the same spirit. We accepted all this. We welcomed it. What we could not accept was that the Speaker's Committee should not merely state the problem, but seek to solve it. What we could also not accept was a slight tone of arrogance in the individual statements of one or two members of the Committee, as though the interests of Members of Parliament had some sort of priority over the interests of the man in the street outside. In a matter of this kind Parliament has unique powers to act in a dictatorial fashion. It follows, I suggest, that it has a unique responsibility not to do so.
7.47 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, on a most interesting and knowledgeable maiden speech. We all remember his noble father and the contributions he made to our debates over the years, mainly on the Arts, and we are very glad to know that there is still a Viscount Esher who has contributed so nobly this afternoon and, we hope, will continue to speak in this House on many future occasions. We have also heard a most interesting maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hailes, who, in addition to Lord Esher, speaks with specialised knowledge of these matters. We hope that he will also contribute to the debates on many future occasions.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, said at the beginning of his speech, this is really an exploratory debate, as no decisions seem to have been made. We are indebted to him for raising the subject and for giving this House an opportunity to say something on it, because, as my noble friend Lord Silkin said, it is a matter which concerns both

1065
Houses of Parliament and not just the Members of another place. The general opinion of this debate seems to have been—and it is an opinion with which I agree—that the suggestion that has been put up by Mr. Speaker's Committee that the Palace should be extended over Bridge Street is one that is not acceptable. In fact, it seems to me such an extraordinary suggestion—I say this with every respect to the Committee—that I cannot really believe that it has ever been made. It seems like some extraordinary kind of nightmare, the kind of thing that one wakes up and thinks about in the middle of the night and then when one comes to the daylight one realises that it is just some fantasy of the small hours.
It seems to me absolutely extraordinary that the Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said so rightly, should really suggest blotting out one of the main arteries of London's traffic, one of the main roads across one of the most important bridges. And why? To suit the convenience of Members. In other words, because it appears that Members may find it undignified to walk under a subway, the convenience of the public and of the traffic of London is to be prejudiced, and any consideration of town planning, as the noble Viscount, Lord Esher has said, should be swept away. One hopes that this crazy plan will never come to fruition. It seems to me to smack of arrogance. It takes no account of the feelings or convenience of the public; in fact, I should not have thought that it would encourage respect among the public and the electorate towards the Mother of Parliaments.
This plan is not only arrogant, but, like so many arrogant assumptions, it is also barbaric, because it takes no account of the aesthetic design of the Palace. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, said, the original design of the Palace was very carefully considered by its architects. The facade was planned around the two towers, one at each end, with Big Ben forming the corner of the eastward end. If this plan to extend the façade goes through it will mean that Big Ben, instead of being at that end, will be in the middle of the façade, and so will lose, I think, a great deal of its grandeur. That seems to me a very high price to pay for the convenience of a few Members who wish to work in the House.
1066
I believe that there is a lot to be said for the other suggestion made by the most noble Lords in this debate, that any extended building should be constructed on the other side of Bridge Street. I see no reason why, if this plan is finally accepted, such an extension should not he connected to the main block by a subway. I cannot see what the objections are to subways. I spend a great deal of my life, and so do the the vast majority of people, in subways. We go down subways to the Underground, and we go along a fine subway under Hyde Park Corner in which there are some very attractive murals. It seems to me not to be beyond the power of ingenuity of modern architects to build a subway worthy of the Houses of Parliament. So if the subway is the main objection, it is one which I feel could easily be overcome.
Another suggestion, instead of building on the other side of Bridge Street, would be to extend along New Palace Yard northwards—I believe that that is part of the original design which was envisaged. It seems to me that this as an alternative plan would be preferable to building over Bridge Street. If the buildings were kept low they would not spoil the view from Parliament Square. In fact, I think it would be rather attractive to have a quadrangle in the middle and to do away with the car park.
I wonder whether consideration is being given to the construction of an underground car park beneath Parliament Square, where there are not many trees. That would make an excellent place for a car park, and would mean that cars did not have to be parked in New Palace Yard. At present, the car park outside your Lordships' House is becoming so full that it is getting very difficult to get to the House at all. My taxi-driver this evening could not find a way in, because there were so many cars in the car park. I think that not only Members of the other place but your Lordships also need a car park.
