Sitting of 10 November 1964

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

    Members (Press Cuttings Service)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up a press cuttings library, covering all the foreign and domestic issues likely to be discussed in the House of Commons, to be made available to all Members of Parliament.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): The provision of a press cuttings library is a matter for the House authorities in the first place.
    Sir B. Craddock: On a point of order. May I respectfully ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, with regard to Question No. 1? As I understand it, Sir, the responsibility for the Library is still yours. Therefore, is this Question properly addressed at this juncture to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Speaker: On the face of it, the Question does not ask about the House of Commons Library, which comes under my jurisdiction. That is the distinction, I think.
    Sir B. Craddock: May I respectfully remind you that this matter has been considered by the Library Committee and that recommendations have been made to you, particularly last Session. Surely, with great respect, the question of a cuttings library, which is really part of the Library facilities of this House, should be governed by you?
    Mr. Speaker: No. With great respect, the points are different. I know quite well what the Library Committee has been discussing about a press cuttings
    808
    library. The point is that this Question does not relate to the House of Commons Library.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister bear in mind that this service would help hon. Members to do their work far more effectively, and will he consult the Library Committee, which, as he has said, has been discussing this matter in the last 12 months?
    Mr. Diamond: On present information, it is doubtful whether the demand for a press cuttings library is such as to justify the expense of introducing and maintaining the
    service.

    Children's Footwear (Tax)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will remove the Purchase Tax on school pupils' footwear, in view of the apparent anomalies it creates; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Diamond: The greater part of the footwear worn by school pupils is already exempt as young children's clothing. I am afraid that this exemption is bound to be accompanied by anomalies however one attempts to define "a young child". There is little doubt that older persons already benefit in terms of tax relief from the existing favourable definition.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that fixing an arbitrary size of school footwear and imposing Purchase Tax on sizes in excess leads to anomalies whereby, for example, well-built young school pupils are being taxed on footwear while more petite older girls are fully exempted? Is this not an anomaly to which the Minister should apply his mind to removing at the earliest moment?
    Mr. Diamond: Certainly anomalies do result, as I have indicated. The trouble is that there is no better definition available.

    Public Service Pensioners
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when a Pensions Increases Act giving parity to public service pensioners will be introduced.
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to help public service pensioners.
    Mr. Diamond: The Government are considering the position of public service pensioners. I have no announcement to make at present.
    Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my hon. Friend—[Laughter.]—I am, perhaps, being a litle more polite than some people were yesterday. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether I am right in assuming that there will be an Act covering the promises and pledges, very frequently given during the election campaign, that parity will be attached to the public service pensions, and may I ask when we are going to hear that that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Diamond: Well, certainly not today. I do not think that I can anticipate the contents of a future pensions increase Measure today.
    Mr. Ridsdale: As the policy revealed in the Queen's Speech is likely to be so inflationary, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the anxiety of public service pensioners to get parity as soon as possible? In any event, can he assure us that when the Government cover this point, they will try to have biennial reviews?
    Mr. Diamond: As to the first part of the question, of course that will be taken into account. As to the second part, I will certainly see that it is given the fullest consideration.
    Mr. Jennings: Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury not acknowledge that a great injustice exists for those public service pensioners who have been retired for a long time on pensions based on small salaries? Does he realise that this is a grave and urgent matter, and will he be prepared to receive a deputation from the Public Service Pensioners Council quite soon to discuss the question of parity?
    Mr. Diamond: I am conscious that this has been a matter of criticism for a long time, going back even prior to 15th October. As to the second part of the question, I will be only too glad to receive a deputation if that is the wish of the hon. Member.
    Mr. Jennings: I thank the hon. Gentleman.

    One-Man Businesses
    Mr. Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many one-man businesses
    810
    declare a net income of less than £500 a year.
    Mr. Diamond: The latest available figures of assessments on trading profits and professional earnings are for 1961–62 and they relate, broadly speaking, to the earnings in 1960. The number of cases where the net true income assessed was less than £500 a year amounted to 851,900. The figures of net true income are after deduction of capital allowances. I would remind my hon. Friend that some of these assessments are on subsidiary earnings and some are for only part of a year, while they exclude all income of the taxpayer from any other source.
    Mr. Lipton: Is there not something odd and, perhaps, even fishy about those figures? Do they not reveal that a substantial number of people are either understating their income or, alternatively, not deriving much benefit from the so-called affluence of thirteen years of Tory rule?
    Mr. Diamond: As to the first part of the question, it is not at all evident from the figures for the reasons which I have already given. The record of efficiency of tax inspectors in this country in assessing trading profits compares favourably with the record of other countries.

    Toll Bridges
    Mr. Martenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to tax the income arising from those ancient toll bridges which at present pay no tax.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I regret that I cannot anticipate the Budget statement my right hon. Friend will make tomorrow nor the one he will make in the spring.
    Mr. Marten: I rather expected a reply like that. Does the Minister realise that there is in my constituency a toll bridge the tolls of which were created in 1766 and that ever since then they have been tax-free, death duty-free and rate-free? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that between now and the next Budget, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look seriously at this matter?
    Mr. MacDermot: This matter was aired considerably in the last Parliament,

    811
    as the hon. Member will remember. I certainly give an assurance that we will look at the matter.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Can my hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that if I put down a new Clause to the Finance Bill, which will be coming before the House in a short while, he and the Government will accept it?
    Mr. MacDermot: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot give him an assurance in the form in which he asks. He will, no doubt, recall the interest that was shown in the Amendment which he put down to the last Finance Bill.

    Government Advisers
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the names, salaries and conditions of service, and the qualifications of persons who have been engaged in an advisory capacity to assist the Prime Minister and other Ministers or Departments.
    Mr. MacDermot: With permission, I shall circulate this information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that these people have been informed that they are all subject to the Official Secrets Act and the instructions as to official behaviour which apply to established civil servants?

    Name

    Salary

    Conditions of Service

    Qualification

    Department

    £

    T. Balogh, Esq.

    6,500

    Full-time

    Reader in Economics University of Oxford

    Cabinet Office

    Prof. P. Blackett

    6,500

    Full-time

    Professor of Physics University of London

    Technology

    H. F. R. Catherwood, Esq.

    Unpaid

    Full-time

    Managing Director, British Aluminium

    Economic Affairs

    N. Kaldor, Esq.

    4,000

    31½ days a week

    Reader in Economics University of Cambridge

    H.M. Treasury

    R. Neild, Esq.

    6,100

    Full-time

    Deputy Director, National Institute of Economic and Social Research

    H.M. Treasury

    Sir Solly Zuckerman, who is already Chief Scientific Adviser to the Secretary of State for Defence, at a salary of £8,200, has been appointed to the staff of the Cabinet Office as Scientific Adviser. He will also advise the Foreign Secretary on the scientific aspects of disarmament.

    Clacton Town Football Club
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reconsider the tax position of the Clacton Town Football Club, and the present
    Mr. MacDermot: Yes, certainly, that is done.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether these salaries are based on Civil Service salaries or technical Civil Service salaries or whether they are specially negotiated?
    Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member will see that where there are salaries, they are set out in full in the table—
    Mr. Digby: That does not answer my question.
    Mr. MacDermot: —and that in one case there is no salary at all.
    Mr. Fisher: In view of the fact that the economic advice hitherto tendered by, for instance, Dr. Kaldor to overseas Governments has usually resulted in a situation of near riots and almost of revolution—I am thinking particularly of British Guiana—is it wise in these circumstances to pay outside economists of foreign extraction to create chaos in Britain?
    Mr. William Hamilton: Who is a racialist now?
    Mr. MacDermot: Even if the premise of the hon. Member's question is true, I am sure that he would not want us to fall into the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
    Following is the information:
    tax demand that is being made over the running of a football pool.
    Mr. Diamond: I am looking into this matter and will write to the hon. Member as soon as I can.

    15% Import Surcharge (Northern Ireland)
    Captain Orrasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before imposing the 15 per cent. import surcharge, he discussed with the Northern Ireland Government the possible effects of this surcharge on the economy of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. MacDermot: We are in very close contact with the Northern Ireland Government, but it is not customary to consult them in advance about changes in Customs duties or other reserved taxes.
    Captain Orr: While there may be no constitutional obligation to consult in this case, would it not have been wiser so to do in view of the fact that there are quite a few industries in Northern Ireland whose raw material is adversely affected and whose employment is likely to be affected, including a large tannery in my constituency? Will the Minister look at special cases?
    Mr. MacDermot: The hon. and gallant Member will realise the difficulties which were in our way about consultation with any other Governments over the imposition of these charges. We have received a letter from the Northern Ireland Government dealing with some of the matters to which the hon. and gallant Member refers and I assure him that it is receiving close consideration.
    Mr. Maudling: What were the difficulties about consultation with the Northern Ireland Government?
    Mr. MacDermot: The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well—the reasons have already been explained fully in debate—what were the difficulties in the way of consultation.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Northern Ireland is now one of the centres of the man-made fibre industry? Has he evaluated what will be the result to this industry of the surcharge and, indeed, its effect upon employment.
    Mr. MacDermot: All questions as to the effect of the surcharges—or, to give them their right name, temporary charges—on Northern Ireland are under discussion with the Northern Ireland Government.

    Government Borrowing
    Mr. Peter Walkerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if in future he will publish details of Government borrowing from overseas sources at monthly or quarterly intervals.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was borrowed by Her Majesty's Government from foreign central banks in the six months before 15th October. 1964, and how much has been borrowed since.
    Mr. Diamond: It has not been the practice to disclose in the past the amount of transactions in recent months. I am considering future policy on this matter and would prefer not to commit myself to any fixed procedure for the present.
    Mr. Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has expressed a far more moderate view than that disclosed by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) of suppressing this information although it has been normal practice before not to publish? Is not this practice also likely to be the normal practice in future?
    Mr. Diamond: I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    Housekeeper Allowance
    Captain Orrasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will seek to amend Section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, to remove the discrimination it contains between the treatment of widowers and widows and that of unmarried persons.
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has studied the views, a copy of which has been sent to him, of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Great Britain and Northern Ireland about the distinction made between a widow and an unmarried person by Section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1952; and what steps he intends to take in this matter.
    Mr. MacDermot: I can say no more than that I have noted the views of the

    815
    National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs on this point.
    Captain Orr: When considering those views, will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that it is anomalous to have a situation of two elderly ladies living in retirement side by side with housekeepers, one of whom, because she is a widow, gets the allowance but the other of whom, because she happens to be single, does not?
    Mr. MacDermot: We are well aware of the anomaly to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. It is a matter which has been considered for a long time. The hon. and gallant Member will be aware that the Royal Commission on Taxation suggested a rather different solution to his, namely, that the allowance should be withdrawn from widows and widowers without a young child.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the clubs in my constituency at Carrickfergus and Lisburn strongly support this recommendation? Will he consider it seriously, because it has a great deal of national backing throughout the whole country?
    Mr. MacDermot: Most certainly, we will consider it very carefully.

    Import Restrictions
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now restrict imports of non-essential luxuries and semi-luxuries, rather than restricting essential industrial imports for further manufacturing purposes.
    Mr. MacDermot: In general, these imports are subject to the import charge
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that certain commodities essential for our manufacturing industries, and thence for exports, are not available in this country? Is it not inequitable that such commodities should be exposed to the same kind of restrictions on imports as are luxury and semi-luxury goods? Will he take steps as quickly as possible to remove this imposed barrier on our export performance?
    Mr. MacDermot: One of the purposes of the temporary charge is to encourage
    816
    the manufacture at home of articles which at the moment are only available from abroad. The effect of the import cuts at the moment is spread evenly. If we had exempted all imports used by industry, the range of imports subject to the charge would have been reduced by about two-thirds, which would have put a quite unfair burden on the rest.
    Mr. Maudling: Would it be right to draw the conclusion that it is not the intention to place the surcharge on anything that cannot be made in this country?
    Mr. MacDermot: No. That would be quite wrong.
    Sir C. Osborne: If import charges are only temporary, how can they do any good to the economy?
    Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman will realise that we can impose charges of this kind only on a temporary basis. We believe that the country will respond to the opportunity provided by it.
    Mr. Fell: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that these charges were spread evenly over all imports, but, of course, this is not so in the case of paper. The duty is imposed on imported paper but not on imported pulp for making paper. This is causing the greatest anomalies among firms using either paper or pulp. Those using paper have to pay the surcharge while those using pulp do not.
    Mr. MacDermot: The Question on the Order Paper was not directed to raw materials. Pulp is, of course, included in the surcharge as a raw material.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will put in hand a comprehensive review of the rating system in order to ensure that the growing burden of rates is more fairly shared throughout the community.
    Mr. Diamond: We are examining the whole question of local government finance, including the rating system.
    Mr. D. Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the pre-election promises of the Prime Minister, the fact that the Queen's Speech has only an oblique reference to the subject indicates

    817
    that it will have low priority in the Government's programme? Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a very fair measure of social justice if the present unfair and rather discriminatory tax on owner-occupiers were abolished for something shared more evenly throughout the community?
    Mr. Diamond: I do not think that this exchange adds anything at the moment. I have said that we are examining the whole question.
    Mr. Evelyn King: When the examination takes place, will the hon. Gentleman take particular care to see that regard is had to the position of towns in which there is an over-average proportion of elderly and retired people—towns such as Weymouth, which feel strongly on this matter?
    Mr. Diamond: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by saying that what he is referring to is not the question of the spread of population but the spread of industry. Large numbers of retired people are generally found in places where there is less than the normal amount of industry. That is a very important aspect and will be fully taken into account.
    Mr. F. M. Bennett: Can we have a specific assurance, following the Gracious Speech, that the review will be instituted during the coming Session?
    Mr. Diamond: I can go much further. The review has already started.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury explain how long these anomalies, which are giving rise to such anxiety opposite, have been in existence and what attempts have been made in the past 13 years to remove any of them?
    Mr. Diamond: I am not in a position to answer fully the second part of that question. But my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and, indeed, other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen can draw their own conclusions about the first part. I believe that these anomalies existed before 15th October.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in reviewing arrangements for local government finance, he will make a special study of the problems of areas with little or no manufacturing industry, such as seaside towns.
    Mr. Diamond: The general examination will cover the effect of factors of this kind on the finances of local authorities.
    Mr. Blaker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not only do the seaside towns contain many old people living on small fixed incomes, but that in many cases workpeople there earn less than their counterparts elsewhere because of the seasonal nature of their employment? Will he bear that in mind in making his review?
    Mr. Diamond: Yes. All these matters will be taken fully into account.
    Dame Irene Ward: Can I ask my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am not embarking on any new designation. I want to know whether in this review, which was originally started by the last Government, the differentiation and variation in the assessments done by different valuation officers under revaluation will be looked at, as some houses have been undervalued and some over-valued, especially those in seaside towns occupied by people living on small fixed incomes? Has the hon. Gentleman any jurisdiction over assessments made by valuation officers?
    Mr. Diamond: May I say straight away that, unusual as it is for an occupant of this seat to receive such regular and warm regard from the hon. Lady, I welcome it very much? Her question dealt with the problem of valuation rather than with the question of a review. The machinery of valuation is not thought to be unsatisfactory, but I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Lady has said.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of the friendly attitude of the hon. Lady, expressed on two occasions, will my hon. Friend make her a P.P.S.?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that these advances should be restricted at Question Time.

    Potash (Surcharge)
    Mr. Stodartasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an estimate of the extra cost to the agricultural industry of the 15 per cent. surcharge on potash.
    Mr. MacDermot: In a full year the levy imposed by the charge would amount to approximately £1½ million. It cannot be estimated how much of this would be passed on to the agricultural industry.
    Mr. Stodart: Why have the Government imposed this charge on what is virtually a raw material and one which cannot be produced in this country? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, unless it is imported, food production will fall? Did he consult the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland before taking this precipitate action?
    Mr. MacDermot: Potash was not excluded because it did not fall within the category of raw materials, but representations have been received about it and many other cases for exemption. I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement tomorrow.
    Sir P. Agnew: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that any part of the surcharge falling upon agriculture will be taken into account in the next price review?
    Mr. MacDermot: No. I cannot give such an assurance.
    Mr. Maudling: Why not?
    Mr. MacDermot: Because it is not my responsibility.

    Norwegian-built Fishing Vessels
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider lifting the 15 per cent. surcharge on the Norwegian-built fishing vessels already ordered to be imported into this country in the next eight weeks.
    Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend will deal with this new charge in his Budget statement tomorrow. If the hon. Member will let me have details of the case he has in mind, I will look into the matter.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that the Chancellor will lift the surcharge or ease it in some way? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that these boats were already ordered before the charge was put on? Is he aware that the only result will be to increase the cost to a very vital basic industry? What consultations did the Government have with our Norwegian friends before imposing the surcharge?
    Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to the second part of that Supplementary Question. It is well known—it received much publicity—that we were not able to consult. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have already answered that question. With regard to the first part of his Supplementary Question, he will appreciate that my reply was not designed to give information and therefore I cannot give any now.
    Mr. Prior: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman also bear in mind that vessels are being built in Poland for the fishing industry? If he sees my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), will he also see me at the same time?
    Mr. MacDermot: Yes, certainly.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Government Departments (Dispersal)
    Mr. K. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions he has issued to secure the further dispersal of Government Departments out of the Greater London area.
    Mr. Diamond: The Government will be making a substantial direct contribution to the relief of congestion in London. We plan to move over 19,000 Civil Service jobs away from the London area during the next few years, which will mean that out of a total of some 130,000 headquarters staff over 50,000 will be right outside Greater London.

    821
    In addition, we are studying the possibility of dispersing a substantial number of jobs from the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Lewis: From what the hon. Gentleman has said, it would appear that fewer people are to be moved out of London by this Government than were moved by the last Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. That is according to the figures the hon. Gentleman has just given. If the Government are restricting office building in London, would they not make a considerable contribution towards easing office congestion in London by getting large numbers of civil servants out of the capital?
    Mr. Diamond: The figures I have given indicate that the Government are making a very serious contribution to the solution of a very serious problem.
    Mr. Royle: Will the Government reconsider the position of the Post Office Savings Bank employees at Kew, who are being forcibly asked to move to Glasgow in the coming two years?
    Mr. Diamond: That question is under active consideration at the moment.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Can I have an assurance that discussions which have already taken place on the part which Swindon can play in helping to deal with this problem will not be overlooked?
    Mr. Diamond: Nothing to do with Swindon could possibly be overlooked.

    Business Expenses
    Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further question relating to business expenses he proposes to add to those already contained in Inland Revenue form P.11D.
    Mr. Diamond: I have no statement to make on this matter at present.
    Mr. Cooke: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this form relating to business expenses contains about 100 lines of closely written questions relating to travel, meals, cars, houses, goods, services, servants, education, sporting facilities—apparently grouse moors, which are already heavily taxed—and that there is a penalty of £500 for evasion? In view of what the hon. Gentleman said
    822
    in reply to Question No. 4 and as there is surely very little scope for evasion because of the efficiency of the tax collectors, what possible further revenue does he hope to get from this source?
    Mr. Diamond: I note the complaints which the hon. Gentleman has made against this form, which rests on Sections 160 and 168 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, from which one draws the conclusion that the previous Government thought that the form was necessary.

  POST OFFICE

    Telephone Contracts (Coatbridge and Airdrie)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Postmaster-General if he will place more orders in the development area of Coat-bridge and Airdrie, in view of the high unemployment in that area; and if he will make a statement.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I am glad to say that this area has won orders valued at £1½ million since April 1963. Tenders from firms in the area will continue to be invited in all suitable cases and to enjoy special consideration under the normal development district preference arrangement.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this area is facing large-scale redundancy since the firm concerned is outside the ring of telephone manufacturers and is guaranteed only a one year's contract, with the workers having only a one year's job, against five years for ring manufacturers? Is it not time to dispense with this practice and for areas such as this to receive more favourable treatment in this respect, especially as there is already three times the national average of unemployment in the locality?
    Mr. Benn: I can tell my hon. Friend that I am looking at bulk supply agreements in any case, but Airdrie Electronics has been given an opportunity to make 25 per cent. of the total requirements for the Post Office although the figure which it quoted to us was above the competitive tender. On the general question of the bulk supply firms, 20 per cent. of their goods are made in development districts where unemployment is above the national average.

    New Postage Stamps
    Mr. Websterasked the Postmaster-General what criteria he will require on the issue of a new postage stamp.
    Mr. Benn: I am currently reviewing Post Office policy with regard to the issue of postage stamps and will make a statement later.
    Mr. Webster: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a postage stamp to commemorate the appointment of the Prime Minister? He is, after all, a unique case in that he is the first Prime Minister since Bonar Law to have been educated at a grammar school, and under the new policies presumably the last.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are all looking forward to 25th January to see whether there will be a new line in Government policy towards the celebration of the birthday of Robert Burns?
    Mr. Benn: A Burns stamp is one of the issues which I am considering.