My Lords, wherever the new extension is built the question of design is most important. As other noble Lords have said, I hope that this will not be merely a reproduction of the old Gothic style. I happen to be one of those who admire the Palace of Westminster enormously. I regard it as one of the most impressive buildings in London. I happen to

1067
admire St. Pancras Station, too, which I think is a very lovely building, as was said by noble Lords who spoke earlier. It would be a great mistake if we were to attempt to build an imitation of the Victorian neo-Gothic. After all, every architectural style should mirror the taste and aspirations of the age. The neo-Gothic eminently mirrored a great deal of the civilisation of the Victorian era, and they built in that style very well; but I think it is a style which, if we tried to follow it, would really be dead. I think a pastiche of what is, after all, a pastiche, although rather an attractive one would be absolutely intolerable. I see no reason why a dignified contemporary style should not match well with the neo-Gothic of the main façade. After all, we had that same kind of problem with Coventry Cathedral, and I think that most people agree that the modern building harmonises very well with the Gothic ruins of the old cathedral.
Those are the only points I wish to make, and we shall be very interested to hear whether the Government have made up their minds about any of these points. One certainly hopes that reconsideration will be given not only to the question of the design, but also to the siting of the extension. What we build now will, we hope, stand for many years to come, and therefore we must ensure that any decisions made now are the right ones, not only for the next decade but for many decades ahead.
7.58 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I should like to intervene very briefly in this debate, and I am encouraged to do so by the tenor of the speeches which have been made, speeches with which I have been entirely in agreement. I must confess that I hesitated to take part because of my own ignorance of architecture, but having listened to these speeches I have come, rather rashly perhaps, to these conclusions.
The plan is very Philistine in that it ignores the present buildings of historic beauty and wishes to add on to them in the old style. The plan is utterly inadequate, I think, because, since I have spoken to one or two people who know more about this than I do, it seems to me that it does not give enough space
1068
to Members of Parliament, and Members of Parliament need much more space than they have asked for. The plan is utterly unpractical because of the traffic in Bridge Street. I think that the members of the Committee should have tried to cross Bridge Street, let us say, two or three times during the day while they were meeting, and they would then have some idea of the amount of traffic, both cars and pedestrians, that passes along this street.
The plan seems to me to be an absolute affront to our modern architects. Not all of us may like a great deal of modern architecture, but we cannot exclude or ignore the whole of modern architecture. We have some extremely good architects and I think this is really an affront to them. It seems to me that we are losing a really great opportunity to have a modern building across Bridge Street, one of grace and dignity and much more full of the amenities that Members of Parliament require to-day.
8.0 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, it seems to me that there is one avenue which we have not explored; at any rate, it does not seem to me to have been explored in another place, and I have not heard anyone mention it here to-night. We want 100,000 square feet, and we have under our feet 8 acres. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, I do not want to spoil the opportunity of putting up a really splendid modern building on the other side of Bridge Street, but if this proves unpractical for various reasons, cannot we examine the possibilities of going underground? There is no reason why modern engineers, with modern air conditioning and modern lighting and decoration, should not provide all that is needed under our feet. Again, with modern lifts one can get up and down very much more quickly than one can move horizontally. It seems to me this is an aspect which could be used in conjunction with a very good modern building on the other side of Bridge Street, or could take its place. I should be very interested to know from the noble Earl who is to reply whether any explorations of this field have been made.
8.2 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this debate has been notable in a number of

1069
ways, not least for the fact that I have never heard two ex-Chief Whips from another place speaking here in the same debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailes, having been silent so long—permitted to say only "To-morrow" or whatever they are allowed to say in another place—have both been very eloquent, and it is quite clear that the House is in general support and very grateful to the noble Viscount. I think it was a rather courageous thing to bring such a hot subject before the House. We have had two maiden speeches which we have obviously very much enjoyed.
If I may say so, without wishing in any way to sound patronising, I think we were all struck by the depth of the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Hailes, feelings with which I think we are all very much in sympathy, even though some of us may hesitate to express ourselves as clearly and strongly as he did. Of course, in regard to the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, everybody is obviously sitting comfortably back and saying, "Well, deeply though we regret that his father is not with us, we are going to get the same sort of quality of speech from him", and his speech was both wise and enjoyable. In fact, they have been two very notable maiden speeches.
The striking thing is the degree of agreement there is in the House on this subject. My noble friend Lord Silkin unfortunately was not very well and had to leave, but I think most noble Lords—in fact, all noble Lords—would agree with his view. Broadly, we are against the Advisory Committee—indeed, not merely broadly. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, objects to the word "broadly", in any event, and I was interested to hear that he had to correct his own English in the course of his speech, which was satisfying. Noble Lords are in fact definitely against the proposals of the Advisory Committee. I should like to say something in defence. I think we took something a little heavily, and I would only say—and I do not want in return to be heavy—I think it is not conducive to good relations between the two Houses to talk about arrogance. I say no more on that. Honourable Members in another place as those noble Lords who have been there will agree, are always under tre-
1070
mendous pressure, and we must be sympathetic; and the really rather desperate efforts they make to break out of this place have led to proposals which were well worth while making, because we have been able, I hope, to dispose of them, and I hope we have disposed of them once and for all.
Of course, if we were going to build an extension to the Barry building, it would, I think, have been logical and consistent with what has been done, particularly in Oxford quads, whether Christ Church or Magdalen, to go on with the Gothic. But we who have to spend so much time in a Gothic building—and the interiors are at times more distressing than the exteriors—would be particularly allergic. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is going to refer to Peckwater Quad.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I was going to say that Christ Church is about to build but will do nothing of the sort suggested.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am sure we are agreed at the present moment that the solution of the particular Gothic style is one that is not "on". But, against this, I am not too happy about the idea—I obviously bow to the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. It is extra-ordinarily difficult to join different architectural styles. I think of Hampton Court, between Elizabethan and William and Mary. It happens to be a place where I live, and I am deeply fond of it, but at times one is worried about it. In any case, it is quite clear that, for perfectly sound planning reasons, which every noble Lord has given, this particular Gothic extension must be ruled out, and that the extension of Parliament must come on the other side of Bridge Street.
I am not even sure that the proposals that the Committee have put forward are architecturally sound. I have talked to one or two of my friends, and I am not quite sure whether they would not run into the gravest difficulties when they started examining the proposals. I am not quite sure how this easy connection, certainly at ground level, is going to take place. I am not quite sure how one is going to walk through Big Ben, which one might have to do at certain levels.

1071
In any case, the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, said the problem of windows—the fenestration argument, I think someone in another place called it—is really decisive. I think we must await the proposals of Sir Leslie Martin. I think it was shown reasonably satisfactorily by Sir William Holford in the study he did—and it was no more than a study, and therefore any suggestion that it has been rejected is a little premature—that it was feasible to provide the necessary accommodation the other side of Bridge Street; and now the Metropolitan Police are moving there is ample space for all that is needed.
I am very sympathetic, and I hope other noble Lords will be, as to the need for extra accommodation. It has been suggested that they are really rather overdoing it in asking for T.V. studios, and things like that, but the fact remains that in the future Ministers and Members of Parliament will frequently have occasion to go on television, and it is sensible for reasonable facilities to be provided. My only feeling—and this is a purely personal one—is that I would very much rather we moved to the other side of Bridge Street and had a decent building to work in, so that we did not have little notes passed round telling us the temperature is over 70 in the Chamber; I can never understand why we do it. And I like the vision of the other place, on the summons of Black Rod, standing on a moving staircase, proceeding to listen to the Royal Assent being given to Bills. Since the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, looks a little worried, let me assure him this is not a serious suggestion. It is a fact that the House of Lords must remain where it is for all sorts of constitutional reasons, and I feel it would be desirable that some thought should be given at some stage to our convenience also.
The proposed extensions, even if they were to go North of Bridge Street, would be most expensive, costing several million pounds. It is just conceivable (I hope that this remark will not be conducive to bad relations with another place) that one might "do a deal" with Members of Parliament and suggest that their pay was put up in return for saving the money on the extra accommodation, which, if I may say so, is a much more urgent and much more pressing need.
1072
But, quite clearly, we have to wait for Sir Leslie Martin's Report. Here I think that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, might be a little reassured when we see that Professor Colin Buchanan is advising Sir Leslie Martin on the traffic aspect. None the less, I share his anxiety. The fact is that another place did pass a Resolution and, so far as we know, the Minister of Public Building and Works is now busy pursuing the necessary technical and professional inquiries arising from the Committee's recommendations. So presumably the Government are getting on with the job of seeing how they might put these particular proposals into effect.
It may be a delicate matter for the noble Earl to say that these inquiries will not go too far. But I think that what the House is asking for is a quite definite assurance that we shall look at the whole of this area of London as one piece; that the proposed good planning, comments on which have certainly been expressed strongly to-day, will be applied most necessarily to all of this particular area of London.