    Post Office Savings Bank (Transfer)
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to the move of the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow.
    Mr. Benn: Yes, Sir. The decision to move the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow still stands.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all Scotland will be glad that he has followed the excellent decision taken by the former Government?
    Mr. Rankin: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that answer? Is he aware that one of the reasons for the transfer to Glasgow was the high unemployment in that city? Is he further aware that there is a considerable amount of concern over what would appear to be the delay in carrying out the transfer? Perhaps he could indicate the cause of the delay.
    Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reference to the decision to confirm this move, but I am sure
    824
    he will recognise that a move of this kind, carried out at a time when the Post Office Savings Bank is being computerised, and when one has to maintain a high quality of service to the customers of the Bank, involves delicate matters. The Post Office has a proud record of transferring other departments, one to Chesterfield and another to Durham, and the good will of the staff is as important in this as it can possibly be.
    Mr. Noble: Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that we are delighted to hear his statement, but I am not certain whether he was in the House when his hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, in answering a supplementary Question, said that the matter was under consideration. Is the right hon. Gentleman quite certain of his statement?
    Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend was quite properly leaving it to me to answer the Question put down by the noble Lady. It would have been most improper if he had answered a question which principally affects Post Office policy.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Robertsbridge Exchange
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Postmaster-General what are his plans for the old telephone exchange at Robertsbridge.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): The house, which was used for the old telephone exchange, and some of the land will be sold as soon as possible.
    Mr. Irvine: As the house has now been unoccupied for a matter of two years and as I drew the attention of the Post Office to this matter about 12 months ago, may I urge that something should be done about it urgently?
    Mr. Slater: Yes. A certain amount of work still has to be done by way of new fencing and lavatories and extending the existing access drive, but thereafter the house will be sold as soon as possible.

    Goole Exchange
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Postmaster-General when it is intended that Goole telephone exchange will become

    825
    automatic; and what effect this will have on the number of staff employed.
    Mr. Slater: We plan to open the new automatic exchange, with STD, in the spring of 1968; no operators will then be required at Goole, but we foresee no difficulty in arranging for the existing staff to be absorbed at other exchanges in the region.
    Mr. Jeger: Is there any way in which this bigger exchange can be converted before 1968, which seems rather a long time ahead?
    Mr. Slater: There is a heavy programme of similar work in that Post Office region much of which is necessary to provide customers with a telephone service. This job can be expedited only at the expense of other work of a more pressing character.

    Goole, Thorne and Knottingley
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Postmaster-General how many applications for a telephone are outstanding in Goole, Thorne and Knottingley; and what are the dates of the oldest applications.
    Mr. Slater: Leaving aside orders being met, there were respectively 3, 1 and 20 outstanding applications in the areas served by the Goole, Thorne and Knottingley exchanges at 31st October, 1964. The oldest applications are dated 4th June, 1964, in Goole, 26th September, 1964, in Thorne and 16th January, 1961, in Knottingley. Of these three applications that in Goole will be met in the middle of next year, and those in Thorne and Knottingley within the next three months.
    Mr. Jeger: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are local allegations that bookmakers' offices can be supplied with additional telephones without any delay whatever, while normal households and businesses have the experience of a long delay before they can get a telephone? Will he do something to put that right?
    Mr. Slater: If my hon. Friend has any particular case, perhaps he will give us some information about it and we will have the matter investigated.
    Miss Pike: Does not the Answer which we have just heard indicate that the recent investment programme in telephones is
    826
    now bearing fruit and that the waiting list has been cut? Should I remind the Postmaster-General—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—may I remind—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—may I ask for an assurance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—that the Postmaster-General will maintain the right priorities in the capital investment programme in the future?

    Telephone Amplifier Service
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Postmaster-General what are his plans for the production of a cheap loudspeaker telephone.
    Mr. Benn: The Post Office already supplies loudspeaking telephones which amplify speech in both directions for as little as £2 a quarter and others which amplify incoming speech for 15s. a quarter. An improved model is being developed, but it is too early to say when it is likely to become generally available.
    Mr. Tilney: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that that service is advertised? When I asked the telephone authorities in the Palace of Westminster about it, they said that there was no such service.
    Mr. Benn: I shall look into this in connection with the advertising policy of the Post Office generally on advertising lesser known services.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Programmes
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that television programmes continue to give offence by reason of the use of questionable material; and if he will use his powers under the Television Act and the Licence and Agreement to require the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority not to send programmes containing such material.
    Mr. Benn: The powers of the Postmaster-General have always been regarded as reserve powers, for use only in the last resort. Both broadcasting organisations are independent in matters of programme content; and their independence has been repeatedly reaffirmed

    827
    by successive Governments. I regard the maintenance of this fundamental principle as essential.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that much of the material broadcast in recent years has been damaging to our national prestige? Will he make these organisations realise that they are national institutions and that we do not want our national image to be damaged by pandering too much to the long-haired young men?
    Mr. Benn: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is very unlikely that everyone could agree about the quality of certain programmes. The governors of the B.B.C. and the members of the Independent Television Authority are appointed for the purpose which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. It would be wrong for me to use my powers, though I have them, as any Postmaster-General has, in matters of this kind.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the questionable material which gives most offence is the continuous Socialist Party propaganda which seems to be brought into every programme on both channels on every conceivable occasion?
    Mr. Benn: There are differences of opinion on this matter, but I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman following in the tradition set by Sir Waldron Smithers who repeatedly made these charges throughout the period 1945–51.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will my right hon. Friend try to see that the purposes of these broadcasts are carried out, namely, that there are alternative programmes, and that both channels do not duplicate the programmes of the other. The complaint by many people is that instead of alternative programmes, we get duplicate programmes at the same time.
    Mr. Benn: This is a matter of programme planning rather than censorship, as was implied, and that is a different question. It would be even more undesirable for the Postmaster-General to try to plan the programmes of both channels.
    Sir G. Nicholson: There is a real problem here. There are occasions
    828
    when the most offensive language is used, and no possible redress can be obtained. We are told that this matter is outside the scope of Government intervention, and that script writers must be given free rein for their artistic urges. Nonetheless, great offence is caused, and some scandal. Will the right hon. Gentleman see that something is done about this matter?
    Mr. Ben: If, by asking whether I will see that something is done, the hon. Gentleman means will I exercise personal censorship over B.B.C. and I.T.A. programmes, the answer is "No".
    Sir G. Nicholson: I did not say that.
    Mr. Benn: The question could mean only censorship over things which I, in the exercise of my judgment, thought to be undesirable and worthy of censorship. If the hon. Gentleman thinks more about the problems involved in trying to do what he wants me to do, he will realise that it is much better to leave it to the board of governors of the B.B.C. and members of the I.T.A.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEEDINGS (TELEVISION)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether he will authorise experimental closed circuit televising of the proceedings of the House of Commons as a possible prelude to full national coverage.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have the impression that in the previous Parliament there was not anything like a majority of Members in favour of the televising of our proceedings.
    We now have many new Members and we should of course move in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. This question could be discussed through the usual channels and I know that, in addition, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would be glad to receive the views of individual hon. Members. So long as there is no indication that the majority of the House want our proceedings televised, I do not think there is any point in conducting experiments.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he agrees with the

    829
    proposition that it is probable that in the long term this development is inevitable? If he does agree, or even if he does not, will he take steps to devise machinery whereby every Member of the House can express his opinion in writing to the Leader of the House?
    The Prime Minister: It is inevitable when, and only when, this House wants it to be carried out. With regard to consultation, I think that the most convenient thing, apart from discussions through the usual channels, is for any hon. Member who wants to express a view to do so to my right hon. Friend or to the authorities on the other side.
    Mr. Lubbock: Apart from the views expressed by Members of the House, will the Prime Minister take into account any clear expression of the views of the people of the country as a whole as to whether they want such televised programmes?
    The Prime Minister: I think that they are best expressed through the Members they have elected to this House.

    ELECTORAL REFORM
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether he will initiate immediate all-party talks on the problem of electoral reform.
    Q 16. Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister if he will initiate all-party talks on electoral reform and, in particular, on the reduction of the voting age to eighteen, as recommended by the Youth Commission set up by the Labour Party and presided over by the present Lord Chancellor.
    The Prime Minister: We are considering various proposals for electoral reform, and hope to arrange for discussion between the parties shortly.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply is a very satisfactory one, for a change? Will he realise that this is a matter of extreme urgency, as every Member to whom I have talked in this Parliament has some complaints about the antiquated law under which we operate our elections? Will my right hon. Friend undertake these discussions in the most urgent fashion possible?
    The Prime Minister: It is suggested that we have informal talks first, and decide what more formal machinery should be set up, following the precedent of discussions in earlier Parliaments.
    Mr. Driberg: Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that both the discussion and the implementation of any electoral reform must take a considerable time, and that if any such reform as that which I mention in my Question No. 16 is to be operative at the next General Election, it should be agreed within the next four years or so?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That is very much in mind, but I think that there are some dozens of ideas which have been considered by all parties, and we shall want to look at them all.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that his statement that he is favourably considering the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is greeted with applause by the Liberal Party? Is he also aware that the representation of three million people in this country by nine Members, however eminent they are, is grossly unfair, and we hope that he will move as quickly as he can on this matter?

    MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Prime Minister what changes he has authorised in the relationship between the Secretary of State for Defence and the Ministers of Defence for Army, Navy and Air, respectively; and what other changes are being made in the organisation of the Ministry of Defence.
    The Prime Minister: No changes have been made in the relationships between the Secretary of State and the three Ministers of Defence. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Army also acts as Deputy to the Secretary of State, with a particular responsibility in the field of defence questions affecting the alliance as a whole.
    Mr. Digby: Is the Prime Minister aware that this matter was exhaustively discussed in the closing stages of the last

    831
    Parliament, when the idea of a deputy was not advanced from either party? Where does the new idea come from?
    The Prime Minister: If this Parliament is to be bound by everything which was done and discussed in the last Parliament, we shall not make very much progress.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the closing stages of the discussion on the Bill creating the present integrated Ministry of Defence it was agreed that all the Ministers concerned should cover functionally any section of the Department of the Ministry of Defence?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and this is very much our idea. Already, in addition to their special responsibilities for the Services to which they have been allocated, each of the three Ministers is taking on more and more responsibility of a functional character affecting the Defence Service as a whole.
    Sir B. Craddock: May I ask a question with regard to the position of the Chief Scientific Officer to the Secretary of State for Defence? I understand that he is now the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister. Is he to do the two jobs now, or only one?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the question is, "Yes, he will still advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence", though I am not quite sure whether this arises out of the Question on the Order Paper.

    FORESTRY COMMISSION (TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Prime Minister by what authority responsibility for the Forestry Commission has been transferred from the Minister of Agriculture personally, as laid down in the Forestry Act, 1945, to the Minister of Land and Natural Resources.
    The Prime Minister: The transfer of responsibility for the Forestry Commission in England and Wales from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources will be made by an order under the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of
    832
    Functions) Act, 1946, and laid before Parliament.
    Mr. Digby: Is not it already laid down by Statute where this power is to go? Is it not undesirable that where the House has made a decision by Statute it should be overruled so easily? While we appreciate that the Prime Minister has been associated with the importation of timber into this country more than with its growth at home, either by the Forestry Commission or by private persons, will he remember that this is an important industry to which many of us attach great importance?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing an assurance given during the passing of the Forestry Act, 1945. An assurance was given only because there was some fear that under the Ministry of Agriculture the Minister would prefer agricultural considerations to those of forestry. The Forestry Commission has now a Minister of its own and it will be even better looked after than in the past.
    Mr. Noble: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the relationship between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Forestry Commission remains as it was before?
    The Prime Minister: It remains exactly as it was before.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman referred to laying an Order in Council. Would he confirm that this Order in Council will attract the Affirmative Resolution procedure and that therefore there will be an opportunity for debate and, if necessary, decision by the House?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that is so.

    SUMMIT CONFERENCE
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister (1) if he will invite the heads of the Russian and Chinese Governments to a representative international conference in Britain to discuss international disarmament and peace;
    (2) if he is aware that the Prime Minister of China has invited President Johnson of the United States of America

    833
    to take part in a world summit conference to abolish nuclear weapons; if he has received a similar invitation; and what action he proposes to take.
    The Prime Minister: I have received a message from the Chinese Prime Minister, proposing that a summit conference of all countries be convened to discuss nuclear disarmament. This message is being studied and Her Majesty's Government are consulting with other friendly Governments.
    Sir C. Osborne: Has the Prime Minister any evidence that the Chinese Government have modified their view of the inevitability of war between the Capitalist and Communist countries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—Oh, yes—and is it not this belief that is making it impossible for the Americans to co-operate in any general disarmament until the Chinese Government have repudiated that belief that war is inevitable?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly have not received any message from the Chinese Prime Minister reiterating that view.
    Mr. Goodhew: If the right hon. Gentleman hopes to have negotiations in the near future, will he see that there is a Foreign Secretary in the House to answer Questions?
    The Prime Minister: I have said that we are consulting other friendly Governments on the reply that should be sent to the Chinese Prime Minister's proposals.
    Sir C. Osborne: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I should like to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    AIRCRAFT NOISE
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Prime Minister which Department has responsibility for answering Questions dealing with aircraft noise.
    The Prime Minister: Questions about noise from operational Service aircraft, including those of visiting Forces, are for the Ministry of Defence; Questions about noise from all other aircraft are for the Ministry of Aviation. All Questions about research and development aimed at reducing
    834
    noise of aircraft should be addressed to the Ministry of Aviation.
    Mr. Royle: Yes, but in view of the election promise made by the right hon. Gentleman in a speech at Isleworth on 1st October, will he give instructions to the Minister of Aviation to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's pledge, namely, to ban jet night flights into London Airport?
    The Prime Minister: All questions of noise are to be studied by my right hon. Friend. I think the hon. Gentleman has given us a rather free translation of what I actually said at Isleworth in that debate.
    Mr. Maude: In that case may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he wishes to dispute the accuracy of the Daily Telegraph report of his speech? He said that noise near London Airport—[HON. MEMBERS: "You cannot do that."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. A Minister cannot be responsible for accepting or contradicting a newspaper report for which he is not responsible.
    Mr. Maude: All I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether he in fact intends not only to ban jet flights into London Airport but to provide Government grants for the sound-proofing of all houses near airports where noise is caused?
    The Prime Minister: The Question asks which Department is responsible. It does not raise questions of policy. Of course, we shall deal with questions of policy in due course. Since the hon. Gentleman is so assiduous in his study of newspaper reports, I would refer him to the report in the Financial Times.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman said that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Mr. A. Royle) was inaccurate. Can he tell us what he did say in his speech?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, if the right hon. Gentleman puts down a Question.
    Sir A. Douglas-Home: But is the right hon. Gentleman now aware of what he said?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, but it would be out of order to answer on this Question.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Further to the suggestion by the right hon. Gentleman, is not it clearly stated in Erskine May that the Leader of the Opposition does not put down Questions on the Order Paper?
    The Prime Minister: I did myself on a number of occasions, but I did not get very clear answers to some of them.

    GENERAL ELECTION (TRADE DISPUTES)
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Prime Minister if he will set up a committee of inquiry into the origins of the recent strike at Hardy Spicer Ltd.; whether he will give its members power to send for papers and persons; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hayasked the Prime Minister what action he will take to ascertain the facts in trade disputes during the recent General Election alleged to have political motivation.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenportasked the Prime Minister if he will set up an inquiry into strikes, both official and unofficial, which took place at the time of the General Election; what form the inquiry will take; and what are to be its terms of reference.
    Mr. Chatawayasked the Prime Minister whether he will now announce the composition and terms of reference of a committee of inquiry into politically-inspired strikes during the General Election period.
    The Prime Minister: At my request my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is examining the facts in his Department about the Hardy Spicer dispute and about other disputes at the time of the General Election. In the light of this information a decision will be made.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is there to be no independent inquiry into this very serious allegation by the right hon. Gentleman that there was some political motive behind these strikes? Is this inquiry to cover not only the Hardy Spicer strike but the British Oxygen strike in 1959, and no doubt other strikes in 1955 and 1951?
    The Prime Minister: I think the House will agree that at this time there was plenty of ground for suspicion, in view of the fact that in three successive elections strikes affecting components of the motor car industry had started and caused widespread stoppages in the motor car industry, with a certain amount of evidence suggesting motivation in the case, at any rate, of the 1959 one. I think that probably hon. Members would agree, if they saw certain television programmes about the Hardy Spicer dispute, that the reason for the dispute arose more from "blimpery" than political conspiracy.
    Mr. Hay: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how long he expects the inquiry by the Minister of Labour to take and whether this pledge is to be another one completely ignored by the present Government because they now feel that it is completely inappropriate in the circumstances in which it was made?
    The Prime Minister: I was asked at the time I made the statement what form an inquiry would take. I said that one possibility might be an investigation by the Minister of Labour. This has now happened.
    Mr. Chataway: When considering which election pledges to implement, will the right hon. Gentleman give particularly favourable consideration to this question? Would he agree that the allegation he made against the British Oxygen Company was a very serious one and that the late Mr. Morgan Phillips said in 1959 that he would not dream of suggesting a Tory plot in the British Oxygen works? Would the Prime Minister not agree that, in the circumstances, the fairest thing to do would be to set up the inquiry with full and searching powers that he promised?
    The Prime Minister: I made no allegations whatsoever against the British Oxygen Company. If the hon. Gentleman will study all the facts, he will see that there were very serious allegations made against the motivation of certain of the shop stewards who were involved in that strike. That is not a reflection on the company.
    Mr. Godber: Does the Prime Minister recall that he said he would set up a

    837
    searching inquiry with full powers to act and that that is a long way from merely referring it to the Ministry of Labour. What is the reason for his change after the most specific statement which he made on three successive days?
    The Prime Minister: There has been no change. If the right hon. Gentleman had shown a bit more urgency about this, we might not have had this dispute.

POSTAL SERVICES
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. ROBERT COOKE: To ask the Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take to improve the efficiency and profitability of the postal service.
The Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 31.
I have now undertaken a preliminary review of the financial situation which I inherited in the Post Office.
As far as the telecommunications side is concerned, the revenue is buoyant and the expectation is that this will remain broadly on target.
As far as the postal services are concerned, the loss in 1963/64 was £7·8 million as contained in the accounts issued last July.
The estimated loss for the current year published in "Post Office Prospects" last March was £12 million.
This, however, is not the whole picture. The latest estimate available to me suggests that the loss in the current year will be £16 million and for 1965/66, £21 million on the postal services alone.
In addition to this, forecasts prepared on the assumption of an annual growth in gross domestic product and wages of 4 per cent. show a shortfall below the 8 per cent. return target on postal services amounting to about £100 million in the five year period 1963/64 to 1967/68. The latest forecasts suggest that this gap might amount to £120 million.
The House will realise the grave implications of this for the efficiency as well as the profitability of the postal services.
838
I shall be making a fuller statement soon on this subject but I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me this early opportunity of making this preliminary report to the House.
Mr. Cooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for answering my Question, though I did not receive any notice that he would use any special procedure in order to answer it and to make a long statement at the end of Questions. Indeed, I had told the Table I would like the Question deferred until next week if it were not reached in its proper place. I saw the right hon. Gentleman making signs to me across the House and I now understand what they were about.
I am sure that the House was interested in the figures he gave and I hope that he will be able to give an assurance that to get the postal services on to an even keel he will not starve the telecommunications service by taking away their profits and thus depriving them of the proper capital for improvement.
Mr. Benn: I have already dealt with the telecommunications in my Answer. I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to address himself to the problem which confronts him and his right hon. Friends—that of leaving an incoming Government with a deficit which may well amount to £120 million, which explains many of the difficulties of the postal services which have been the subject of a great deal of legitimate complaint to the Post Office, and which, inevitably, will require further consideration. Unless investment is kept up on the proper basis, and is available for postal services and the pay of postmen is properly treated, it is impossible for the service to be maintained on the efficient level which the public are entitled to have.
Mr. William Hamilton: To what extent could this problem have been avoided if the previous Government had had the courage to put up the prices as they ought to have done, had the election not been imminent?
Mr. Benn: The problem is a more fundamental one than my hon. Friend suggests. If Mr. Bevins had told the House of Commons of the position, that would at least have been an advantage.

839
As late as 25th July, after the accounts were published, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) he said he had no intention of raising postal charges, despite these facts, which must have been known to him.
Miss Pike: The right hon. Gentleman gave no indication that he would answer this Question at this time, despite his signs across the Chamber to my hon. Friend. Would he in future please give every assurance that he will observe the usual courtesies?
Mr. Benn: The hon. Lady is not very familiar with the proceedings of the House if she is surprised, based on her experience in the last 13 years, that a Question put down is answered by the Minister. It was in view of the importance of this Question that I decided to answer it at the end of Question Time. My private secretary tried to get in touch with the hon. Member and tell him and I also signalled to him to show that this would be done. If a Member puts down a Question the Front Bench opposite cannot be surprised if it is answered.
Mr. Grimond: Are the figures that the right hon. Gentleman has given net figures? Post Office accounts are somewhat complicated. Could he give the House any figures by which we can compare the prices charged for postal services in this country with those in other countries?
Mr. Benn: On the second point, I should have to make inquiries to give satisfactory comparable figures. On the first point, I gave these figures as clearly as I could. The actual loss to postal services was £7,800,000 last year, will be about £16 million this year and £21 million, it is estimated, next year. The figure of £120 million is the degree to which the postal revenue will fall below the target set by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite based upon the 8 per cent. return to the Treasury, which was laid down by the Opposition when they passed the Post Office Bill. This put the Post Office accounts on to a commercial or semi-commercial basis. This £120 million relates to the 8 per cent. which the previous Chancellor required from the Post Office. Of course, the loss is a mounting loss, in any case, whichever way you look at it.
Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you tell the House whether, if an hon. Member goes to the Table and asks for his Question to be postponed as it has not been reached by 3.15 p.m., it is in order that that Question should be answered without notification to the hon. Member, who may well have left the Chamber, not expecting that it would be answered after 3.15 p.m.?
Mr. Speaker: Once a Question is on the Paper the Minister can answer it, if he so desires. That is the rule.
Mr. K. Lewis: Further to that point of order. May I ask whether the Minister is entitled, without giving notice, to answer a Question after the period allowed for Questions—that is, after 3.30 p.m.—when that Question has not been reached on the Order Paper?
Mr. Speaker: He can do it if he has the leave of the Chair. At this moment I do not wish to investigate whether the Chair could refuse it. I have not considered it. It is not a practice to be wholly discouraged as Question Time is made much slower if Ministers have to give long Answers in the middle of Question Time.

MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. HORNBY: To ask the Minister of Overseas Development what functions her Department has taken over from the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office, respectively; and whether she will make a statement.
The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Barbara Castle): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 45.
The Ministry will be responsible for carrying out the Government's policies for development overseas. It will take responsibility for:

(a) The Aid Programme as a whole, and its make-up as between bilateral and multilateral aid and between capital aid and technical assistance.

841

(b) Terms and conditions of capital aid and the principles on which technical assistance is granted.

(c) The size and the nature of the aid programme for each country.

(d) The management of capital aid and technical assistance.

(e) Relations with international aid organisations.

(f) The United Kingdom interest in United Nations programmes of technical assistance.

(g) Liaison with voluntary bodies operating in the same fields.

In dealing with these matters the Ministry of Overseas Development will work in harmony with the policies of the Overseas Departments and other Departments concerned. The purpose of the new Ministry, in close co-operation with Overseas Departments, will be to help promote the progress of the developing countries, bearing in mind our special ties with Commonwealth countries, including the dependent territories.
These functions have hitherto been discharged by the Treasury and the Overseas Departments; the Department of Technical Co-operation has been absorbed into the Ministry of Overseas Development. The functions originating in the other Departments mentioned are in process of transfer. The Ministry will be responsible for the Commonwealth Development Corporation.
The Ministry will have general responsibility for co-ordinating British policy in respect of the aid and development work of the United Nations and its Specialised Agencies and for aid questions arising from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. In addition because of the importance of aid and technical assistance in the activities of U.N.E.S.C.O. and F.A.O., the Ministry will assume the prime responsibility for relations with these bodies from the Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, respectively.
The Treasury will continue to deal with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, in close consultation with the Ministry of Overseas Development.
Mr. Hornby: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving me notice that she wished to answer this Question. Would she not agree that the proliferation of Ministries almost inevitably gives rise to dangers of duplication of effort in some cases and of divided counsels very often in others? Will she please tell the House whether it is her intention to work through the overseas Departments—and I include the Board of Trade, for instance—who have a great deal of experience in overseas territories? If she does not intend to do that, does she intend to set up overseas offices of her own in some of the countries with which she will be concerned?
Mrs. Castle: The hon. Member is quite right that the proliferation of responsibility for aid matters in the past led to overlapping and to lack of any proper planning of aid and, therefore, of its most effective use. The whole aim in establishing the Ministry of Overseas Development is to try to end that situation. But, of course, I can discharge my responsibilities in the interests of the Government as a whole only if I work in the closest consultation with the overseas Departments concerned and with other departments concerned, and that I certainly intend to do.
Mr. R. A. Butler: May I ask the right hon. Lady what will be the rôle of the Foreign Office? Will it continue to judge and allocate aid on the basis which it has been adopting as between a variety of overseas countries, because the Foreign Office has very particular capabilities in this direction?
Mrs. Castle: No, Sir. The responsibility for negotiations on the straight question of aid will be transferred to my Ministry, but, there again, the closest consultation will be maintained with the Foreign Office. Except in those cases where there are special considerations—for example, highly sensitive political questions may be predominant where it may be desirable for another Department to take the lead—the Ministry of Overseas Development will take the initiative. But, I repeat, it will be in harmony with the policies of all the overseas Departments.
Mr. Sandys: Does the Minister realise that many people will see it as a mistake

843
to alter the balance of responsibility between the overseas Departments and the right hon. Lady's Department? They will regard it as a mistake to divorce from the policy-making Departments, which have the overall view of external policy, the responsibility for one field of that policy—namely, the allocation of aid to those countries which in the opinion of those Departments ought to receive it in the light of their general policy?
Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman's experience is not mine. On the contrary, since assuming this position I have been astonished to find how many people of different political views and wide responsiblity in these fields have asserted that this change was long overdue and that this rationalisation ought to have taken place a long time ago. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we appreciate that the Colonial Office has special responsibilities in the field of budgetary aid, and it will continue to be responsible for that as an integral part of its functional responsibilities. But as far as development aid is concerned, I have found that all expert opinion is agreed that we cannot make the maximum use of our limited resources in this field without a planning unit of this kind being formed.
Mr. Driberg: In view of the implications of the two questions from the Opposition Front Bench, will my right hon. Friend resist the temptation to attach ideological strings to aid? Secondly, when she refers to liaison with voluntary bodies, may I ask her whether she is thinking primarily of what one might call charitable bodies, such as Oxfam and War on Want, or whether she is referring also to V.S.O.—Voluntary Service Overseas?
Mrs. Castle: Certainly, the purpose of my Ministry will be to approach the question of aid from the development angle—what we can do to speed up and maximise the development of the underdeveloped countries of the world. It will be this kind of economic consideration which will be predominant, always, as I have said, in harmony with the policies of our overseas Departments. In referring to the voluntary organisations, I was referring not only to bodies
844
such as Oxfam, with whom we have had working relations, but also to such voluntary organsations as V.S.O. and I.V.S.
Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Lady tell us where the responsibility now lies for the scientific work overseas formerly undertaken by the Overseas Research Council? Does that rest with her?
Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir. This will be a part of the technical assistance side, with us.
Mr. Thorpe: I wish the right hon. Lady success in this vitally important job. Will she tell us something about the relationships with the United Nations agencies? Will these be through Lord Caradon's office, or through representatives in her own Ministry? Secondly, does the creation of this Ministry indicate an increased contribution to the United Nations Development Decade? Thirdly, will she consider trying to investigate the possibilities of a joint Commonwealth investment in developing countries within the Commonwealth so that other parts of the Commonwealth can play their part in raising the standards of living in those countries?
Mrs. Castle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes and his realisation that the Government's purpose in setting up this Ministry was to enable this country to play a more effective part in the very great challenge affecting the whole world in the growing disparity between the rich and poor nations of the world and the failure of development to keep pace, as it should do, with rising standards in the West. I am grateful for his support on that point.
Answering his question about relationships with the United Nations Special Fund and the aid side of the United Nations work, our contacts will be through Lord Caradon. We shall work very closely with him on this matter. We are certainly anxious to increase and extend Commonwealth co-operation in all these aid fields.
Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Arising out of the reply which the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), can she say what new machinery will be required for maintaining relations with and stipulating and

845
co-ordinating the activities of the voluntary bodies? Will her Department be directly in touch with, for example, O.E.C.D. in connection with the work of that organisation in giving aid to developing countries?
Mrs. Castle: The question of voluntary organisations is at this moment under active consideration in my Department and it may be possible for an announcement to be made before too long. We will certainly be maintaining contact with O.E.C.D. on aid matters.
Mr. Sandys: The Minister said that it was the intention of the Government to make aid more effective and to maximise its effect. Can she say whether it is the Government's intention to allocate more money for this purpose?
Mrs. Castle: This is certainly one of the developments in our policy and one which is very close to our hearts. However, I would not feel justified in recommending to the House, particularly in our difficult financial circumstances, any increase in the amount of aid until this necessary rationalisation work has been done and so that we may increase the more effective use of the aid that has already been voted.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot pursue this matter further by way of supplementaries.

BILL PRESENTED
  GAMBIA INDEPENDENCE
  Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by The Gambia of fully responsible status within the Commonwealth, presented by Mr. Greenwood; supported by Mr. Bowden, Mr. Bottomley, and Mrs. Eirene White; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. (Bill 7.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  QUEEN'S SPEECH

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS [SIXTH DAY]
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [3rd November]:
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
    Question again proposed.
    3.52 p.m.
    Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
    "but have no confidence that Your Majesty's Ministers can implement their proposals without damaging the programmes of modernisation already in train and thus imperilling the future well-being of Your people."
    During the course of the debate which began on Tuesday I must, in fairness, say that we have managed to learn a certain amount more of the intentions of the Government. Some of the intentions disclosed raise, as a very thoughtful leading article in The Times today makes clear, some rather alarming implications, but over whole tracts of our national life uncertainty as to what the Government have in mind broods.
    It broods over the aircraft industry and all the complex of research and ancillary trades connected with it. It broods over steel and all the customers of steel. It broods—and I will have more to say about this later—over the development of land and our housing programme. And it looms over our position in the world in the discharge of our obligations. After the Gracious Speech from the throne, after the series of speeches by Ministers of the Crown, and after five days of debate in this House, that this is still the case is manifest.
    The reason is clear. Hon. Gentlemen opposite came to power on the basis of a whole series of pledges. Some of them are, as I will show, plainly incapable of fulfilment while others can be fulfilled only by the

    847
    acceptance of a wholly unacceptable degree of public mischief. At the moment, the Whitehall machine is engaged, like a rather modernised version of the philosopher's stone, in transmuting the base metal—the pledges of hon. Gentlemen opposite—if not into gold, then at least into negotiable paper.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister opened the debate in what not even his severest critic could say was one of his happier speeches. Even the observation which elicited most cheers from his hon. Friends turns out to have been somewhat myopic. He said, taking an attitude at the Box, that the day of the dynasties was over. Is it? Does that mean, for example, that the Colonial Secretary is to disappear? Was it an altogether gracious reference to the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) and his noble brother, who served together in Lord Attlee's Government? Is it, perhaps, overlooking the Solicitor-General and his brother, one of the noble Lords who are Ministers of State at the Foreign Office?
    Is the right hon. Gentleman not suggesting that when a Conservative Government appoints people who are members of families who have served the State on many occasions before that is nepotism and all sorts of dreadful things, but that when a Labour Prime Minister does precisely the same thing that is only the overdue recognition of innate ability?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): To elaborate this point, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many members of the Cabinet and Administration in the Government of the former Prime Minister, who is no longer a Member of this House, were relatives of his or relatives of his by marriage, and how many of the present Administration are relatives of mine or of my wife?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That would be a fascinating social survey.
    What the right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with are remarks about political dynasties, remarks which are just as applicable to hon. Members opposite as they are to this side of the House. It is complete nonsense for the Prime Minister and his colleagues to try to make a point of that.
    848
    One of the uncertainties that looms over the whole scene is the cost of these proposals. The White Paper, The Economic Situation, issued by the Government makes a not unimportant statement in paragraph 9:
    "The large public expenditure programmes which the Government found on taking office would, if left unchanged, fully absorb for the years ahead the future growth of revenue at present rates of taxation, even on the assumption of a regular 4 per cent. per year rate of growth of gross national product; and without a growing increase in the rate of personal saving higher rates of taxation would be needed."
    So far so good. Exactly what we said. It goes on:
    "But these programmes do not provide adequately for the nation's social or economic needs. The Government have already made a start to put these deficiencies right. This will call for increased expenditure in certain fields, where the economic and social benefits are clear, and reduced expenditure in others, where money is being spent without social or economic benefit."
    No Minister has yet told us from where the economies which are to compensate for the increased expenditures referred to in the Gracious Speech are to come. [Interruption.] The hon. Member, with considerable intellectual honesty, says, "There are not any."
    Mr. Charles Loughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I got the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Loughlin: I said, "Ferranti".
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman is relying on that as an increased source of revenue, he is a little unfortunate inasmuch as arrangements had already been made before the change of Government for repayment of the whole sum. Therefore, it will not be a source of comfort—I heard the hon. Gentleman's observation—to base it on that.
    I repeat the question: from where are the compensating economies coming which the Government in their White Paper indicate to be necessary? Is it the Concord? That is the only one which has been mentioned so far. We still do not know whether the Concord is to be the sacrifice or not. The other night the Minister of Aviation followed

    849
    the line of the young lady in the song—"She wouldn't say yes, she wouldn't say no". It is still not clear whether this one example of an economy, which is the one example the Prime Minister put forward, is to be a real one or not.
    It is not good enough for the Government to put forward proposals in the Gracious Speech and to accept in their first formal White Paper that compensating economies are required and then go through the debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech without indicating a single one of those economies. It would be rather curious if the Concord were to be the sacrifice and if, to give ourselves present benefits, we should pawn our future in aviation. It would come singularly ill from a Government which talked so much about the exciting days of a Labour Government in technological development.
    Of course, there will be increased expenditure; but how much? Again, I quote from the White Paper:
    "The Government believe that programmes of social improvement and economic expansion must go forward together, each dependent on the other, as a coherent and long-term plan. They also believe that the people of this country not only wish this to happen but also want to be given the best estimate that can be made of the cost."
    That we have not been given. We were not given it during the election, and we have not been given it during the five days of this debate. Yet here again the Government are on record as saying that this is what the people of this country want. Indeed, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury told us on Wednesday night that one of the reasons why we are to have an autumn Budget tomorrow was the need to pay for some of these measures.
    I hope that, if not today, at any rate tomorrow, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—in the circumstances, I almost called him the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer—will tell us the additional expenditure in respect of which additional burdens have to be imposed on the people. Obviously, we cannot judge the merit or demerit of those burdens unless we know what we are to get for them. I hope, also, that it will be explained how what is done in this respect—the increased expenditure and increased taxation—is reconciled
    850
    with the assurances on this matter which the Prime Minister gave throughout the election.
    That is the first big question which I think the House, on the Government's own showing and on the showing of their White Paper, is entitled to have answered. What is the additional cost in the current year, in the year covered by the Gracious Speech, of the measures approval for which is being sought tonight?
    I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is to speak after me—and, if I may say so, there is no hon. Member of the House opposite whom I am more glad to see in a position of responsibility; I have had many conflicts, agreeable and otherwise, with him, and he is generally reasonable in these matters—will not duck this issue, but that he will give us what the White Paper says the people are entitled to have and what Her Majesty's Opposition are entitled to demand, namely, an indication of the cost.
    I come now to the reference in the Gracious Speech to pensions. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will find this obliging, because it is a subject which he and I have discussed together. As I understand the Gracious Speech, there is to be a major review of the social security schemes. There is a great deal to be said for this. Indeed, we said it ourselves in our election manifesto. It is absolutely right that, as 20 years since Lord Beveridge wrote have elapsed, the schemes which he evolved, largely against a pre-war background, should be looked at again in the light of society today, with its high level of wages and employment.
    I should like to know a little more about this review which is the Government's first mentioned proposal on pensions. Will it be really comprehensive? Will it cover the question whether special categories of pensioner, such as the very old, should get special preferential treatment? Will it cover the long-term sick and their special problem? Will it cover industrial injuries and the question whether they should continue to be based on loss of faculty or should go over to a loss of earnings basis? I should like to know, too, whether the

    851
    review will be confined to the Government machine.
    As a general review is put as the Government's main, or, at any rate, first mentioned, proposal in this field, I assume that this will be a review outside the Whitehall machine which will hear the evidence and views, not merely of departments, but of opinion generally. I also assume that it will not be prejudged in favour of what was called the Crossman plan and that it will not be simply an attempt to provide an argument for national superannuation, but a genuine and sincere attempt to review our social security system 20 years after Beveridge. I should welcome some reassurances from the right hon. Gentleman about that.
    Meanwhile, as I understand the Gracious Speech, there is to be an increase in the flat-rate benefits under the existing scheme on broadly the present basis. Does that include war pensioners? The phrase in the Gracious Speech is National Insurance benefits "and associated benefits". Normally, war pensions, when they are to be increased, are thought to be worth a mention on their own. I should like to know whether "associated benefits" includes war pensions and whether the priority which all previous Governments have given to war pensioners will be continued.
    The testing question is: how much? What will be the new rate? I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer that this afternoon unless he wishes to do so, because I understand that the right hon. Lady the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance is shortly to make a statement which will, no doubt, deal with this. However, massive expectations have been aroused by what was said during the election. A notable example was the Prime Minister's broadcast on 10th October, when he said:
    "That is why I pledge the Labour Government to urgent action to deal with this problem, with the humanity which has been lacking, to ensure to each a guaranteed and adequate income below which they will not be allowed to fall and to have it without recourse to National Assistance".
    The use of the word "urgent" would seem to suggest a promise for action this Session by way of the flat-rate changes under the present scheme referred to in the Gracious Speech.
    852
    But, if that is so, I wonder whether the House realises the size of the commitment which those who heard the Prime Minister will have thought he was promising. To give pensioners an adequate income without recourse to National Assistance under the present flat-rate scheme—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is the only way to do it in this Session, whatever the future beyond may hold—would involve enormous increases in the standard rate of pension.
    May I give the House the figures. The single rate of National insurance benefit is today 67s. 6d. The single householder rate of National Assistance is 63s. 6d. plus rent and, in the case of half the retirement pensioners receiving a supplement, discretionary additions as well.
    Take, therefore, for example, the case of a pensioner with a supplement from the Assistance Board paying a rent of £2 a week. If that pensioner is to receive that income, with no improvement at all, without recourse to National Assistance, it would be necessary to increase the National Insurance rate from 67s. 6d. to 103s. 6d., or by 36s. Even that would be inadequate because it is inconceivable that any Government would move the National Insurance rate to that extent without some other movement in the National Assistance rate. That would mean that the total to give that same income without recourse to National Assistance would have to be even higher. Even putting it moderately and assuming against myself that there is in this case no discretionary addition, an increase of 36s. would be necessary in the single scale rate.
    It is, I think, accented that if we take into account consequentials, every 10s. on the main rate costs about £200 million. Therefore, if the kind of change which many people thought the Prime Minister was promising is made, we are talking of increases in expenditure of £700 million to £750 million a year, of which, if the present system is used, the greater part would fall upon the stamp. We are thus talking of increases in stamp of 10s. or 12s. a week. I therefore beg the Government to realise that what was said during the election on the subject of pensions—in my view,

    853
    rashly and unwisely—has built up enormous expectations which it will be singularly difficult for the Government not to disappoint.
    I should like to refer quickly, because that is all it is worth, to a short and rather squalid paragraph in the Gracious Speech in which it is stated in one sentence that it is intended
    "to require companies to disclose political contributions".
    Even if that were the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, it would have been better taste to have kept this bit of political skulduggery out of the Gracious Speech. In any event, it is a very odd passage.
    There is, of course, a case for reviewing the system of company accounts. There is much to be said for ensuring that shareholders receive greater information over a wide variety of directions—I would not quarrel with that—but to pick out political contributions and to give them the prominence of a place in the Gracious Speech plainly has one purpose only. That purpose—everybody in the House knows it; there is no point in denying it—is that it is hoped to deter companies from making political contributions to either the Conservative or the Liberal Party because of fear of trouble with the trade unions, trouble with their labour. That is the purpose and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they were honest, would admit it. It will, however, fail, because managements, like everybody else, react vigorously to attempted intimidation.
    I come now to one of the announcements that was made in the course of the debate on the Speech by the First Secretary of State and Minister for Economic Affairs with respect to offices in the south-east of England. That was followed by a White Paper. No one would dispute that the concentration of office work in central London constitutes a real problem. [Interruption.] The hon. Member assists me. It is a problem which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was tackling in a variety of ways, through the creation of counterpoints of attraction under the South East Plan, through the Location of Offices Bureau and by the Government as a whole—I confess that I had some part in this—through the dispersal
    854
    of governmental work from London and requests to the nationalised industries to co-operate in such dispersal. There is no dispute between the two sides of the House that there is a real practical problem here.
    I understand that legislation is being brought forward. Obviously, we must wait until we see the legislation before we can make final comments but there are one or two things which I must say at once. It is a somewhat startling innovation in respect of the Greater London Council area to refuse to allow people who have already received planning permission to go ahead with building without the payment of compensation. There is nothing anti-social in the building of offices; it is a necessary part of the working of our economy.
    We have here people who have bought land with planning permission, or who have obtained planning permission for the land in the legitimate and proper expectation that they would be entitled to proceed. The Government stop this and say in terms that whatever loss may be suffered by those people, they shall be denied compensation. That is an innovation in our system, and a bad innovation. Indeed, as I understand, it is only because of the Government's desire to exclude compensation that legislation is required at all.
    I speak in these matters subject to correction by the right hon. Gentleman, but I understand that there would be power in his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to revoke the planning permissions already given. Under existing legislation, however, this would entail the payment of compensation. If that is right—and I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to deal with it—the whole purpose of the legislation is the denial of compensation.
    There are a number of other difficulties about this which, I hope, the Government will face. The first is the making of exceptions. The First Secretary said that this would be done only occasionally. How is it to be done? In the case of industrial development certificates for factory building, it is comparatively easy; the President of the Board of Trade knows the purpose for which a factory is to be erected. When an office is being erected, generally nobody knows the