If we look too far ahead it is doubtful whether it is going to be easy to design buildings that will last as far into the future as some of the buildings of the past have done. I think that possibly architectural and scientific developments may present a quite different picture, but I hope that at least the necessary planning considerations will be predominant, and that proper consideration (I will not go into the question of the Foreign Office, which has also been heavily discussed) will be given to this whole matter. I think that is what your Lordships' House has tried to say, and indeed has said, with one voice. I feel that the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, can be satisfied with the results of his initiative.
8.14 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL NAVY (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I am sure we are all glad that my noble friend put down this Motion to-day. First, and not least, I am personally glad because I know that the whole House was glad that this Motion has given my noble friend Lord Hailes the launching pad from which to project himself into his first orbit in your Lordships' House. It was, as I am sure all your

1073
Lordships will agree, a faultless first flight—a case, I think, as the horrible jargon goes, of "Hailes, all systems go." I am glad, too, that my noble friend has joined that small but select trade union of former Chief Whips who have migrated to us from another place, and that even more select, and even smaller, trade union of former Ministers of Works. I am certain that all your Lordships will wish to witness many more oratorical flights by our migrant and far too often mute maidens.
Likewise, we are all equally glad that this debate has given us the first opportunity to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Esher. Like many other noble Lords, I well remember his father in your Lordships' House, his wisdom and the shafts of gaiety and wit which he used to throw into our debates, sometimes upsetting them quite considerably. I am glad that we have heard the noble Viscount making his maiden speech in this House. I think we all knew that he would say something significant and add something significant to this debate. He did not disappoint us, and I am sure we wish to hear him often, because he will be a powerful reinforcement to what I would call the "Conesford-Conesford axis"—the planning, amenity and architectural lobby in your Lordships' House. But I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that there was one phrase which touched me on the quick—namely, when he spoke in a slightly different context of thickening up in the middle. For those of our Lordships who are perforce on a diet, I found this much too evocative and painful a phrase.
We are also indebted to my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn for ventilating this important subject in your Lordships' House this evening. I think the future plans for this Palace of Westminster are a matter of great public concern, and I also think that it is right that they should be so. I myself believe that it is not fanciful to suppose that the character of national Assemblies can be quite powerfully influenced by their physical environment. The Greeks were right—and so were the Romans: I will not add to the list—to lavish a great deal of care on their public buildings, and I am sure that we shall be right to continue to lavish care on this building.
As this debate has gone on it has shown that the proposals we are
1074
discussing not only affect this Palace of Westminster but may well affect also the whole character of the Whitehall scene. Greater changes are afoot, or planned, in Whitehall than at any time since 1857, when Charles Barry produced his scheme, which was abortive, for refashioning the whole Whitehall scene. In my view, it is right that public opinion should be exercised about these proposed changes. It was right that they should be debated in another place recently, and again I feel it right that your Lordships should have given such close attention to this matter this evening.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Silkin (he has kindly let me know that he has had to leave your Lordships' House) who called our minds to the fact that the proposals which we are discussing have a long pedigree. There was the Stanhope Committee of 1944–45. There were the Select Committees of another place in 1953 and 1954. There was the Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir James Duncan. There were the Holford proposals which flowed from that Advisory Committee's Report. There was the criticism of those proposalsߞnot of Sir William Holford, but more of his terms of referenceߞin another place last August, before the other place broke up for its summer holidays. Following that there was the appointment of this particular Advisory Committee, and the appointment last April, by my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works, of Sir Leslie Martin as a consultant for the whole Whitehall area. Then, later, there was the twin appointment of Professor Colin Buchanan to advise Sir Leslie Martin on the traffic implications. These, I think, are the backcloth against which we have this evening discussed the specific proposals of the Advisory Committee.
I think that it is true to say that this discussion has shown a large measure of agreement in your Lordships' House on certain basic principles. For example, we are all agreed that another place has a crying need for more accommodation if those who work there are to work in anything approaching modern conditions. The Government certainly accept that something of the order of 100,000 square feet of additional space is required by another place. It is needed for more office accommodation. The present provision, or lack of provision

1075
is quite unworthy of the dignity of the Mother of Parliaments, and, equally important, it is not conducive to its efficiency.
There is a need for more Committee space. More room is required for catering. Visitors to another place need better provision made for them. There may well prove to be a need for some form of assembly hall with really modern facilities. There is certainly the need for adequate on-the-spot broadcasting and television facilities for members of another place, for Ministers, and indeed for those Members of your Lordships' House who feel like taking to the air or to the screen. Far better arrangements are required in another place for the Press; and last, but by no means least, the cribbed, cabined and confined conditions in which so many people so faithfully support the infrastructure of another place need radical improvement. All this is agreed. It is certainly agreed, or should I say endorsed, by Her Majesty's Government.