    855
    purpose. Therefore, I do not see how the exceptions can be very fairly worked.
    I am doubtful of the wisdom of applying this complete plan to the whole of the Greater London Council area. My own experience in the dispersal of Government work from London points to the fact that there is quite a lot of work, governmental and otherwise, which can leave Central London provided that it can be done on the periphery. The effect of closing down all office building round the edges of London in districts, for example, like my constituency, which, under the Greater London Plan, comes into the Greater London area, may well be positively to prevent the decentralisation of work from Central London because it is work that can go only a little way, and if it is not allowed to go a little way it will not go at all.
    Then there is the question of compliance with the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. How is the owner of an office in central London, who has for practical purposes to remain in central London and who has to comply with that Act to give the office worker decent working conditions to proceed if he is not allowed either to replace or substantially to rebuild his office?
    Another point is that office rents, including those paid by the Government themselves, will rise. Those who have recently completed offices will be most grateful to the First Secretary for the unconvenanted benefit which he has bestowed upon them. What will be the effect—I am glad to see that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is back with us—on comprehensive redevelopment plans like those for the redevelopment of certain town centres? The economics of many of those redevelopment plans turn on a certain constituent element of offices in them. If no offices are to be created, I would guess that in many cases there will be none of the necessary and desirable redevelopment. I therefore suggest to the Government that before they introduce the Bill, they should give serious thought to whether they are proceeding in the right way to tackle what, I said at the beginning of this passage of my speech, I accept to be an important problem.
    Now, we come to another of the more notable proposals in the Gracious Speech,
    856
    that in respect of the reimposition of rent control. It is enormously important that we should know, and that the public should know, as soon as possible what exactly it is that the Government intend in this respect. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must be aware from their constituencies that, whatever one's view on the merits of rent control may be—whatever one's view—the uncertainty of what is to be proposed is doing positive harm as day follows day.
    There are cases where tenants of uncontrolled premises are being given notice by landlords who fear that if the tenants remain they may become controlled tenants. One of my hon. Friends handed me a letter from one of his constituents to this precise effect as I came into the House this afternoon. Therefore, whatever the Government will do it is absolutely essential that they should make up their minds and make a quick and early announcement to us.
    The Government won the election on the explicit pledge to repeal the Rent Act, 1957, There is no doubt that that was the pledge, and that is, indeed, how it was understood throughout the country. I doubt, though we shall hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, whether that indeed is technically possible. Certainly, if it were intended, as I think many of us understood it to mean, to restore the 1957 position, I shall be very interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman explain how that could be done, even if it were desirable to do it. Indeed, the Prime Minister on Tuesday gave a hint it was not the Government's intention when he said:
    "We shall not try to put the clock back…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1964; Vol. 701, c. 77.]
    What do the Government intend to do about security of tenure? That is not mentioned in the Gracious Speech nor in the Prime Minister's speech, though they both refer to control of rents. And indeed, if security of tenure is to be restored, for whom? In the many houses where there has been a change of tenancy since 1957 many of the tenants now occupying property decontrolled by the Act of 1957 are there because of the Act of 1957. They came in because the property was decontrolled, and it would be a rather odd consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's legislation if they were to do nothing about the people who, they

    857
    argued, were wronged by the Act of 1957 and left as a result of it whereas people who were nothing but beneficiaries from that Act, who only obtained possession as a result of that Act, should be given an uncovenanted benefit of restored control. I think that if there is to be security of tenure we want to hear a little more as to what the Government intend about that.
    Then, at what level are rents to be controlled? There are, broadly, two choices before the right hon. Gentleman. One is at somewhere reasonably close to the present market level with provision for adjustment upwards as the market level rises. The other, and that is what most people understood by the reference to repeal of the 1957 Act, is to go back to something well below the market level, something based on what the position was before the 1957 Act, at pre-war levels of rent. Which is it is intended? If it is intended to be somewhere near the market level then I am sure that that should be said at once, because the incentive to landlords to get rid of present tenants would be very much diminished if it were known that they are going to receive a rent at any rate approximately near the market rent.
    It is important to reflect on this. The House may remember that whereas, before the Rent Act, 1957, practically any controlled premises which on the death or departure of a tenant came into the possession of the landlord—practically all of them—were then sold with vacant possession to an owner-occupier. Since the Act about 80 per cent., as I understand, have been relet. Therefore, it is extremely important, if the stock of rented houses is to be maintained at a satisfactory level, that this problem of the level at which it is proposed to control rents should be faced, and I repeat—and I hope that the House will not be wearied by my repetition—that it is very important that, as I hope, a very early statement will be made about the subject.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: We are, of course, debating now not the actual legislation which my right hon. Friends intend to introduce, but an Amendment to the Motion in reply to the Queen's Speech. Therefore, what we really ought to be debating is not
    858
    the problematical and speculative details of what legislation will eventually be presented, but whether we are right or wrong to have legislation on this subject at all. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what his party's answer is to that question?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, he and hon. Members opposite must face it that the insertion of the words to which I have referred in the Queen's Speech has of itself created a new and damaging situation—
    Mr. Walter Monslow (Barrow-in-Furness): Nonsense.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —and in the debate on the Queen's Speech nothing, subject, Mr. Speaker, to your ruling, could be more relevant than to impress upon the Government that, having taken the decision to put those words into the Gracious Speech, and having, therefore, accepted the consequences of their action in so doing, it is up to them to remedy them as quickly as possible. And the observations which I am addressing to the House are related to that theme, as I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy very well understands. If the hon. Gentleman has heard of the worry of tenants as I have heard of it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in this connection he would not try to brush this off in quite the way that he has done.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I am not trying to brush anything off. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will understand from what has happened in the House in earlier times that I understand as much as he does what the difficulties are of rent legislation, price control, and security of tenure. What I asked him to say was whether, if his party had won the election, the rent legislation, as left by his party in 1957, would have been left undisturbed, or whether his party would have altered it in any way.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The position is perfectly clear. If recontrol is in the Government's proposals—
    Mr. Monslow: What is the Conservative Party's policy?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has been in the

    859
    House a good many years, and longer than I have, will accept from me that it is extremely important that the Government should make a clear statement on one or two of those points—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—by a statement in answer to one or two of my questions, and prevent a great deal of the anxiety. It is, therefore, my duty, in my view, to impress that upon them.
    The hon. Gentleman asks what was our policy. It was perfectly plain in our manifesto, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman, before deciding how to cast his vote, studied, and we do not abandon, or add one word to, it. Indeed, I shall refer to one part of it in a moment, reverting to the order of my speech. The question I leave to the right hon. Gentleman is the level of rents. Can he help up about that?
    Then there is the special problem of London. I assume that the Minister will not take final decisions about London till he has had the report of the Milner Holland Committee. I shall be interested to know—I believe that that report is very nearly ready—when we are to see it. On that—I am always willing to oblige the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—we did say in our manifesto:
    "Additional safeguards for tenants will be provided if shown to be necessary by the inquiry into rented housing in London."
    I have nothing to add to that or to subtract from that, but I would say this on the problem of London. The problems of this prosperous, crowded capital are, at any rate in degree, special, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East was right to appoint the Milner Holland Committee, and that the right hon. Gentleman will be grateful to him for having done that. I am sure that we want to see its Report as soon as possible. What the remedy will be, it will be easier to judge in the light of that Report, although a good deal of the evidence is that in the case of a minority of landlords who have indulged in malpractices, the most common malpractice, the introduction of unsuitable tenants, has been mainly in respect of premises still controlled, which seems to argue that the mere reimposition of control, taken by itself, is not likely to help.
    860
    What about house purchase? There is nothing in the Gracious Speech about a special rate of interest for house purchasers, whether 3 per cent., 4 per cent., or any other rate. It figures in the election address of the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary; it does not figure in the Gracious Speech. Nor does it figure in this debate. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether the Government are going ahead on that, or whether it is another electoral gimmick to be discarded once its purpose has been served.
    A more serious proposal in the Gracious Speech, although a very vague one, indeed, is that for a land commission. The words used are of studied ambiguity:
    "… they will establish as rapidly as possible a Crown Lands Commission with wide powers to acquire land for the community …"
    At some time—and here, again, there is urgency in this, for a reason on which I shall enlarge—we must be told what land. We must be told how it will be acquired—compulsorily or by voluntary agreement? What sort of land? When? During the General Election we were told that all land ripe for development would be so acquired.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing says, "Do not be so impatient," but he must know—I am sure that he does, with his responsibilities—that the steady and continued flow forward of land for building is essential to the continuance of the building programme on the present scale. If one interrupts that flow of land because of uncertainty as to the future, one can administer a check to the building programme. That is the urgency.
    I must be clear about this. Nothing, not even the right hon. Gentleman, can prevent the building of 400,000 houses next year. They are mostly under construction, and they will be built—as a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East. But what is happening is that people are seeking to bring forward land for development to support the housing programmes for 1966 and 1967, and it really is vital that they should not be deterred by uncertainty. The atmosphere created by the cancellation, without compensation, of planning permission in respect of London offices does not help, either,

    861
    as the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, realises, and the procedures that are contemplated, as put forward at the election are very alarming.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of—I forget what it is called; is it Land and Natural Resources?—wrote a very full article called "Election Special" in the Architectural Review. If the Parliamentary Secretary was expressing the Labour Party's view—and the fact that he was subsequently appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the relevant Department points in that direction—an extraordinary procedure is contemplated. The right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, the idea is that someone who wants to develop land and build on it buys the land—either with planning permission, or subsequently gets it—and then, instead of going ahead and building, as under the present system, he has to negotiate with the Crown Lands Commission for it to buy the land from him, and he then takes a lease to have it back from the Commission.
    If that is right then, whatever its merits, that is a procedure inevitably involving delay particularly when the Commission is being set up at a time when anybody familiar with these matters knows that there is a great shortage of land; and a very large bureaucracy is to be created. I must press on the Government that if they do not abandon this proposal, which would be best, or, as a second best, give us the details quickly, the right hon. Gentleman will find that his housing programme in 1966 will look a pathetic contrast with that of my right hon. Friend in the last few years.
    It may be that some of these fears are exaggerated. There is the old saying, "omne ignotum pro magnifico", which, for the benefit of Wykehamists on the benches opposite, I shall translate as, "The don't-knows generally vote Liberal". It may be that all the right hon. Gentleman contemplates now that the election is over is a purchasing body that will acquire by voluntary treaty land required for large-scale public demands—rather on the lines of what my right hon. Friend forecast for his large-scale developments under the South-East Study. It may be that that is all that is intended. If that is so
    862
    then, for heaven's sake, let us be told, because if the intention really is to set up this large body to acquire all land brought forward for development and then to negotiate its sale, it will have a very serious effect on housing.
    We are told that the purpose is to make houses cheaper. But will it? The price of a house today is determined by the law of supply and demand; by the very powerful demand that our prosperous society is exercising upon a large and rising, but still insufficient, supply. If, by interposing this body, by interposing delay in the flow forward of land for development, the number of houses built is not increased but reduced then, inescapably, the cost of a house will rise, not fall. That is why I am—I accept the right hon. Gentleman's word—impatient about this. The Government having taken responsibility for bringing this forward, the Government having taken it upon themselves to interpose this threat between the supplier of land and the user of land, it is their duty to make clear precisely what it is they intend to do.
    I add two further comments on the proposal. It means, of course, the end of freehold in this country—at any rate, in regard to new buildings. It is for the Minister to tell me if I am wrong but, as I understand it, the individual having a house will only own the land thereunder, subject to the overriding right of the Commission to have that land when his house is pulled down or even rebuilt. Indeed, the horrible word "Crownhold" has been coined to cover this abortion of our property law. It is a little odd that, at the very moment when this proposal is put forward—in an immediately adjoining passage in the Gracious Speech—there should be put forward the proposal for the abolition of leaseholds. We want details of these proposals, and I hope that the Government will think again about this Crown Lands Commission.
    Let me quote to them what was said by the Economist which, after what one might call an agonising reappraisal, finally came to the decision to advise its readers to vote in favour of the party opposite. The Economist said:
    "An indefensible feature of Labour's policy is its scheme to set up a land commission which will nationalise land on which building or rebuilding is to take place. It has now

    863
    been reconfirmed that a Bill to establish this will be introduced in the first Session of a Labour Parliament, possibly, therefore, in six and a half weeks' time, although every intelligent Labour politician must know in his heart that this election gimmick would make land offered for new building both scarcer and more expensive."
    The Prime Minister began his final broadcast of the election campaign with the observation:
    "The election is about the standing of Britain in the world."
    He was right. I wonder whether any outside observer thinks that Britain's standing in the world is helped by dividing further, as the Government by the proposals set out in the Gracious Speech are dividing further, an already divided nation and are seeking to use a derisory majority to force through Socialist Measures rejected by more than half the electorate?
    I wonder whether the cynical attitude shown by the Minister of Aviation to an agreement made with another Power helps our standing in the world. I wonder whether the remarks of the noble Lord the Minister of State at the Foreign Office about this country's international standing helped that standing.
    The Government have in all respects but one begun badly. In one direction they have made good progress. Only a quarter of the 100 days has gone, but they are well on the way to Waterloo.
    4.42 p.m.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Houghton): This is an impudent Amendment, moved by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter) in an impudent speech. I was glad to hear him ackowledge, towards the end of his speech, that the General Election is over. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite lost it and they must reconcile themselves to the fact. If we are not exactly the masters now, we are the Government now and we certainly propose to carry out our programme to the best of our ability.
    Nine-tenths of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was a running interrogatory, asking questions which could be answered only by making Second Reading speeches on half a dozen Government Bills and this is not a suitable occasion on which to do that. [An HON. MEMBER:
    864
    "You do not know the answers."] Hon. and right hon. Members were in office for 13½ years and we have been in office for exactly three weeks. No reasonable hon. Member opposite would expect to have the full deployment of our policies and our Measures in detail within the scope of the debate on the Gracious Speech.
    The right hon. Gentleman made an important reference to the end of dynasties. He probably forgets that on 1st November, 1960, Mr. Maurice Macmillan, then the hon. Member for Halifax, moving the Loyal Address rose to declare himself as "the back bench Member" of his family. At least my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) was not in that position the other day. He had no similar acknowledgement to make. The right hon. Gentleman has asked for the cost of our proposals. He has been anticipating by one day the financial statement to be made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then the truth about the economic position will be told.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is important. Do I follow from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that his right hon. Friend will tomorrow tell us the full additional cost—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wait for it."]—in the current year of the proposals contained in the Gracious Speech?
    Mr. Houghton: I cannot anticipate what my right hon. Friend will say, nor can the right hon. Gentleman. He must wait for it. There are only a few hours to go; even his ebullience and impatience can surely be restrained for another day. Talking of costs and of the financial situation, the House will probably recall the further disclosure made of our financial position by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General this afternoon. There were further secrets withheld from the public by the previous Administration. Failure to provide for the return on capital investment in order to provide for further reinvestment by the Post Office obviously puts development in the Post Office in serious jeopardy and impairs the whole financial structure of its activities.
    If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know whether we are going to make some economies, he should note that at

    865
    least my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has put the Chancellor of the Duchy to work and has not filled the post by the chairman of the party.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the statement made by the Postmaster-General. I should have thought that even he would have recognised that in the few months that have passed that was blowing up figures to an unwarranted extent. When he was cross-examined it was made clear that the net figure was £8 million and he blew it up to some fictitious £120 million for purely electoral reasons.
    Mr. Houghton: The statement made by my right hon. Friend is in the recollection of the House and there will be further opportunity of checking whether the figures were blown up or not. Surely no hon. Member opposite felt happy about the statement that my right hon. Friend had to make. It was not a statement to their credit having regard to the fact that this situation was not disclosed by hon. and right hon. Members opposite.
    The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames asked a number of questions about pensions. In the course of my remarks I shall be dealing with many matters relating to social security. I can say straight away that war pensions are within the scope of the proposals we shall have to make. The right hon. Gentleman referred to political contributions made by companies. It seemed to me that he was not so much against the requirement of disclosure of political contributions; what he seemed to object to was the reference in the Gracious Speech to the fact that we are going to do something about it. I could not see the grounds for his complaint.
    In regard to offices in the South-East a statement was made by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary to the Treasury a few days ago. There will be full opportunities for going into all the important matters of compensation, planning permission, the issue of office development certificates and the rest, which I admit are of great importance and some urgency. But at least steps have been taken to check the growth in the South-East which, if permitted to continue, would have serious social and economic consequences. There is
    866
    already so much in the pipeline of office development in the South-East that some check had to be put on it at once and that is what the First Secretary has done.
    As to rent control, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that further information regarding the scope of our proposals will be available in a matter of days. Here again, we recognise the urgency of stating as clearly as possible, and as early as possible, what we intend to do. The Minister of Housing and Local Government has lost no time in applying his mind to the practical measures we are to take. I again emphasise that we have been working at a terrific pace during the last three weeks in order to bring these important measures to the House and to the country without any avoidable delay. Similarly, on matters of house purchase and the Land Commission, statements will be made as early as possible.
    Mr. Graham Page: Is that all that the right hon. Member is going to say about the Land Commission? Cannot he say whether he is going to take over all land which is brought forward for development?
    Mr. Houghton: It is all that I am saying today. There is a tomorrow. There is a day after tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman must give the Government an opportunity of bringing forward their Measures in suitable order and with reasonable dispatch. I do not think that any reasonable hon. Member can press this afternoon for a full statement on many of the important matters that are raised in the course of the debate, unless, of course, hon. Gentlemen wish to sit there for the rest of the day and have a string of Ministers come to the Dispatch Box to make their statements, which, I am sure, would not be for the convenience of the House.
    I turn to the part of the Gracious Speech which refers to social security and National Insurance benefits. I was pleased to notice that some approval was given to this in the editorial of the Spectator of Friday, 6th November. I understand that the views of the editor of the Spectator are not very far removed from those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). It was said in that

    867
    leading article, apropos of the Gracious Speech:
    "Some parts of it are admirable. The section on Social Security—an immediate increase in benefits (and one hopes in contributions) plus a long-term review—is exactly the policy one would have liked to see in the Speech if the Tories had won. If here the Labour Party steals the Tory Party's clothes, it will be the reluctance of the Tories to accept the case for radical change in the Beveridge concept that will be to blame."
    That blame rests more heavily on the right hon. Member for Kingston-on-Thames than on any other Minister in the late Administration. He was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance for over 6½ years, so long, in fact, that it was strongly rumoured that he was hoping to be appointed Permanent Secretary. For 6½ years he pottered about and tinkered with the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Schemes without imagination and without inspiration. The only monument to his term as Minister is the 1959 Act which introduced the graduated scheme. This was not a measure of social advance so much as a piece of financial jiggery-pokery. The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman turned the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance into a bucket shop. City men have been sent to prison for less.
    Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it correct for the right hon. Gentleman to accuse my right hon. Friend of creating what amounts to a set of criminals in his
    Department?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I take it that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were meant jocularly.
    Mr. Houghton: They were certainly taken in better part by the right hon. Gentleman that by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), and I am content with that. But there is an underlying truth in what I have just said.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman, jocularly or otherwise, has sought to introduce my tenure at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, will he not for fairness also add that when I left it the rates of National Insurance benefit were at a higher level than ever before and at least half as much again in real terms as the
    868
    level at which they were left by his right hon. Friends?
    Mr. Houghton: The answer to that intervention is, yes, but they were not high enough. Anyhow, he erected the complex structure of the so-called graduated scheme, mainly, and probably solely, for the purpose of relieving the Exchequer of obligations which had been foreseen and fully anticipated in 1948. Contributions under the graduated scheme are at present running at about £260 million a year. The benefits paid out will not be much more than £1 million this year. The balance goes towards financing the flat-rate scheme, and even as recently as last year the right hon. Gentleman's successor simply could not leave this milch cow alone. By raising the upper limit of the wage band of the graduated scheme from £15 to £18, he raked in another £48 million in graduated contributions to help out with the flat-rate increase, and by 1980 it is estimated that the graduated contributions will reach £580 million a year and graduated benefits will not reach £100 million a year.
    For the right hon. Gentleman to stand there as a moderniser is laughable. As a member of the Magic Circle—the other one—yes; as an improviser, yes; as a manipulator, yes; but as a moderniser, no. He failed to grasp his opportunities during his 6½ years' tenure of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. He failed to get the National Insurance scheme into the 1960s. What this Government will do is to heave the social security scheme into the 1970s.
    My own part in this will be that of an overseer, guide and, if you will, philosopher as well. The hard work will be done by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, the Minister of Health and other Ministers who will have responsibility for some sections of the social services. I see that The Times newspaper said that I had got my work cut out. Of course I have. The whole Government have their work cut out after a decade of indolence and shillyshallying. But we have made a start which has impressed and encouraged the country, excited the Civil Service and shaken the Opposition.

    869
    We shall have to work very speedily to overtake the delay of our predecessors. Time is short because the need for modernisation is urgent. The pace of modernisation will be set largely by the willingness of workers to drop their defences and accept an incomes policy, and that will be assisted by a combination of more social security in all its aspects and greater equality.
    I believe that in a highly industrialised society an increase in services which reduce inequality is essential to securing a rapid rate of growth. It is essential also to remove the rationing of medicines by the purse and to slash the queues for doctors' surgeries, hospital treatment, old people's homes and old people's houses. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have frequently referred to freedom of choice. What freedom and what choice is there in many branches of the social services today for nine-tenths of our people? They are queuing all the time. In one of the newspapers only this morning was an article entitled, "We are all so sick of waiting." If the mass of the people are to respond to the call for modernisation, which may mean a replacement of men by machines, we must dispel fear of unemployment, of sickness and of the hazards and misfortunes of life. Peace of mind is good for efficiency, and social security is intended to bring peace of mind.
    What then has to be done? Firstly, what we said we would do—improve as soon as possible National Insurance and all associated benefits, including industrial injuries, and war pensions. Details of these proposed increases will be announced very soon. Secondly, the National Assistance scales will go up. An announcement about them will be made at the same time as the proposals on National Insurance will be outlined. Thirdly, prescription charges for medicines will be abolished. I hope that we shall have no complaints from hon. and right hon. Members opposite that we now have a Government who are going to fulfil their pledges.
    I regret to say that there has been no time to mount our income guarantee scheme to which we give special importance and high priority. Hon. and right hon. Members will realise that we have not had the time to get this into legislative form. Therefore, for the time being
    870
    it will be necessary to give effect to improved social benefits along traditional lines, which means that National Assistance will be retained for the present but with improved scales to tide over until we can bring in the income guarantee. As I have said, an early announcement will be made on these matters.
    As for prescription charges, those on medicines will go first. The remaining charges will be abolished later to restore the complete freedom of the National Health Service. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will make an announcement soon about the exact charges to be abolished and the methods of doing it. These are the immediate steps which we are taking. Having settled them and having got the necessary legislation through the House, and having had other necessary steps taken, we can undertake the major review of social security promised in the Gracious Speech and can also set about modernising and developing the health and welfare services, also promised in the Gracious Speech.
    One matter which we must look at especially and urgently is the question of wage-related sickness and unemployment benefit which was the subject of discussion between the T.U.C., the British Employers' Confederation and Ministers in the former Administration. Not much progress had been made but we shall take that up where it was left off and see what we can do.
    On the longer-term reform of the scheme of National Insurance we must be clear about our aims. The Beveridge revolution spent itself some years ago. There was no need for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to wait 20 years after the Beveridge Report before forming different views on the future of social security in modern times. Poverty is unfortunately still to be found amongst many casualties of the affluent society but the modern concept of social security goes far beyond the sort of national minimum which the Webbs and Beveridge thought about.
    The social services to me, and I believe to all Socialists, are a means of achieving greater equality. I have already said that, and I believe that this must govern our whole approach to the recasting of the social security scheme. All the social services are an expression of political and moral judgment and also of economic

    871
    judgment. Hon. Members opposite, and the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, in particular, stressed the fact that we have now had 20 years of the Beveridge concept and that it was time to define its place in modern society, but they did not do it. What they have done mostly is to ask all the questions and supply none of the answers.
    Even as far back as 1958 the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), then Lord Hailsham, was asking questions. He said:
    "How many of the things we need ought to be provided by a prudent man out of his own weekly packet? How many by the taxation of his fellow citizens? How many of the ills of life ought to be dealt with on the insurance principle? To what extent should this be voluntary. State-aided or compulsory? How far should old age be self-financed in a society like ours? Should University education carry with it a right of universal free maintenance, free of any means test? These are all questions which must be seriously examined and publicly debated. Nothing of this kind is sacrosanct or immune from careful scrutiny."
    Why, then, has it not had it?
    As far as I know, hon. and right hon. Members opposite have never as a party got further than to talk loosely about pensioners and others having a share of the prosperity of the nation. To us they are part of the nation—one nation. They should be fully integrated with the social and economic fabric of the whole nation. If we accept, as we do on these benches, that there should be some compulsory redistribution in our social services, the first question which we have to answer is, how much? How much, between income groups, between those who have family responsibilities and those who have not, between the young and the old, and between those at work and those unable to work?
    Then there is the question of how much of the redistribution should be in money and how much should be free or in subsidised services in kind. We must have the right balance. One of my jobs in the Chancellery is to try and get the right balance and advise my colleagues on the outcome of my thoughts on the subject. Taxation comes into this too. What a hotchpotch we have of social security and taxation. We give family allowances and tax them. We give education grants and do not tax them, and at the same time to the same family we give reliefs for children. This needs
    872
    looking at. Indeed, the wider issue of the incidence of taxation on social benefits and contributions generally needs attention.
    Is the contributory principle for social security outmoded? The answer is "No", not in this country with our traditions of the contributory principle. But the so-called insurance principle, so long an illusion, is outmoded. It has been purely of psychological advantage in the past and it has had no real substance ever since the present scheme was started. The fundamental change which I should like to see in social security would be social security as a right of citizenship with simple conditions replacing the bewildering, intricate, anomalous and unfair jungle of conditions which we have today.
    In these days no scheme of social security can be satisfactory which fails, first, to provide benefits bearing some reasonable relationship to the actual amount of income lost by sickness, unemployment and on retirement, and so on, and, secondly, which fails to keep those benefits abreast of changing values or standards. This suggests to me that although contributions would be payable it would be quite unsound to relate benefits solely to the number or even the amounts of contributions actually paid.
    Our concept for the 1970s is that all should pay according to their means and should receive in return an assurance of income-related social security. I shall not prejudge any of the important issues involved in the attainment of this ideal. All I say, putting it personally, is that I do not believe that that ideal can be attained unless we are all in the social security scheme.
    The future rôle of the National Assistance Board and the work it does will be considered with great care and understanding. Whether the Board remains separate or is merged with the Ministry is largely a matter of administration and presentation.
    A good deal of the work of the National Assistance Board will continue, though on a greatly diminished scale. But the National Assistance Board has built up a staff with a spirit of service in the care of people which must not be lost. It is the only national welfare service we have. In many cases, National Assistance Board officers are the only regular visitors

    873
    of thousands of lonely and elderly people. Is there here the foundation of an agency to which any citizen could turn in time of trouble or difficulty, of sickness, bereavement, incapacity or personal plight, a service which could call upon and co-ordinate other services to meet the needs of the particular situation—in two words, the citizen's friend? What is needed is someone to see our plight or situation as a whole and to stand by us in time of difficulty.
    The social services must have their several channels of activity. There is no one place to find them all. Specialisation is unavoidable, and so is Departmental organisation. But, if they are to function properly, someone must see that they respond to the needs of the citizen, someone who can lift worry from his shoulders and do some of the running about.
    There are various voluntary organisations which do splendid work, and the Government wish to encourage and strengthen them. We are giving attention to this now. But something may be needed beyond that to provide for conditions of distress, domestic difficulty or unhappiness which might be met more suitably by an officer with the duty and the power to act and bring together what remedies are available. I leave that vision there for the moment.
    The House will remember that, last July, the then Minister of Pensions and National Insurance decided to appoint a committee to go into the oft debated question as to how many persons entitled to National Assistance are not applying for it. How big is this problem? Various estimates have been made, and some scepticism has been expressed by former Ministers about the numbers who are not availing themselves of National Assistance because of some mental or other inhibition against doing so. This survey is now being undertaken, and detailed arrangements for a fairly widespread pilot inquiry are now being made. They are being worked out in consultation with two expert advisers from the universities, Professor D. C. Marsh, Professor of Social Science at Nottingham University, and Mr. A. R. Ilersic, Reader in Economic and Social Statistics at Bedford College, University of London.
    Mr. Norman Cole: Is it the fact—if it is not, will
    874
    the right hon. Gentleman arrange that it be done—that the inquiry will take into consideration the possible benefit of changing the name "National Assistance", as I suggested in the House some months ago?
    Mr. Houghton: I believe that not to be within the terms of reference of the inquiry, which will be limited to ascertaining as far as possible the facts about the number of people who would be entitled to National Assistance if they applied but who are not applying.
    I turn now to the physical side of the social services, the Health Service, homes, hospitals, home helps, domiciliary services, and the rest. Here, we have deficiencies and shortages which, in my humble judgment, are a reproach to the nation. They show that we have not got our values right, and the former Administration did far to little to get them right. Doctors, nurses, midwives, the whole range of workers in these services, are undervalued and, in our opinion, should be given a higher place in the nation's esteem and the rewards given by the public for their essential contribution. How we exploit the nobility of character and the spirit of healing and humanity of those to whom we quickly turn in time of trouble and anxiety.
    Do we realise how much we used to depend upon the services of spinsters? In many cases, the hospital service was dependent upon nurses who remained nurses and single woman for many years. Today, we have to provide in recruitment and training, replacement and the rest for married women. Staff shortage is at the root of much of the trouble in the Health Service and our other services now, and the Minister of Health will have statements to make to the House in the days to come about what is being done to strengthen points of weakness in staffing and to provide urgent remedies for shortage where these are required.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will look again at the Hospital Plan published by the former Administration. The Government will examine deficiencies in the programme and look again at its priorities, giving proper attention to the needs of the elderly and the mentally ill and advancing as much as possible the provision of additional

    875
    maternity beds. Above all, they will bring a sense of realism to the estimates of costs, and they will see that it is not a plan for hospitals alone but is part of a comprehensive approach to meet the health needs of the nation. As the House realises, there is much to be done in this respect.
    The right hon. Gentleman spoke about housing and buildings. It is probably not yet fully realised what are the limitations upon the construction industry today. They are rather more serious than was disclosed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and further statements will have to be made upon them by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Public Building and Works.
    Against all this we have to contemplate the growth in total population of over 4 million, an increase of 9 per cent., within the next 10 years. In addition, the number of those aged 65 and over will increase by over 1 million in the next ten years, from 5·7 million to 6·8 million, a 19 per cent. increase. Another factor to be remembered in this connection is that about 60 per cent. of all old people over 65 are women. Widowhood is becoming a serious vocational and occupational risk of the married woman, and one sees the disparity between the expectation of life of women and of men. More than one-third of elderly people of both sexes are over 75. These are rather startling facts which social economists will have to face.
    The economic inheritance from the Conservative Government is a grievous one, far worse than is thought, but the Government will not make the social services the first casualty of economic difficulty. The next few days will make this quite plain. We know—none better —that the sort of society we wish to see can be built only upon firm economic foundations, but the spirit of social service, of the good neighbour, of the family friend, lies in the hearts of the people and will not be impaired by economic difficulties. The Christian spirit must and will live even in adversity. The new Britain which we on these benches have envisaged and
    876
    worked for for so long, the New Jerusalem that we have sung about for years, may not be just round the corner but it is nearer than it was three weeks ago. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite will obstruct us at their peril, for we are now on our way.
    5.19 p.m.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: This is my first attempt to speak in the House, and I ask the pardon of hon. Members for making my maiden contribution at such an early stage in the Session. Some senior Members may consider that the abundance of maiden speeches we have heard during the debate shows a lack of humility on the part of the younger generation, but I feel that the cause is not over-confidence but simply a fear, strengthened by the weekend Press, that circumstances might require us to present ourselves to the electorate again before we have had the chance properly to present ourselves to the House. I think that some other hon. Members elected for the first time may have experienced the same difficulty as I did when completing a form which asked whether my new employment was likely to be of a permanent nature.
    May I further crave the indulgence of the House for making my speech with the handicap of a cold—which will ensure that even if hon. Members opposite do not hear pearls of wisdom they will, at least, receive plenty of germs. I say this in the full knowledge that with the narrower balance between the parties germs in this Session might well play a more effective political rôle than anything I may say today.
    No new Member can attend or take part in the initial proceedings of a new Session without being fully conscious of the enormous responsibility which is placed on each one of us. For we do not come here to start anew—the basis of our British democracy has been established for us by our forefathers and by hon. Members past and present. Even to maintain the high standards and achievements of the past is no easy task, and yet the problems facing the world and this country require that we must seek to aim even higher.
    I would refer to my predecessor, Sir John Henderson, who, I know, was well

    877
    liked in the House. He served as a Member for 18 years after giving over 20 years of continuous service in local government. The conscientious manner in which he applied himself to his duties and the faithful and attentive service which he gave to the electors of the constituency have established a very high standard which I will do my best to emulate in my membership of the House.
    The constituency which I represent is the Cathcart Division of Glasgow. Glasgow, as hon. Members know, has 15 constituencies, and Cathcart is one of the only two which have returned a Unionist Member. It is a matter for the individual judgment of hon. Members as to whether this situation reflects the general wisdom of the people of Glasgow or the particular political sense of the electors of Cathcart and Hillhead.
    Apart from politics, Cathcart is rather a unique constituency. It contains some of Glasgow's most beautiful public parks—Linn, Queen's Park and Cathkin Braes—the finest football stadium in the country, Hampden Park, perhaps the biggest municipal housing scheme in Western Europe, Castlemilk, and one of the world's outstanding engineering works, that of Messrs. G. and J. Weir. It is a historic place, because in the heart of the constituency lies the site of the battle of Langside, which decided the fate of Mary Queen of Scots.
    Cathcart, although merged with Glasgow geographically and socially, retained its municipal independence until early in the century when it was "taken in" by the City of Glasgow, in perhaps more ways than one. I know that the electors of Cathcart and of Glasgow are vitally interested in the contents of the Gracious Speech and I would like to comment briefly on the section which states that the Government intend to promote reforms in taxation and, in particular, to bring about better arrangements for the modernisation of local government finance.
    I think that most hon. Members would agree that the rating system is, in principle and in practice, unsatisfactory in many respects. And the dissatisfaction of the system has been aggravated by the ever-increasing burden of local rates. For example, in Glasgow the average man, woman and child has to pay well
    878
    over £25 per head a year in local rates, and this means an annual burden for the average family of £100 which must be paid directly or indirectly.
    The principal objection to the rating system is that it is not levied either according to ability to pay or to the use which people make of local government services. There appears to be no justification for a system which imposes the same burden on a widow living on a small fixed income as on a neighbouring family which may have three or four wage earners.
    Apart from that, the unequal incidence of rates throughout the country produces serious problems. Some areas have a high burden per head of population which is about double the burden elsewhere, and the tragedy is that areas with high unemployment are often the ones that have a relatively high rating burden and enormous municipal problems. Thus, those areas which need to attract industry are often hampered in their efforts by the disincentive of a high rates burden. This is considered by some to be a small problem, but for most industrialists it is becoming a more and more important one. Some Clyde shipyards, for example, pay £30,000 or £40,000 a year in rates, and an increase of 2s. in the rate poundage can mean an extra £1,000 on the cost of each ship.
    A third factor which the Government will be bearing in mind is the ever-increasing volume of local government responsibility and expenditure, and, of course, this means that a large section of public spending is outwith the timely or effective control of national economic policy.
    It is true that capital spending by local authorities can be influenced sharply, although not immediately, by Government policy; but revenue spending, which must now be over £2,000 million a year, cannot be restrained or boosted in a timely or effective manner by the present economic weapons.
    For these and other obvious reasons, my constituents and many others trust that the reorganisation of local government finance will include a complete and comprehensive review of the rating system. I would like to say something about the possible alternative systems of collecting revenue, but I have no wish to burden the House unduly and would

    879
    merely say that I hope to have the opportunity of speaking further on this subject at an early date.
    The promise in the Gracious Speech to promote economic development and modernisation in the under-employed areas leads me to the final point I wish to make. The hon. Members who have so ably represented our city in recent years have rightly stressed the urgency of our housing problems and the need to attract lighter and more flexible industries. These representations were vitally necessary because Glasgow's housing problem is immense and acute and our economic problem of overdependence on heavy industry is one which will require strong, speedy and effective action.
    The emphasis on our problems has, however, created the impression in some quarters that Glasgow is a dull, derelict and depressed city with backward industries and an unenterprising population. This is certainly not the case. Our traditional industries, in particular our great shipyards, have spent many millions from their own resources in modernising their establishments. There has also been rationalisation, made necessary by surplus world shipbuilding capacity, but the yards which remain are vital, progressive and among the most modern in the world.
    Orders are being obtained in face of international competition, and if British shipyards, which face the full blast of foreign competition unprotected by tariffs or quotas, are given assistance comparable to that given by competitor nations, they will face the future with even more confidence, particularly in view of the Clyde's good and improving labour relations.
    The west of Scotland needs new and lighter industries, but we must never forget that just as vital is the prosperity of the Clyde shipyards on which around 80,000 families depend, directly or indirectly, for their livelihood. In these circumstances, an extension of the Shipbuilding Credit Scheme and the security and stability stemming from it would be welcomed as much as an entirely new industrial project.
    Glasgow, like its industries, is often unfairly maligned. It is one of the few
    880
    cities which support five major theatres and one great orchestra. Its public parks, libraries and museums are world famous, and every district within its boundaries is within, at most, half an hour's journey of the beautiful surrounding countryside. Firms, administrative offices and even Government Departments need have no fears about moving to Glasgow, and they can be assured that every assistance in location, planning and essential services will be given by our unique Industrial Inquiries Centre which is situated appropriately beside the two basic pillars of any great city—the main line station and the Conservative Club.
    I thank hon. Members for listening so patiently and apologise for taking so long.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: It gives me great pleasure indeed, Mr. Speaker, to be able to make my maiden speech before you. You have always been a good example of dedication, deep feeling and judgment in public service. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this House. The House has heard many maiden speeches this week, and, therefore, mine lacks any virtue of novelty. I can only ask that the critical judgment which has been shown so effectively on both sides during the past week will be suspended for the few minutes that I shall keep the House.
    I would add that my natural nervousness has been made greater, first, by hearing the extremely intelligent and confident speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), secondly, by the thought that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) may suddenly appear from round the corner and inform me that I am breaking a Parliamentary rule which I do not know, and, thirdly, by the spectre presented by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which was one of a House under such a strain that at the end of five years only 20 Lady Members would be left arguing with one another across the Floor.
    The constituency which I have the honour to represent is one which in many ways is a microcosm of the new Britain. I pay tribute to my predecessor in the

    881
    House. He did not sit on my side of the House, but he was a hard-working Member and a very worthy opponent at the General Election.
    My constituency, which, as I have said, is something of a microcosm of the new Britain, is named after a very charming market town, Hitchin, which is today being modernised by an energetic and imaginative council. It contains within its borders the new town of Stevenage, the first-born of the 1945 Labour Government's New Town Act, and a new town of which it was said only last week by a visiting Swedish delegation that they were green with envy when they saw it and lyrically enthusiastic about it.
    My constituency also contains a town which is a unique social experiment, the town of Letchworth, which, owing to the wisdom of this House, is today the one town in Britain of which it can be said that its assets are held in trust for its citizens. I would commend the pattern of the Letchworth Garden City to my right hon. and hon. Friends when they come to consider the shape that the new towns and the renewed towns will take for the future, because I believe that this unique example of what might be called community ownership is one which would set a very useful example for the future of many other towns in the country.
    My constituency also contains very many beautiful villages which still lack modern amenities, the kind of modern amenities that my right hon. Friends now intend to bring to them, and much lovely countryside that needs to be protected by a strong hand to hold the green belt.
    I move from that to say a few words about the new towns themselves. The new towns are today run by corporations which are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I am glad to see that my Government take the view that many other new towns should shortly be designated and that this is a programme which should be stretched ahead. But I believe that because my right hon. Friends have always taken the view that ultimately new towns should be governed by those who are representative of the inhabitants of them.
    I might be able to commend to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing
    882
    and Local Government the appointment of increasing numbers of men and women representative of local authorities to those boards, and also the encouragement of joint committees between the corporations and the councils in as many appropriate fields as may be possible. I know that the knowledge and experience required for administering a new town are very great, but I believe that in this way we can gradually transfer control to a democratic body while giving those concerned the experience that they need in order to be able to administer effectively.
    I would end by saying a few words about the kind of industry that exists in my constituency and in the constituencies of many other hon. Members. My constituency has in it what one might describe as the bell-wethers of the technological age, firms like the British Aircraft Corporation, International Computers and Tabulators, Hawker Siddeley and Taylor's Electronic Controls. Those of us who work in or represent such new industries know that the problem of insecurity is by no means over for them, that it exists but merely changes its shape and expression, and that one of the things required from any Government on modernisation is recognition that social and economic reforms are the twin of economic modernisation.
    This is why I so much welcome the statement made today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because we shall not get economic progress—this is something which I commend to both sides of the House, but particularly to the other side—unless we can revolutionise the status of the industrial worker and give him the kind of security and treatment that his staff side always expect.
    In addition to that, a great deal of care will have to be taken over the expenditure of public money on Government contracts on research and on development. I welcome the early announcement of the inquiry into the Concord by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation because it recognises that if a review is to take place, it is much better that it should take place at a time when the lost jobs and money can be minimised. But as this process of review of the expenditure of taxpayers'