I think, too, we all accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailes that we cannot gain this extra and essential elbow-room by merely juggling with the available accommodation in the Palace and trying to gain a square foot here or a square inch there. As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I am not, I am afraid, up to date about the extent to which we have considered burrowing. I will inquire about it and get in touch with the noble Lord. I see no reason why it should not be considered. In any event, we are faced with the problem of an overall shortage of accommodation, and the only way in which the situation can be radically improved—and it needs radical improvement—is by new building. Moreover, and I think your Lordships will be agreed on this, the new building must be situated very close to the present seat of Government.
I am inclined to think that the area of agreement disclosed this evening is wider than this. I feel that all of us are at one in thinking that this tricky problem of Parliamentary elbow-room must be considered not in isolation but as a very important feature in the future planning of the whole Whitehall/Westminster area. This is the true
1076
measure of the significance of the appointment of Sir Leslie Martin. He is required to make certain, among other things, that the various proposals for redevelopment in this whole area are related to each other and have regard to the general architectural character of this vital area, the kernel of our capital city. He is asked specifically to advise on the relationship of the proposed new Parliamentary building to the present precincts of this Palace. I can therefore give the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the definite assurance for which he has asked, that all this will be considered as a whole and not in isolated fragments.
Finally, your Lordships probably are also agreed that the future plans for the Palace of Westminster, and indeed for the Whitehall area as a whole, must take account of the need to bear traffic considerations in mind. That is why my noble friend has appointed one who is by general consent reckoned to be a leading, if not the leading, expert in this field in London, Professor Colin Buchanan, to assist Sir Leslie Martin in his work. Clearly, this great area must never be a slave to traffic; but, equally clearly, it must be planned with traffic considerations in mind. We all know how wide the repercussions of a traffic jam in Parliament Square can be. We have all had experience of it, whether we have been Peers going off to a party in Paddington (if there are any Peers who go there), or stockbrokers hurrying home late for their suppers in Sussex. That is why the Government feel it is very important that the traffic aspects of this area must be borne clearly in mind.
I should like to come to the point on which my noble friend Lord Conesford was particularly concerned, and that is how Sir Leslie Martin's terms of reference and responsibility now stand on the Bridge Street question. On that I would merely say that these terms of reference are perfectly clear. A prime issue on which he is required to report is whether or not Bridge Street should be realigned. Those terms of reference have in no wise changed. On that I can repeat the assurance which I gave my noble friend some little time ago. That means that Sir Leslie Martin is perfectly free, if he so wishes, to advise against the proposed realignment of Bridge

1077
Street. To that assurance, which I hope my noble friend will find satisfactory, I would add only this: that my right honourable friend the Minister for Public Building and Works has undertaken that Parliament will be consulted before effect is given to Sir Leslie Martin's recommendation. That is the only qualification I would place on that assurance to my noble friend.
So much for the area of agreement. There is possibly less agreement on what is the best scheme for this Palace in particular, and how best that scheme could be fitted in with the plans for Whitehall as a whole. Judging by what I have heard in this House this evening, there is a fair consensus of opinion on what could be one of the worst schemes. But I do not think we have gone very far—and this is understandable—towards a solution of this particular problem. Your Lordships have made clear what you do not think would be a good solution to this particular problem. On that there is little I could say. Sir Leslie Martin is due to report early in the New Year, and his report will clearly affect the whole question of the best site for the new Parliamentary building. I am sure we should be wise to reserve our judgment on the question of the site, whether it should be attached, detached or semi-detached, until Sir Leslie Martin's report is received.
The same, I would suggest, applies, though more so, to the question of style. I do not myself wish to come down on one side or the other this evening, and it would not be right for me to do so on the question of style, as I should be expressing only a personal preference. But I should like to throw out these observations. I feel (and I suspect your Lordships agree, judging by what has been said this evening), that while the style of the new building is important, its scale and proportions may be even more important. Again, we should all agree that the architectural character of this Palace must have some influence on the design of a new Parliamentary building. But this does not, of course, necessarily mean that a new Parliamentary building, wherever it is built, need have a Gothic façade. Also, in considering this matter we cannot entirely ignore the question of cost and finance, to which my noble friend Lord Hailes drew our attention. I suspect that
1078
these observations are entirely trite and entirely non-committal on this particular point—at least I hope they are—because I feel that at this stage it is very much a question of "waiting for Martin".