    883
    money continues, so reorganisation and rationalisation are required in many industries which are dependent on Government money.
    I commend, therefore, to my right hon. Friends the Minister for Technology and the Minister of Aviation what is now being done in the United States Department of Defence, faced with a very substantial cut in military expenditure on research and development over the next few years, and that is to advise firms in the aviation and electronic industries of various other types of work which would be available to them and for which they will get Government encouragement and support, and do so early enough so that the necessary reorganisation and retraining can be undertaken with the minimum upset to the workers in the firms.
    Having said that, I want to say a final word about modern industry, and that is that its effects do not stop short at the shop floor. I happened last year to be visiting the United States and shall always remember something said in the Columbia University seminar on technical subjects. One of the complaints made was that a very serious problem was redundancy of first-class scientists and mathematicians only 10 or 15 years after they had taken their final degrees, the reason being that their skills had become obsolete, great as they were. Therefore, this threat is as much to the professional and technical men and women as it is to the workers on the shop floor.
    Finally, I thank the House very much for the attention and kindness with which it has listened to me, and express the hope that perhaps I may expect equal kindness and attention on other occasions.
    5.37 p.m.
    Mr. N. R. Wylie: If the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) was worried about making a maiden speech after what she described as the fluency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M, Taylor), hon. Members will have an idea how I feel in making my maiden speech after the last two that we have heard.
    Although as a new Member this is a moment in my life to which I have looked
    884
    forward for many years—and I should not like to bore the House by a recital of the number of times I have tried to get here—it is none the less with a feeling of humility that I crave the indulgence of the House to make my maiden speech. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to do so, because I am sure that the ordeal becomes no less awe-inspiring and formidable the longer it is put off.
    I represent the Pentlands division of the City of Edinburgh. I am sure it is a coincidence that both maiden speakers on this side of the House have been Scotsmen. No doubt that will be put right shortly. Pentlands is an usual constituency, territorially speaking, in that more than half its area is taken up by open countryside. I refer, of course, to the impressive range of hills from which its name is derived.
    I follow an hon. Member who represented the constituency ever since its formation. I refer to Lord John Hope, as he then was and by which name I think he is still best known. He served in the House for close on 20 years, and it would be appropriate if I were to thank him now for all the work that he did during these years on behalf of those whom it is now my privilege to represent.
    As a Member of the Scottish Bar, I have, of course, a special interest in the whole question of law reform, particularly where it affects Scotland. There is always room for law reform in any developing society and our own is no exception. We live in a period of rapid social and economic change and it is in that context that the need for law reform invariably arises. Accordingly, I welcome the suggestion in the Gracious Speech that emphasis will be laid on law reform, because a great deal of exceedingly useful work could be done by this Parliament in that way. It would also have the advantage, if it be an advantage, of not being quite as contentious as some of the other matters to which our attention is to be drawn.
    My first concern, however, is that Scotland should have its full share in this process and that we should not tail along, as it were, in the wake of law reform in England. The two systems are entirely separate and quite distinct. They spring from different roots and

    885
    have followed their own distinctive lines of development. I do not know, and I have no wish to anticipate, what arrangements the Government have in mind, although I note in the Gracious Speech that there is a reference to Law Commissioners, and a Minister without Portfolio has already been appointed whose main concern, I understand, will be law reform. However, I am bound to point out—and I doubt if this will be disputed—that the initiative for reform of Scots law must come from Scottish sources and Scottish Ministers. Moreover, whatever arrangements may be deemed necessary or advisable in England—about which I am not qualified to speak—it does not necessarily follow that a repetition of those arrangements in Scotland would meet our requirements.
    For many years we in Scotland have had a powerfully constituted Law Reform Committee. It was set up by the Conservative Government about 10 years ago and, under the chairmanship first of Lord Walker and latterly of Lord Kissen, it has done a tremendous amount of exceedingly useful work on law reform in Scotland. That is precisely the kind of body most suited to our requirements. The members of the Committee have been drawn from the Bench—both the Supreme Court and the sheriff courts—and from practising members of the Bar and the solicitors' branch. It also includes an element of academic representation. Accordingly, it is widely based and is a body eminently suited to control or influence the reform of the law with which its members are working in daily contact.
    I hope that, when the question of the machinery of law reform comes to be considered, no radical change in the administration of our machinery in Scotland will take place. I do not suggest that it is incapable of improvement. On the contrary, there are improvements which could be made. I think that the terms of reference of the Committee could be widened. I think that it could usefully consider remits from professional bodies whose activities impinge on law as well as remits from the Lord Advocate, whose remits are the only ones it can at present consider.
    Again, if the volume of law reform is to increase, as I believe that it may, it
    886
    is essential that the Committee should have the assistance of a permanent secretariat located in Edinburgh whose duty would be not only to assist on the secretariat side of its labours but also to be a channel through which suggestions and representations with regard to law reform could reach it from other bodies.
    I do not wish to be critical of the present arrangement or, in particular, of the Parliamentary draftsman who at present acts as secretary of the Committee. But in future, if we are to have a great deal of law reform, which I hope we will, that system will have to be superseded by something more on the lines I have indicated.
    While I do not suggest that the appointment of an additional legally qualified Scottish Minister is called for—I do not think it necessary—I do suggest, with the greatest respect, that it would be most desirable if one or other of the Scottish Law Officers found his way into this House. I know perfectly well that it is easier to say that than to bring it about. The last Administration had their own difficulties in this question. But I also know, from my limited experience, that it is not satisfactory for a Law Officer of the Crown not to have a voice in the House of Commons.
    If we are to embark on a programme of law reform which I would welcome, it is more essential than ever in these circumstances that either the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland should become a Member of this House. I hope and trust that the Government will not be unmindful of Scotland's legitimate interests here—I am not making a partisan point; it is a serious matter—and that they will neglect no opportunity to have the present position corrected.
    I know that today there is pressure on Parliamentary time. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak in this way, and I am much obliged to right hon. and hon. Members for the courtesy with which they have listened to what I have had to say.
    5.47 p.m.
    Mrs. Anne Kerr: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House for the first time and I hope that the kindness and sympathy traditionally extended to new Members will also be extended to me in this ordeal.

    887
    Taking my cue from the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who said yesterday that he considered that he was the biggest mug ever invented for having made a non-controversial maiden speech, may I say that I intend to stray later in my remarks into the deep waters of controversy.
    First, however, I want to say that I am here as the very proud Member for Rochester and Chatham. I feel it to be a great honour to represent the people of the cathedral City of Rochester and the dockyard town of Chatham. I am very well aware of the tremendous responsibilities which face me in the years ahead, in which I believe I shall be working with, and for, them.
    I welcome the Gracious Speech and would particularly draw attention to the increased social security mentioned in it. I hope very much that our older people in particular will have some help before Christmas. I have worked in local government for more than six years and I am all too well aware of the desperate straits in which some of our older people live, particularly those existing on small fixed incomes. I would like to see that they have a good meal and a fire for Christmas.
    I welcome the vigorous housing policy mentioned in the Gracious Speech. In my constituency there are 10,000 dwellings in which there is either no piped hot water, and/or no fixed baths and/or no indoor lavatory. These are the kind of conditions which are not uncommon in our industrial towns, but which are pronounced in my constituency, and I welcome any steps which can be taken towards alleviating the housing suffering of our people throughout the country.
    I also welcome the reference in the Gracious Speech to more vigorous support for the United Nations, in its vital rôle of freeing the world from the threat of war. I speak now as a wartime ex-Service woman. Those of my generation are possibly more aware of the horrors of the last war, and the war before that, and of any future war than some of those who are a shade younger, although the very young seem to understand exceptionally well the desperate ravages which any nuclear or germ war might bring to the future of our little planet. I ask
    888
    the Government to consider renaming the Foreign Secretary the "Minister for Peace", in order to denote that we are intent on taking an entirely fresh step forward in our international relationships.
    I would also ask—and now use a phrase commonly used by hon. Members opposite—that the taxpayers' money should be spent on things such as student exchanges; and I speak now as a housewife. In 1958, I went to Geneva with a deputation of British women, at the very beginning of the nuclear test ban talks. Within 24 hours of arriving, I was privileged to speak to the then Mr. David Ormsby-Gore, who was representing Her Majesty's Government at the time. I mentioned to him that the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) had said a few months earlier that there should be more student exchanges. Mr. Ormsby-Gore agreed with me and said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right, but that the Treasury and the taxpayers would not pay.
    I question that. I believe that the taxpayers, especially those who appreciate the horrors of war and most certainly the women, would pay, and that they want more student exchanges and more money to be spent on the teaching of world civics in our schools; and that they want the planning of the redeployment of those now engaged in the defence industries so that in good time they may know what alternatives there are. I believe, too, that they want the banning of war toys which condition our children to the acceptance of war as normal.
    Although my constituency is now heavily dependent on the construction and planning of armaments, I believe that the people there understand what I have been trying to say to them. It is that they, having experienced the ravages of war, perhaps to a greater degree than any other comparable area of Britain, also want the taxpayers' money to be spent on the positive building up of peace.
    If those of us of the younger generation of politicians will press on with this endeavour, by the end of the century we can persuade not only our own people, but others throughout the world, that, by the harnessing of science to political endeavour, we can abolish these age-old enemies of mankind, disease, homelessness and war itself. I hope very much

    889
    to be here 36 years from now, at the beginning of the next century, still plugging away, and that many of my contemporaries will be with me to greet the day when it dawns.
    5.56 p.m.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Like the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), I should like to say how very glad I am to make my maiden speech, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because this gives me the opportunity to thank you for the very great personal kindness which you have always shown to me.
    I am told that it is customary to begin a maiden speech by paying tribute to one's predecessor. I am rather sorry that that is so, because I do not want hon. Members to think that in paying my tribute to Mr. Fenner Brockway I am doing so simply because it is expected of me. I know that Mr. Brockway was not always an uncontroversial figure, but I assure hon. Members that in Eton and Slough he was widely loved, loved not only for the way in which he spent himself for his constituents but also because, over and above being a great constituency Member, he was a citizen of the world, not always a very orderly citizen and sometimes perhaps rather unwise, but always conscious of his duty to humanity at large and to suffering humanity in particular.
    I have been exceptionally lucky in being chosen to be the Member for Eton and Slough, even if I was only just chosen.
    There may be hon. Members for whom the name "Slough" conjures up only visions of frustrating traffic jams, but I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) managed to put an end to all that about two years ago. Other hon. Members will recall the very uncharitable verse of Mr. John Betjeman:
    "Come gentle bombs and rain on Slough,
    It is not fit for humans now."
    I assure hon. Members that whatever the physical shortcoming of Slough—and its council has some very attractive plans for effecting drastic improvements—it is a town of very fine humans.
    In many ways, Slough is a monument to private enterprise, the private enterprise of those who started its great trading estate and community centre, and the
    890
    enterprise of the workers who came from South Wales and Scotland in the 1920s and 1930s to take the great opportunities of employment which Slough offered at that time. Of course, Slough has its problems. It has problems of transport, partly those which many other towns face with our totally inadequate urban transport system, but also a particular problem in that the boundary of the London Transport area runs smack through the middle of the town, so that one cannot take a bus from one end of the town to the other.
    It has its housing problems, and serious and tragic these sometimes are. In a sense, the housing problems of Slough are quite insoluble, because Slough is hemmed in by the green belt and there is simply not room for all the people who have employment there. I would like to assure the Government of my support for any measures which they take to bring the supply of homes and jobs into better local balance.
    Slough, too, has its fair share of the problems caused by large-scale Commonwealth immigration. On the whole, we have been pretty successful in Slough in smoothing over the difficulties which arise in this way, but they are only smoothed over. The problems are still there and they have to be tackled. I am proud of the fact that Slough is about to make an important contribution towards working out a solution for the difficulties, because our Council of Social Service is about to publish a carefully prepared study in depth of the relations between immigrants and the host community. This will provide us with facts, and I suggest that facts are very badly needed for a consideration of this problem.
    But it is not on the domestic problems of Slough that I want to talk this afternoon but on the Amendment to the Address before us, and I shall try to do so as uncontroversially as possible.
    I was very glad to see the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) taking their seats on the Government Front Bench. I had the privilege of working closely with them in support of the great enterprise with which the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) will always be associated.

    891
    In that great enterprise there were political ideals. There was what the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) so eloquently called the vision of nations living together in a new and better way. That is not the subject of this debate; but I suggest that the economic ideas which animated those who supported the Common Market are relevant to what we are talking about this afternoon.
    The economic idea behind the Common Market was that if Britain was really to modernise herself she needs the spur of unrestricted competition and the cross-fertilisation of ideas which can come only when barriers to trade, barriers to investment and barriers to setting up businesses across frontiers are swept away. She needs a large home market which alone can support industry on the modern scale.
    Unfortunately, since the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations this country seems to have been turning in on itself. The charge of little Englandism is fairly freely flung across the Floor of the House. I should like to think that my party is less guilty of this than the party opposite. There is a tendency for all of us to say of our economy, and of our institutions, like Touchstone,
    "An ill-favoured thing but mine own"
    and to be rather proud of the fact.
    It seems a pity that in the election campaign which we have just survived no consistent attempt was made to bring home to people what modernisation is going to mean to them in concrete terms. If modernisation was presented to the people at all, it was presented as something that one could get by kicking the other chap in the teeth, whether the other chap was the boss or the trade unionist.
    Nobody really made any consistent attempt to bring home to people the fact that modernisation means that people will get hurt. They will get hurt because they will have to change their jobs, their homes and their habits, and all the inconveniences and discomforts will come first and the benefits second. Because no attempt has been made to explain all this to people, we still have opposition even to the tiny changes which are long overdue, tiny changes like decimal coinage, or decimal weights and measures, and the 24-hour clock. We even had a gentleman
    892
    writing to The Times the other day complaining that the Channel Tunnel represented a threat to our defences.
    I am sure that the Government are sincere when they say that there are no protectionist motives behind their 15 per cent. charge on imports, but the trouble is that this is very soon going to build up vested interests fighting to keep these charges; because new home markets will have been opened up for hitherto uncompetitive goods, behind this protective wall, and many jobs will come to depend on the maintenance of this protection.
    I was glad to read in the Gracious Speech that the Government will initiate
    "longer-term structural changes in our economy".
    but there are very narrow limits to what a democratic Government can achieve in this way. And in a climate of protectionism, worse still in a climate of expectation of continuing protectionism, it will be almost impossible for the Government to achieve any really meaningful changes in structure, especially if the impression gets about, as it is beginning to do, that the first priority is the redistribution of what we already have, and that we can put everything right ourselves just by sharing things out more fairly without regard to what is happening in the rest of the world.
    I very much hope that the Government's narrow majority does not mean that for the next few months we are going to live in an atmosphere of a General Election because, as the last election showed, it will mean that the real issues will get buried. I hope that we shall discuss these real issues. There is plenty of room for party differences as to how best to face them, but what I hope we shall avoid above all is a party truce to bury the issues that really matter.
    6.7 p.m.
    Mr. David Ensor: It is with great humility that I rise to address the House on this occasion because, however long one has been in public life, the first occasion on which one has to address the House must be something of an unnerving experience, and I beg the indulgence of the House if I transgress in any way.
    During the last few days, while the House has been debating the Gracious

    893
    Speech, we have heard a lot about scientists, engineers, technicians, and the brain drain. What we have not heard very much about are people and human beings. I very much doubt whether the people in the country, and hon. Members in this House, realise that at the moment we have a vast social problem on our hands in the form of juvenile delinquency. I therefore welcome the statement in the Gracious Speech that the Government propose to introduce new measures on penal reform, new measures for the prevention of crime and for the treatment of convicted persons.
    Many years of my practice were spent in the criminal courts. It was because I realised what the situation was after the last war that I made a special study of this subject. It is one of the tragedies of war that the aftermath always provides an increase in crime. If one looks back at history, one sees that this happened after every major war. The only difference is that on this occasion it has continued to go up, whereas on other occasions it went down.
    I feel that we have not done what we ought to have done in the last few years to deal with this appalling problem. We are losing young people, our future technicians, our future engineers and our future scientists, into prison, and into a life of misery and degradation, because we have not tackled this subject as we ought to have done. I do not think it is realised by hon. and right hon. Members—I am quite certain it is not realised by the general population of this country—that for the last few years we have got to the terrible situation that over 1¼ million of our citizens are being convicted of crimes every year. I do not think we realise the significance of some of the appalling percentage increases in crime that have occurred since 1938. Some have risen to over 700 per cent. One of the most alarming increases has been in crimes of violence—notably sexual offences, violence and offences dealing with drink—by persons under the age of 23.
    Because of that situation, and because of the appalling figures, I decided two years ago to go abroad to see whether in other countries they had the same sort of problem that we have, and, if so, what they were doing about it. I went to the Soviet Union. Having gone there I went—if I may say so—to the other
    894
    extreme, to Spain. I went to Scandinavia, to France, to Belgium and to Holland. There was the inescapable fact that wherever I went people were realising that this was a grave social problem, that they had a problem. They were spending vast sums of money in endeavouring to deal with the situation and, generally speaking, they were getting results. Generally speaking, throughout Europe, as a result of dealing with this situation, the figures were going down.
    When I was in Sweden, where there is an appalling problem, I was told that had they not adopted these new methods their figures would have been vastly worse than they are now. We are doing very little. I went to trials and to juvenile courts. I went to the penal laboratory in Sweden. I talked with one who is probably the greatest forensic scientist in the world, Dr. Georg Stürup. I went to youth prisons in Holland. What they are trying to do is to prevent crime among young people, to see that young people do not get into trouble at a very early age. I think that is something which we should study very closely.
    There are child welfare boards—the name varies in different countries but the effect is the same. The board knows when little Tommy is getting into mischief and may well get into further trouble if something is not done. The board provides advice for the parents, who may be feckless, drunks or just incompetent. Advice is provided in the first instance. If it is not taken, the board provides guardianship. If that does not work, there are other methods which are put into operation at a later date. I suggest that some of these things being done effectively in Europe ought to be looked into by us, if we are to make some attempt to stop this appalling rise in delinquency.
    It is not only a question of mother and father. It is not only a question of other people, because, if I may say so with respect, we have to look generally at our administration of justice. I believe that the administration of justice in this country requires overhauling. I believe that it is out of date. I believe that it is creaking badly. I do not think any hon. Member would deny that over the last few years there has been a number of cases which have left us with a rather nasty taste in the mouth. I agree that

    895
    my profession is not exactly rapid in its reforms, but I believe the time has come when we should have a complete overhaul of the whole system.
    I have the honour to represent the Lancashire constituency of Bury and Radcliffe. I believe that Lancashire is fortunate in having an extremely efficient system of justice because, quite recently, we introduced the two Crown Courts at Manchester and Liverpool. This has relieved the pressure on judges and upon everyone else concerned with the administration of justice. I believe that we ought to look to the provision of more Crown Courts in more of our great capital cities—Birmingham, Newcastle and so on. The tragedy is that everyone concerned with the administration of justice is grossly overworked. There is no question about it. Having had experience as a prosecuting solicitor and a clerk at the London Sessions I know only too well that this is a fact.
    There is another aspect which we should examine, whether the present system of lay justices of the peace is working as adequately as it should. May I remind hon. Members that if I am sued for a £10 debt, my case is tried by a highly competent and trained county court judge; but if I am charged with an offence for which, on being found guilty, I could go to prison for six months, my case is tried by an amateur. That is a situation which I feel ought to be looked into.
    One of the tragedies at present in the administration of justice is the irresponsibility of juries. While, of course, every hon. Member will agree that it is vitally important that the innocent should be protected, it is also important that the guilty should be convicted. That is something which is not happening at the present time. I am reminded of a conversation I had some years ago with one of our greatest criminal judges, the late Mr. Justice Humphreys. When I raised with him the question of this strange reluctance on the part of juries to convict in certain classes of cases—normally sexual cases and serious motoring offences—he told me—and I believe it to be true, although it had a slightly amusing reference—"You must always remember with regard to a British jury that in this
    896
    sort of case half of them do not believe it ever could have happened, and the other half do it themselves."
    I am most grateful for this opportunity to address this hon. House. I feel most earnestly that the whole system of justice in this country and our penal reform, the treatment of offenders and the prevention of crime should be regarded as a matter of grave social justice and inquired into at the earliest possible moment.
    6.19 p.m.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Although I made my own maiden speech in this House in 1931, I have never before had the pleasure—and the problem—of congratulating six maiden speakers at the same time. I feel sure that every hon. Member listened with the same pleasure and profit as I did to those six maiden speeches. I found myself experiencing some humility and relearning a lesson that I think we in this House all learn—perhaps the six maiden speakers have begun to learn it today—and which it is hard to learn at the start, that not all the things worth saying are said on one's own side of the House.
    I feel sure that the great and powerful City of Glasgow has a new and canny champion in my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) just as the new towns have a charming champion in the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), who so well understands the new social and industrial problems that they face. I admired greatly the expertise with which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) explored the intricacies of the reform of Scottish law, but I do not propose to follow him into that subject.
    We were delighted at the enthusiasm which the hon. Lady the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) showed in desiring to expand the opportunities for a wider form of education. I was particularly interested in the realistic vision of new economic vistas which was put before the House by my hon. Friend the member for Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer).
    I would also particularly like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) in his enterprise of seeking out the causes of

    897
    one of our great social problems and the way in which he effectively stirred our social conscience in the House this afternoon.
    I rise myself this afternoon to develop shortly to hon. Members a single theme bearing upon the modernisation of British industry. I wish to express misgivings at the way in which an incomes policy is being elevated into a kind of panacea for all our economic problems. I propose to develop my argument by practical illustrations from the Midlands and then by a more academic approach.
    I think that we are all looking for a prosperous, progressive economy with a strong export base. In the Midlands we probably have, actually in being, the most prosperous and progressive industrial community in the country at the present time. Our industries are very successful exporters—but we do not have an incomes policy. Far from it, because the earnings of our Midland engineering workers are a good deal higher than those in the other industrial regions of the country. I am going to suggest to the House today a rigorous doctrine, namely, that where you have efficient industries in active competitive circumstances high wages can act as a powerful stimulant to increase productivity and that low wages are a positive recipe for industrial stagnation.
    I remember discussing years ago, with the chairman of one of our greatest Midland engineering companies, the reason why he was not able to install in his own factories the thorough-going labour saving machinery that existed in the same industry in the United States. He said—very sadly, because, technologically, he was by temperament a very forward-looking man—that it could not be justified because wages were so much lower over here. Now let us look at it from the other end. I suppose that the first real big squeeze in the labour supply in Birmingham came in the boom of 1955. It reached an extraordinary point. There was said to be poaching of labour by employers, so keen were they to get extra workers, if necessary at an extra premium of wages. What was the result? Perhaps the biggest rush for the instalment of labour saving machinery that the city had ever seen.
    Approaching this problem from a more analytical and academic level, there was recently published a most
    898
    interesting study of American and British technology in the nineteenth century by Dr. Habakkuk, Professor of Economic History at the University of Oxford. It set out to trace the reasons why the industrial leadership of the world had crossed the Atlantic during that century from this country to the United States and came to the conclusion that one of the important causes was the scarcity and high cost of labour in the United States as compared with this country. He says:
    "The principal difference between America and England was not that the Americans were more inventive or better able to develop their inventions; it lay in the objects to which these abilities were devoted. British inventors in the nineteenth century were not preoccuped with labour saving for this was not primarily what the British economy required from its ingenious men."
    The reason was, of course, the large supply of relatively cheap labour. As time went on the contrast in the cost of labour between the two countries began to produce profound industrial differences, and I quote Dr. Habakkuk again:
    "A large part of American industrial progress in the nineteenth century was due to the rapidity of technical advance in machine tools. Most of the general machine tools had been invented by British engineers between 1775 and 1850—boring machines, engine lathes, planers, shapers, steam hammers and standard taps and dies; and in trustworthy general purpose tools the English held their own up to and beyond the end of the nineteenth century. But the most important new machine tools, particularly the milling machines and turret lathes were developed in America …"
    and, later, he gives instance after instance—which I must admit I find quite heartrending, but which I will spare the House—of British inventions in labour-saving devices which were not adopted in England, but were adopted industrially in America and had to be reintroduced into this country very often at a much later time when even the memory of the fact that they were British inventions had passed away.
    I think that I have said enough to show why I distrust the long-term effects of an incomes policy. I do not deny that it is essential as a relatively short-term holding operation, but I believe that our main effort should be as much as possible towards a breakthrough in productivity and in achieving a permanently higher rate of growth.
    That brings me straight to the question

    899
    of restrictive practices. Here, I must go on record as a strong supporter of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), who courageously tackled resale price maintenance and who, we know, had in preparation a wider measure to deal with industrial restrictive practices. I must also fulfill, on the other hand, a pledge which I gave to an industrial worker in one of our big engineering works in Birmingham to put his point of view before the House of Commons. He asked me to see him during the election campaign. He was on nightwork and, therefore. I was able to see him in the afternoon at his house, which he was buying. He said that he was getting on well, that he had a good deal more to do in fitting out his house to have it as he wanted it and he added, rather significantly, that he did not have a car "yet".
    What worried and, indeed, enraged him was the number of irresponsible strikes called by the shop stewards. He was all for what he called "proper strikes"—for example, if it were necessary to insist on tidiness in the shop in the interest of safety. What he found unbearable were the number of almost automatic strikes when there was any question of redeployment of labour for the purpose of increasing production. I asked him whether he was able to put his view frankly in the works, and he said, "yes". I then asked, "What proportion of the men are on your side in this matter and what proportion favour the attitude of the shop stewards?". He said, "It is about fifty-fifty".
    I was deeply interested yesterday, as I dare say were other hon. Members, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said of demarcation disputes in the shipbuilding industry, with which he had to deal as Minister of Labour, that, while they looked absurd from a distance, they did not look nearly so absurd when he came close to them. The reason, he said, was that they were based on fear. I accept that, and I also thought that it was very revealing that later in the same speech my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) intervened and expressed the anxiety of some of the steelmasters about
    900
    investing in increased capacity because they were nervous of the danger of excess capacity. Here, again, we see fear operating and restraining people, this time on the employers' side from action which would assist in increasing productivity.
    If, then, fear is, as I believe, one of the greatest enemies of increasing productivity, I draw the deduction that confidence is one of the greatest allies of faster economic growth. The men, of course, need confidence that they will not work themselves out of a job and that they will get a square deal. But the employers need confidence, too. This is especially important in the capital intensive industries, which we know so well in Birmingham and the Midlands, where I believe our national future lies, because big volume production is the essence of successful operation in those industries.
    But real confidence, which is the only kind that matters, is a plant of slow growth. And it can easily be destroyed. This, I predict, will prove in the end the real challenge for this Government, but it is something which in the heady atmosphere of the first one 100 days they may easily forget.
    6.33 p.m.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: "It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive." It is therefore with considerable trepidation that I rise to address the House, conscious, as I am, of the esteem and veneration in which it is held in all corners of the civilised world; conscious, as I am, of the very high standards which have been set by previous maiden speakers this afternoon, and conscious, as I am, of the very great honour which is mine in representing the people of Kelvingrove.
    I pay tribute to my predecessor, who worked hard and well for the constituency during his term in the House. I pay tribute also to one of his predecessors, who was a member of my own profession and who had a long and honourable career.
    This constituency of Kelvingrove is perhaps the very embodiment of the great City of Glasgow in which I was born, at whose ancient and revered university I studied and on whose council I have had the honour of serving for 14 years. Two of the boundaries of Kelvingrove are

    901
    formed by famous rivers of Scotland—the River Kelvin, the very mention of which conjures up splendid visions of outstanding scientific and technological achievement, and the River Clyde itself, the symbol of the very highest level of marine craftsmanship and skill.
    It is a constituency, too, of culture, having within its boundaries the great Kelvingrove Art Galleries and Museum with the Burrell Collection and other priceless treasures well known all over the world. Other forms of art and culture are also well represented in the constituency since most of the city's theatres are situated within it, including our famous concert hall.
    It is a constituency, too, of commerce. The most famous street in Glasgow traverses Kelvingrove from east to west, Sauchiehall Street—the street of the willow trees which are, alas, no longer there, the street by which the city is known and which springs to mind when some of our more exuberant citizens sing their battle song "I belong to Glasgow" on one of those very special occasions when our gladiators venture forth to pit their skill against the representatives of the Metropolis.
    I should like to remind the House of the words of Edmund Burke:
    "Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain as an agent and advocate against other agents and advocates, but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of the nation with one interest, that of the whole: where not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide but the general good …".
    With those sentiments I am in complete agreement. What will be in the interests of the people of Kelvingrove will, I am certain, prove to be for the good of the nation as a whole.
    The Gracious Speech contains much which I believe will benefit my constituency, and I should like to make reference, in particular, to housing, employment, pensions and the Health Service. Kelvingrove, in common with many other areas of Glasgow, desperately requires more houses. In spite of the valiant attempts by the local authority, which has rehoused nearly 300,000 people since the war ended, I am convinced that this problem can be solved only by tackling it on a national basis and as an emergency
    902
    operation. The legacy of industrialisation has been the development in Kelvingrove and other constituencies in Glasgow of slums which are an affront to the dignity both of the unfortunate people who are forced to live in them and of the people who are only too aware of their existence. At this moment, the city stands in need of 100,000 houses to replace those which lack the basic amenities that all human beings deserve. This is a subject about which I and my colleagues who represent similar constituencies will have much to say in the coming months.
    I welcome also the reference in the Gracious Speech to the intention to restore control of rents, because although I appreciate that the theory behind the Rent Act contained an element of reason, its application has not borne out the hope that it would make more and better accommodation available for letting. Indeed, in my experience as a medical practitioner in my own constituency, it has made the position even worse, resulting only in increases of rent out of all proportion to the adequacy and amenity of the accommodation provided. I suggest that only a slavish clinging to doctrine would motivate opposition to its repeal.
    I welcome the preparation of a regional plan in an effort to solve the unemployment problem. Kelvingrove is an under-employed area; our rate of unemployment is more than double the national average, and I look forward to the plan embracing old industries such as the docks, of which we in Kelvingrove have some of the most important in Glasgow, as well as the establishing of the newer science-based industries in the constituency, especially since the comprehensive redevelopment plan for the area designates special sites for such industrial development.
    The inadequate level of pensions, National Insurance and associated benefits is obvious to all and it is, therefore, gratifying to know that immediate action is proposed to increase existing rates and that there will be a major review of all social security schemes.
    The National Health Service—perhaps the most enlightened piece of welfare legislation of any nation in our time—has not been developed in the way that its great proponent envisaged. It gave

    903
    me great pleasure to learn today from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that proposals will be put before us before long which will be a fitting monument to the memory of the great statesman who introduced the National Health Scheme.
    Finally, I should like to say something about the intention of the Government to take action against racial discrimination. Human beings have faults which have nothing to do with their race or the colour of their skin. They have, of course, virtues which, likewise, have nothing to do with race or colour. But any section of society which considers itself civilised and possessed of a higher degree of acquired skill and learning than another section surely has a duty to impart that skill and learning to those who are less fortunate; and not in a spirit of master and servant but as man to man.
    Deviation from this in the form of exaggerated direct or oblique reference to difference, is an offence in the eyes of God, and I ask hon. Members to remember that only those who are thus offended against can possibly experience the deep disappointment with civilisation, dismay at society, indeed dread of their fellow human beings which the offenders cause them.
    I should like to conclude with some more of the words of Burke:
    "Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. Men have a right that these wants should be provided for, by this wisdom".
    I thank the House for its indulgence and, like those who have spoken before me, I hope that similar indulgence will be given to me in future.
    6.45 p.m.
    Sir Cyril Osborne: It falls to my pleasant lot to congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) on what I would call a typically Scots speech—modest, human, friendly, sound, dependable, the type of approach to life we English have learned to respect and expect from good Scotsmen.
    I liked, above all, the hon. Gentleman's plea for the abolition of slums, which are a disgrace to us all and to our civilisation. Over the years we English have owed an immense amount to the continuous flow of good Scotsmen
    904
    to the South, to show us their character. good humour, ability, hard work and independence. I am sure that the hon. Member will, by coming here, keep up the high tradition which the Scots have set for many generations. I congratulate him warmly and hope to hear him frequently in future.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said much in his opening speech with which I completely agreed. He said that the election was over, that his party had won and now that they were the Government they intended to govern. I entirely agree with that and I hope that all hon. Members will remember those words. Whatever the Government do should be judged on broad national issues and not on narrow party interests.
    I make this plea: that in this delicately balanced House of Commons, with a very sharply divided country, we should turn this assembly into a council of State and give the Government adequate time in which to produce an incomes policy which, although some may not consider it important, I regard as the most important problem facing this or any Government, for without one we will not succeed. It will not be easy for them to achieve such a policy, but if Her Majesty's Government can achieve one they will have served the nation extremely well.
    People outside the House are sick to death of narrow embittered party politics. They were bored stiff night after night seeing hon. Members of each party on the television, pulling one another to pieces. They are tired of party politics and they want us to get on with sound government. From my point of view, I wish the Government well—not from my party's point of view, but from the national angle. I would rather that they succeed from the national point of view than fail from any party point of view. I believe that ordinary people, the workers and businessmen, would like to look forward to 18 months without any more electioneering. Let us get on with the job and give the country sound, sober government. We as a party should do our best to help the Government to govern well.
    Having said that, I want to point out that the Government's policies should be judged by two simple tests; first, will

    905
    their policies make the economy of the country more efficient; and, secondly will they help to or make the nation live within its means? The so-called economic crisis is not something new or startling. It has been with us, off and on, since the war and because of world conditions I believe that it is likely to get worse. The problem is simply that we are living beyond our means. We are spending more than we are earning. We are eating, drinking, smoking and gambling more than we can afford, and it cannot go on.
    The remedy is equally simple, but very unpopular. The question is whether any Government can introduce sufficiently unpopular measures and still retain their power. That is the problem of modern democracy. We have either to earn more as a nation or we have to spend less. It may be only 6d. in the £, but that 6d. is vital. I also believe that we have all got to work longer, harder and more efficiently to get our prices down and the quality of our goods up, for this is the only way in which we can export more. I believe that export subsidies by themselves are a mere snare and delusion.
    The question therefore arises: can the Government make all sections of the nation realise the pressing nature of our problem? Further, can the Government get the nation to accept the unpleasant, unpopular action needed to put it right? Hon. Members who were in the House in the 1945 to 1950 Parliament will remember how Sir Stafford Cripps almost wore himself out trying to get the nation to accept what seems so obvious. If only we had accepted his advice then our prices could have been half what they are today, but, unfortunately for the nation, he failed.
    Whether we like it or not I believe that this generation has got to accept a policy of survival through austerity, and we have got to share in that austerity. I say this to the right hon. Gentleman who is to be responsible for our economic affairs, that I believe we cannot solve our external economic problems by merely redistributing either the internal national wealth or the internal national income. If we did that by itself it would merely make things worse, because, as I believe, it would increase the demand on the home market
    906
    and make our export problem all the more difficult.
    Again, I differ from my right hon. Friend—I bow to his longer experience in the House—in that I do not believe we can get an incomes policy, which I think is the most vital requirement, unless it is part of a package deal, and I believe—and I think that it ought to be said from this side of the House—that it is those of us who are most fortunate in life who should set an example and take our share of the burden first.
    As an emergency measure—I speak for myself—I would gladly accept a statutory dividend limitation, prohibition of all bonus issues, greater control of expense accounts, sterner rent control, a bigger capital gains tax. But provided, and only provided, that they are accepted as part and parcel of an effective agreement to restrain wage and salary increases.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Government policy.
    Sir C. Osborne: Then I am supporting the Government's policy.
    Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member will vote with us, will he?
    Sir C. Osborne: Listen to the whole story.
    I speak to responsible Members above the Gangway. Merely to penalise capital would not save us. It has got to be a package deal which includes everybody. We all have to carry our share.
    The Government can, through legislation, if they so wish, impose austerity on capital, but they cannot pass legislation to impose a wages freeze. They have not the power. In any case, the trade unions would not submit to it. The question is: have they sufficient influence with their trade union allies to get them to realise how fatally stupid is the idea of their members that they are entitled, that they have a divine right, every year to an increase in wages?
    This has got to be killed. Can the Government get the unions to accept such a package deal? I am not thinking of the senior trade union leaders, who, I believe, are among the most responsible men in this country. I am talking of the shop floor. Can the Government get ordinary trade union members to accept the package deal that I have suggested, and really believe what Sir Stafford Cripps tried to tell us so many years ago,

    907
    that lower prices would make us all better off, more than higher wages?
    This is the problem which faces right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is only half what they have got to get their allies in the trade unions to accept. There must, in my opinion, along with this be an ending of all forms of restrictive practices, unofficial strikes, inter-union rivalries, which reduce our national efficiency. The way to get our economy right is to have these things ended. This is the great challenge facing the Government, and I wish them well in it, because it is on this crucial issue they will either succeed or fail.
    Now I would say a word on the Government's first two proposals to put our economy right. I believe that they are pathetically inadequate, but to withdraw them quickly because of foreign pressure would be a sign of an extremely weak Government. As I said at Question Time today, if these temporary measures are quickly withdrawn they cannot possibly do anything good for the economy. They have got to be, therefore, longer than "temporary" to do any good at all, to produce any results. The two main proposals, I believe, are timid, and there is certainly nothing revitalising about them.
    It is said that they are temporary. So far, we all know that, unhappily, they have done damage to our external relations. I wonder whether the Government could have not given thought to this reaction abroad before they brought them in. But I want to put this to them. If our foreign competitors can, by exercising pressure upon our Government, get these measures withdrawn, then our people will say that we have a poor and a weak Government.
    I put this to the right hon. Gentleman. How can a permanent disease be cured by temporary palliatives? What we are dealing with is something fundamental. It cannot be cured by merely temporary measures. Something drastic, something unpopular, something harsh is needed to be done. The Government's proposals, to my mind, are rather like prescribing as a cure for a malignant cancer, a temporary dose of a quack medicine. It cannot be done. Our only salvation lies in far greater exports, but
    908
    the export incentive, so far, is merely trifling.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I am listening with very great interest and respect to what the hon. Member is saying. A few minutes ago he said, and we all agreed, that the important first task is to live within our means. He will, no doubt, agree that one is not living within one's means if one continually buys more than one sells. It may be true that the permanent remedy for it takes time, but what is wrong with buying a little less to start with in order to try to live within our means, as a beginning?
    Sir C. Osborne: What is wrong is, if we buy too little less for too short a time.
    Mr. Silverman: Too little?
    Sir C. Osborne: That is the perfect answer. If we buy too little less for too short a time it cannot cure the permanent problem.
    I believe that our only salvation lies in far greater exports, but, as I said, the incentives so far are trifling. This we must face. While it remains easier and more profitable to sell on the home market it is unreasonable to expect manufacturers to go to the less profitable export market. Somehow, we have to make the home market more difficult and less profitable to sell in. This is the only way, as I see it, to cure our problems. It is certainly not in the national interest to compel manufacturers to sell abroad at a loss.
    This is no sort of way to cure national insolvency, because as the right hon. Gentleman especially knows, 55 per cent. of the profits we make go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay for the Welfare State. If we cut down our profits, how shall we pay for our Welfare State?
    Mr. Houghton: That is just what I do not know, because I am sure that 55 per cent. of all profits do not go in taxation—nothing like it.
    Sir C. Osborne: They certainly should. All I can say is that they do from my companies, and if others do not pay their fair share the Inland Revenue should make them. That is the law of the land. If people are not paying, it is a reflection on the Inland Revenue

    909
    for not doing its job; and I do not believe that it is not doing its job.
    We are in danger of looking at this problem from too local and narrow a point of view. I believe that our economic position will get much worse over the years. The emerging Afro-Asian nations, with anything from one-tenth to one-twentieth of our standard of life are rightly asking why they should allow the white man to go to their countries and exploit their raw materials, such as copper, lead, tin, rubber and oil to give him a standard of life ten or twenty times higher than their own. What is more, is that their terrifying poverty will get worse and worse, owing to the enormous increase in their population. It is obvious that if a nation's population rises faster than its income, its standard of life must continue to fall.
    This problem will increasingly face us. Since 1954, the terms of trade have moved in our favour very substantially. I understand that raw material prices have fallen by about 8 per cent. since then, while the prices of manufactured goods have risen, on average, by about 10 per cent. It is estimated that the Afro-Asian nations have received about 14,000 million dollars less every year from the white countries than they would have had if today's prices were what they were in 1954.
    Today, I put a Question to the President of the Board of Trade, who gave me the following reply:
    "It is estimated that the value of United Kingdom exports in the first nine months of 1964 would have been, at an annual rate, about £650 million at 1954 prices …"
    That means that this year we are getting from the poorer nations largely, £650 million more this year for the same volume of goods because our prices have risen—
    Mr. Monslow: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's most interesting and illuminating speech, but can he tell me whether we can contemplate having his support tomorrow when the Budget Statement is made?
    Sir C. Osborne: I cannot promise to support a Budget I have not seen. That is an unfair and ridiculous question.
    If we were to do justly by the Afro-Asian nations our trade gap would be far greater than it is. Our affluence over the last 10 years has been built on the
    910
    deepening poverty of those people, and it is perfectly right for them to ask for this international injustice to be put right. But if we are to help them really materially to get out of their poverty, we must pay them more for what they produce for us and charge them less for what we sell to them.
    That will automatically widen the trade gap; it will increase the difference between our imports and exports. It will cost us a lot to do justice to these poorer people overseas, and the only way in which we can get over the problem of that cost is for us to produce a great deal more, and to produce it cheaply. The only way out is for us to work harder and more efficiently.
    I know that some trades are doing a magnificent job. Our problem is to bring the poorer firms and the poorer workmen up to the higher standards of the good ones. That is the problem. I remember Mr. Hugh Gaitskell saying, in 1951, that unless we tackled this problem there would have to be a reduction in the standard of living. The 64,000-dollar question facing the Government is: can they avoid that steep fall in our standard of living that Mr. Hugh Gaitskell prophesied as inevitable and still do our duty to the coloured people overseas?
    I beg right hon. Gentlemen opposite to go round the country and constantly repeat, in every industrial centre, some words spoken by Sir Stafford Cripps in September, 1949, in this House:
    "Any worker by hand or brain who goes slow, or is an absentee, or demands more money for no more output, is, in fact, doing his best to put up his own household bills and to put somebody—quite possibly himself—out of a job."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th September, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 31–2.]
    Can the Government get the country to believe that, and to act on it?
    The Economist, in its editorial on Saturday, said that President Johnson's first thought, when he had won the United States election, was Lincoln's famous pledge, in his second Inaugural Address, to bind up the nation's wounds. I only wish—and I hope that I say this without any undue bitterness—that the Prime Minister had followed that good example, instead of talking about lepers.
    Only a united, dedicated and determined effort can overcome our difficulties. Leadership is a matter of the character of the leader. I beg of the