That said, my Lords, I would merely wish, in conclusion, to repeat to your Lordships the very definite assurances which my right honourable friend has given: that before any "go-ahead" is given on this matter, whether in whole or in any significant part, Parliament will be consulted and will have a full chance of seeing and discussing whatever may be proposed. By the same token, my right honourable friend will in the meantime wish to weigh, and to weigh very carefully, the advice which he has received, in another place recently and this evening in your Lordships' House.
8.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, may I just say that I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe for the trouble he has taken and for the speech which he has just delivered. I do not think any of us expected anything very definite to be stated by the Government or by other speakers. My objective—and I hope it was a useful one—was to provide an opportunity for Members to express their opinions before definite decisions are taken. So I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part, and I hope that it has been a useful debate.
I have nothing else to say, my Lords, except to add my congratulations to the two noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches here this evening: they were most interesting and valuable contributions to our debate. One or two noble Lords referred to Lord Esher's father, whom I also remember here. But I can go one better than that, and tell the noble Viscount that I remember the occasion when, 52 years ago, his grandfather came to have tea with me at school on a very hot July afternoon. To my surprise he refused to eat either very hot sausages or eggs—and I had spent most of my savings on them. But that was just too bad. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS MEASURE
8.33 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion which stands in my name; That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, the Church Commissioners Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. I hope that this is a non-controversial measure not likely to arouse the heat which a previous Measure caused. Its purpose is solely to increase the efficiency of the work of the Church Commissioners.
Since they came into being in 1947, through the fusion of Queen Anne Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, their work has increased greatly. As a result, the Church of England, and particularly the clergy, are deeply indebted to the Church Commissioners for maintaining the level of clerical stipends in spite of the rise in the cost of living. But the very expansion of the work and the additional burdens made it reasonable to examine the machinery, and a Committee was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Monckton of Brenchley. That Committee's Report was considered by the Church Assembly which gave general approval, and directed that a measure should be prepared to deal with the recommendations. That measure was generally approved in the Snrinq Session of this year and passed both stages of revision and full approval in June of this year. In all stages the Measure was passed without any division.
Many of the recommendations of the Committee could be implemented by action on the part of the Board of Governors, and this has already been done. They were mainly concerned with the revision of the committee structure. Under the Board there are now two main Committees—the Estates and Finance Committee and the Administrative Committee—which have dealt with a wide variety of subjects. The Monckton Committee recommended that there should be four Committees instead: a Pastoral Committee, a Houses Committee, an Assets Committee and a General Purposes Committee—the last two taking the place of the Statutory Estates and Finance Committee. It is with these
1080
two Committees that this measure is primarily concerned, and their duties are set out in the Measure.
It should be noted that the Assets Committee would have an exclusive power in the name of the Commissioners to manage the assets and to recommend to the Board what sums are available for application or distribution. The General Purposes Committee would then advise the Board how to apply or distribute such sums as the Board, on the advice of the Assets Committee, should determine to be available.
The burden of work falling on the three Church Estates Commissioners has become so great that the opportunity was taken in the measure to propose a lightening of their duties. The First Estates Commissioner will be Chairman of the General Purposes and Assets Committees; the Third Estates Commissioner will be Chairman of the Pastoral and Houses Committees. All three Estates Commissioners will be on the General Purposes Committee and all will receive the papers of all the Committees. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, on whom perhaps the burden falls heaviest because of his duties in another place, will be entitled to attend and speak at meetings of every Committee of which he is not a member, so that he will be in touch with all the affairs of the Commissioners.
Clause 3 of the measure deals with the pension of a widow of the First and Third Church Estates Commissioner dying in office. Under the existing law, no pension could be paid in such circumstances, and this disability will be removed by this clause. It is generally agreed by the whole body of the Commissioners and by the Church Assembly that this measure will assist greatly the efficient working of the Church Commissioners. I trust that its provisions will commend themselves to your Lordships' House, and I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, the Church Commissioners Measure by presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.] WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SHIPPING CONTRACTS AND COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
HAIRDRESSERS (REGISTRATION) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN BRITISH INDUSTRY
  TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN BRITISH INDUSTRY
  ORGANISATION OF CIVIL SCIENCE
  ORGANISATION OF CIVIL SCIENCE