    911
    Government to do all they can to unite the nation, not to divide it, so that, together, we can do our best to pull our country out of the difficulties which we all recognise.
    7.8 p.m.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The maiden speech is well named. Like a virgin, the "new boy" comes to the occasion with a mixture of fascination and dread, but, realising that until it is over he is not really a Member of this House in the full sense of the word he—perhaps, again, like the virgin—welcomes it none the less. I venture to think, Mr. Speaker, that it says a great deal for your tolerance, and that of the House, that you have been so kind as to listen to, I think, eight of us this afternoon.
    I find myself a little surprised to be here at all. I have regarded myself as a representative of those people who are, perhaps, equally as important as those who are here; those who are not here—the losers. In 1950 I had the honour of opposing the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and, again, the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) in 1955. They both became right hon. Gentlemen afterwards, but I lost at the time.
    I feel a little apologetic to Sir Hugh Linstead, whom I have replaced at Putney. Sir Hugh is a charming and courteous gentleman, and it will be my task and my duty to endeavour, as far as it lies within my power to do so, to emulate him in this respect in the position to which I have succeeded.
    In particular, I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West is not in his place. Incidentally, I went to the grammar school there and was born there. The other day he was referred to as the Member for Enfield, but he is the Member for Enfield, West and the Member for Enfield, East sits on this side of the House. I should have liked to have reminded him that the part of Enfield which he represents is the nineteenth century part, while Enfield, East is the twentieth century part. This seemed to have been precluded from his speech because he seemed to have forgotten that the era of competitive
    912
    capitalism was in the nineteenth century and it is in the twentieth century that we are faced with a choice of monopolies, either private, on the one hand, or public, on the other.
    I should like to say a few words about buildings. I begin by referring to an advertisement which hon. Members may have seen which says, "Now the skyline of Putney belongs to I.C.T." Of course, thank heavens, it does not. If it belongs to anyone, it is to the Labour London County Council with its great Alton Estate at Roehampton, but what astounds me is the crass insensibility of whoever advised International Computers and Tabulators that such an advertisement could contribute to the firm's prestige. The Amendment refers to modernisation. Of course, there is modernisation and modernisation. A main reason for the change of political representation in Putney was dissatisfaction with the late Government's policy, or lack of policy, in relation to the use of scarce urban land.
    One is supposed to avoid controversy on this occasion, but I suspect that it will not be very long before there is something approaching general acceptance of the view that our whole approach to urban planning is based upon a fallacy. As a member of the London County Council Town Planning Committee, I am bound to say that the late Government's town planning Acts rendered our task virtually impossible of fulfilment. The sites on which I.C.T. has built huge blocks were intended as private office sites for local professional people—for solicitors, accountants, achitects and so on—but once one zones for office use one loses control. Under present legislation, one has little or no say about what kind of office is to be built on a site. I think it high time that the whole concept of zoning was looked at again.
    The idea behind it stems from a time when industry was necessarily noisome and segregation was essential. Today we need to plan much less rigidly in zoning terms and much more closely in use terms. We create our own problems by our present attitudes. We separate office from residence and create at one and the same time blocks of buildings in the centres of large towns which become deserted and empty at night and

    913
    the transport problem of getting thousands or millions of people to and from them early in the morning and late at night with all the spread of building and weariness of people which this entails.
    We also need detailed planning powers. Just as there are offices and offices there are houses and houses, flats and flats. What is the use of 400,000 or half a million houses every year if at the same time the real housing problem gets worse? We have to ask what sort of houses and for whom? This, I think, is what the people of Putney have asked themselves. They saw great blocks of so-called luxury flats half-empty and half-filled at 15 guineas or 20 guineas a week cheek by jowl with rows of squalid little houses with people squashed into them at two, three and four to a room without any modern conveniences. Squalor and luxury side by side. However and whenever this exists it will inevitably sooner or later bring about a change of Government.
    Another danger to be avoided is that of deceiving the electorate. Among the duties placed on local government is that of Civil Defence. It is now generally accepted that the millions of survivors referred to in the Civil Defence advertisements exist only if the term "survivor" is used to indicate someone who survives for a few days, weeks or perhaps a few months, poor wretch, after the initial holocaust. There is no possibility of survival in the sense of recovery from a major nuclear attack on these islands. Civil Defence at the moment provides only for even the short-term survival of a few senior Civil Defence officers and equivalent officials in their underground dug-outs.
    I respectfully suggest that the conversion of the Civil Defence Corps to a Civil Defence service to help in major industrial accidents—as they are already doing quite considerably—and yet still able to do whatever could be done in the event of nuclear accident, would be better for the force, the Government and the public. In facing the realities of nuclear warfare at home we might succeed in making a more realistic appraisal of the problems of maintaining world peace in the thermo-nuclear age. I am trespassing, however, I believe on the traditional courtesy of the House extended to maiden speakers.
    914
    I have been talking about housing and I turn to another housing problem, that of housing the arts, and make reference in particular to the theatre.
    In this sphere, too, we find that private enterprise is making no serious contribution. The theatre of the future will be publicly owned, publicly built by public authorities from public funds or it will not be built at all. I am very sorry to find that there was no mention of the arts in the Gracious Speech. I only hope that the words:
    "other measures will be laid before you"
    will be allowed to embrace a number of urgent steps to be taken in this field. For example, for reasons which will not stand a moment's examination, the late Government excluded theatres from the protection of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, in spite of the recommendation of the Gowers Committee that they should be included. On another occasion I should like to dilate on the extraordinary consequences of this decision. The auditorium and the manager's office are now under regulation and supervision, but the backstage area, where most of the work is done, is not. This could and should be put right quickly.
    There is another anomaly which urgently needs correction. In 1950 the Use Classes Order was tidied up and the then existing classification of theatres, cinemas and music halls was lumped together into a rag-bag of uses called "Places of Assembly", which included Turkish baths and places where indoor games are played. No serious damage was done by this change for many years, but then came bingo. A number of owners and cinemas and theatres found themselves able to change the use of their buildings within the class without asking anyone for permission, and the results have been quite catastrophic. They need not have been.
    The Order could have been changed back to its original form without difficulty, but it took years to convince the over-esteemed Minister who was in charge of these matters at the time, and when, after long argument, he was finally convinced, he said:
    "We would not be justified in amending the Order solely for the purpose you have in mind. If, however, it later becomes necessary to amend the Order for other purposes, I will

    915
    see that your case for an amendment in relation to theatres is considered afresh."
    Meanwhile, all over the country theatre after theatre and cinema after cinema was pulled down or went over to bingo. Whether or not in any particular case the change was or was not justified was never examined because no change of use was theoretically involved On another occasion I should like to take the House—if that is permissible—through the scarcely credible correspondence with the ex-Minister, but I must not be controversial on this occasion, and in any event I must come to a close.
    What are the ends that we seek? Do we want scientific progress, material security and comfort for their own sakes? Let us admit it—yes, we do. But over and above these needs stands the need of the individual to fulfil and to be fulfilled, to experience, to contribute, to acquire abilities and tastes, to exercise his skill and powers of appreciation. Money spent to this end is the best public expenditure that there is. I hope that there will be more of it and I welcome the appointments which have been made in this field and in particular that of the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), whose late husband, Aneurin Bevan, with that foresight which in some quarters is only now beginning to be understood and appreciated, was largely instrumental in providing the 6d. rate which local authorities can use to develop artistic and cultural activities. It is now for us to see that these powers are augmented and used so that the lives of our people may be enriched.
    7.22 p.m.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: I have been a Member of the House such a short time that I feel almost presumptuous in venturing to congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) upon his maiden speech, but it is my very pleasant task to do so. He gave us a speech of very considerable style. He touched on a number of questions with wit and knowledge, and he was particularly interesting on the subject of planning. He made most magnanimous references to his predecessor. Altogether, it was a most distinguished performance. I congratulate him most warmly upon it, and I am sure that everyone
    916
    in the House will look forward to hearing him often again.
    The most striking thing about the Labour Government so far is the tremendous effort that the Prime Minister has made to conciliate every shade of opinion in his own party while utterly neglecting the opinions, susceptibilities and interests of our friends abroad. The late Aneurin Bevan, in a famous and striking phrase, said that Socialism was the language of priorities. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be able to speak it. At any rate, he has shown an extraordinary defective sense of priorities so far.
    The so-called "Brown Paper" and the double-talk act of the First Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were astonishing performances, because they neglected Britain's interest in preserving good relations with our friends in E.F.T.A. and the Common Market countries. They broke a whole string of agreements without consultation and they gratuitously provoked a row with France over the Concord. Surely a little forethought, it would not even have needed planning, should have been enough to convince them that it was a mistake to mention the Concord in the White Paper, and a little premeditation would have told them that some of their 15 per cent. duties were bound to do more harm than good.
    For instance, in the shoe industry, with which I am particularly concerned from the point of view of my constituency, the Government have put a surcharge on dressed leather of all types. One-quarter of the leather used to make shoe uppers comes from abroad and this material is quite unusable in itself until it is converted by manufacture. Moreover, it would have needed very little inquiry for the Government to discover that this material is accepted within E.F.T.A. as a basic raw material for the footwear industry. However, they did not find this out, and the surcharge has also been applied to other materials in the shoe industry, with the only possible result that prices will be put up and the export industry will be hurt.
    Quite as remarkable as the Prime Minister's forgetfulness of our friends abroad is the extraordinary assiduity with which he has placated all his opponents in his party. We have heard so much

    917
    and for so long about his mastery of his party and his dominance of it that it comes as quite a shock to find that this is quite untrue. It is quite inconceivable that he would have made some of his choices for his Cabinet had he not felt compelled to do so.
    I can never see much resemblance between the Prime Minister and Napoleon, but in view of all the talk of the 100 days that we have had, I thought it might be of some interest to see what Napoleon said during the first quarter of his 100 days. Napoleon said:
    "I am being pushed into a path that is not mine. I am being weakened and bound hand and foot."
    That does bear some resemblance to the right hon. Gentleman. Quite contrary to expectation, he has been bound hand and foot both in his appointments and in his policy. In his appointments, he has been reduced to forming a Cabinet, many of whom embody the uniquely unfortunate combination of old age and inexperience; and in his policy he has been driven over on to the far left-hand side of the road. And we find, at the end of the day, after all the talk of "Let's Go With Labour", and youth and getting things done, that the scientific revolution is going to be forged in the white heat of the seniority principle and Mr. Frank Cousins.
    So we have a situation whereby we have the smallest majority for years and the largest Government there has ever been. Never in British history has there been such a rolling out of the pork barrel. We should have to go back to the early days of American history to find such a bonanza of jobs. The right hon. Gentleman has gone so far—eventually something like half the party opposite will be included in the Government in one shape or form—that I am only surprised at his moderation and that he has not given a job to every single Member of the party opposite. Both expediency and logic would seem to indicate that course, which the right hon. Gentleman could then describe as a state of full employment. It would also remove any fears about the loss of his majority.
    Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman might go further. Why restrict himself to the living? One of the kings of Naples, Ferdinand II, King Bomba, put St. Ignatius Loyola on his staff as an honorary field-marshal hundreds of years
    918
    after his death. One wonders why the right hon. Gentleman did not put some of his patron saints of Labour similarly into his Government. They would certainly have felt very much at home. Keir Hardie, I think, would be the obvious choice as Minister of State for Technology, and John Morley might have been Minister of State for Disarmament. I know that John Morley was a Liberal but I am sure that he would have joined the Labour Party on the day that he was appointed.
    The Prime Minister's jobs spree has of course not ended there. He has been equally generous outside. There has been a lot of talk about Doctors Balogh and Kaldor. Before he joined the Civil Service which he now adorns Dr. Balogh wrote a searing and able attack on the Civil Service which he sub-titled, "The Establishment of Mandarins." Now evidently it has been "The Establishment of Magyars". We must be fair to Dr. Balogh. In his case there is no definite straightforward empirical evidence, as there is with Dr. Kaldor, that he has the capacity actually to wreck the economy of a country. We shall have to wait and see whether he has it in him. There are other odd appointments. The Foreign Secretary has appointed a personal Press Officer. It is difficult to see that that is altogether necessary.
    The Prime Minister has been forced to establish a Left-wing strategy which has been reflected in his appointments, in his language about my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths), and in his policy particularly about the nationalisation of the steel industry. I do not want to enter into the arguments of yesterday, but I want to take up one sentence in the speech of the Minister of Power. I gave him notice and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being here.
    Six years ago the Spectator set up an independent inquiry into the steel industry under the very distinguished chairmanship of Warden Chester of Nuffield College. This was a totally impartial body and it produced a long report. [An HON. MEMBER: "Impartial?"] Warden Chester was the academic mentor of Lord Morrison and I should not have thought that, anyway, he was prejudiced in the Conservative direction. This report was very long and interesting but the solution which it recommended was contained in only 34

    919
    lines and was not very complicated. However, the Minister of Power said yesterday, referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod):
    "I do not know whether he has looked back at the opinion of the Spectator in 1958, when it held an inquiry into steel and decided that there was a case for a large percentage of the industry to be nationalised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1964; Vol. 701, c. 675.]
    There are two gross inaccuracies in that sentence, but unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman did not give way to be corrected and when he was corrected he did not withdraw.
    The right hon. Gentleman's first inaccuracy was that, contrary to what he said, the inquiry did not suggest that any part of the steel industry should be nationalised. What the inquiry suggested was that that part which was already nationalised should remain nationalised. The second inaccuracy was that the inquiry said that only one-tenth of the industry should remain nationalised. This by no stretch of imagination could be considered as a large percentage.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Frederick Lee): I should have thought from the argument of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), with the support of his party, that 10 per cent. was a huge percentage.
    Mr. Gilmour: It is going to be difficult for those who are going to negotiate with the right hon. Gentleman if he has such a view of figures. He had no cause for error because he sent a messenger to the Spectator office yesterday for the relevant issue and was kind enough to pay for it.
    Mr. Lee: I think that that was the only period when the paper was worth buying.
    Mr. Gilmour: I must take that as a compliment since I was then editing it.
    The Prime Minister has chosen to ignore the Parliamentary situation which demanded a centreist strategy. He has abandoned the centre for a Left-wing approach. This is bad for the country but it is good for the Conservative Party, because the Conservative Party is the party of the centre. The Liberal Party sometimes claims to be the party of the centre, but it is quite plain now that it is the party of the extremities. One of
    920
    the winning Liberal candidates for membership of Parliament said that it "is all now Liberal country from Muckle Flugga to Ballachulish". That summarises the Liberal situation. By moving from the centre, the true dominating ground of British politics, the Prime Minister has ensured a bad spell of Government for this country, but he has ensured that it will be short, because in this country, as in America, the centre nearly always wins. And we on these benches are the centre.
    7.35 p.m.
    Mr. Robert L. Howarth: I hope that my first address to the House will neither offend nor bore my listeners. There are certain conventions which I do not wish to break, and I start, therefore, by referring to my constituency, Bolton. It is a little difficult, as I represent only half of Bolton, to be able to make order in my speech, but I have, with the agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), undertaken to talk of Bolton as one town, as indeed it is, allowing him to take the same liberty on the occasion of his first address to the House.
    Bolton is one of our largest county boroughs. It is in the centre of Lancashire, with very attractive moorland to the north and west of the town, and with a long and proud history inextricably woven with our country's industrial history, especially the rise and decline of the cotton textile industry.
    Bolton was the very centre of fine spinning and medium weight weaving. It was the birthplace of Samuel Crompton, inventor of the first effective spinning machine, the machine which laid the basis for the establishment in Lancashire of our great textile industry.
    Bolton also saw the establishment of some important trade unions and has often contributed leaders to the industrial and political movement. Equally, I am proud that, just 100 years ago, the Bolton textile operatives accepted great sacrifies and real hunger by their outspoken support for the Republican side in the American Civil War when it blockaded the Southern ports and prevented raw cotton coming to Lancashire.
    My constituency's prosperous peak coincided, of course, with the zenith of the cotton industry in the early years of this century when Lancashire, literally,

    921
    supplied the world with yarn and cloth, a situation, best summed up by a previous Member of the House, fortunately still with us, who recounted the story of his entry into the cotton industry nearly 60 years ago as a half-timer, when, as he said, they set the spinning mules going on Monday morning at 6 o'clock and, by the time they had run during Monday and reached Tuesday lunchtime, they had supplied all Britain's needs, and the remainder of the week's output could be exported to the rest of the world.
    What a contrast with the position today. Over the past 20 years, hundreds of textile mills have been closed. Hundreds of thousands of textile workers have been forced out of the industry, very many of them receiving most shabby treatment, almost inhuman treatment, by any decent standards, even under the belated modernisation scheme of about five years ago, when, to my mind at least, it appeared that more emphasis was placed on the satisfactory scrapping of machinery than on the human needs of the operatives unfortunately involved. That Measure has not solved the cotton industry's problem.
    I know of men and women, often in their late fifties or early sixties, who were thrown out of work in recent years and who received the derisory sum of something approaching £1 per year of service in the textile industry£50 for 50 years service—and this for people with no chance of finding alternative employment, except if they were lucky in being able to take up low-paid labouring occupations.
    The flood of low-cost cotton imports, many of them subject to little or no control, reduced this once proud industry to a shadow of its former self. I trust that the new Government will, at an early date, give special attention to the cotton textile industry. I believe that, with a fully modernised, efficient, well-trained and fashion-conscious cotton industry, we could win a major share of both the home and the export market.
    My constituency now has twin pillars to its economy. Cotton shares pride of place with engineering, in its many forms, some new and some old established, constructional engineering, machine tools, textile machinery, general
    922
    engineering and aircraft manufacture. I speak with some experience of aircraft manufacture as only recently I terminated my employment as a technician with a large aircraft and missile manufacturing plant within my constituency.
    I take this opportunity, since the subject was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), to make a brief comment upon the question of the Concord. To suggest that this remarkable agreement with France, an open-ended agreement, to build a supersonic transport aircraft, which has already doubled its estimated cost within two years and shows no guarantee that we have reached the final cost by any means, should not be reviewed I find hard to understand. But I wish to make clear, nevertheless, that I hope that the project will continue. It seems to me inevitable that we shall have supersonic aircraft, and I do not doubt that, possibly 10 years from now at least, there will be people in this House able to travel at speeds faster than sound. But whether at this time we have in the British aircraft industry the experience and the technical know how to build an economically viable aircraft is, I believe, open to reasonable doubt.
    The problem of the sonic boom is causing great concern to as knowledgeable a body as the United States agency interested in the problem. This American agency has gone to a great deal of trouble with experiments, and it does not seem to have found any real answer. As the House knows, the Americans have had much greater experience with supersonic aircraft than we have, and it is significant, to my mind, that they are moving with great caution. I advise the House to remember our unhappy experience with the Comet I. We took a great leap forward there, greater than we should have done, and we paid the penalty.
    I find it hard to understand those who say that to delay or even to cancel the Concord project would damage the British aircraft industry when, presumably, there are among them people who accepted the order for Macdonald Phantom fighter aircraft for the British Navy, at the cost of millions of precious

    923
    dollars, or the purchase of many expensive missiles and foreign-produced helicopters for our Army, and so forth. If there is one industry on which the previous Government's record was abysmally weak, it is, I believe, the aircraft industry. Convention prohibits me from developing the point further, but I hope to do so on a later occasion.
    There is one issue about which I wish particularly to speak in my first address to the House, an issue on which, I imagine, there is almost unanimous agreement. I refer to the conditions borne by our old-age pensioners and by certain classes of widow. This was one issue universally raised at every meeting at the recent hustings in my constituency. I speak with real feeling on the subject. In 1938, my mother became a 10s. widow. When, after many years of unemployment, my father died in that year, my mother was left to rear two children, my sister and me, and she had to manage on the munificent sum of 10s. Not long ago, she retired on the retirement pension, which is now £3 7s. 6d. a week. after working for years in the food industry, modestly paid, with no means of paying into a pension scheme. Therefore, when people talk of the 10s. widow and the struggle of old people to make ends meet, I, at least, know what they mean. I know something of what life actually involves for millions of our citizens today. I welcome the undertaking in the Gracious Speech to bring forward at an early date proposals to ameliorate the present hard lot of these people. This I regard as a matter of the utmost urgency.
    I thank the House for its courtesy in listening to me and I look forward to being able now to enter more fully into its proceedings.
    7.45 p.m.
    Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: The traditional six days' debate on the Queen's Speech is now drawing to a close. All of us, wherever we sit, have particularly enjoyed the very high standard of maiden speeches made during the course of the debate by hon. Members on both sides.
    There falls to me the happy task of congratulating the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) on the contribution that he has just made. If I may say so, I envied the fluency and
    924
    the clarity with which he spoke. It was perfectly plain to everyone that he had not only the interests but the problems of his own constituency very much at heart and knew a great deal about them. As the House always listens to any hon. Member who knows what he is talking about, particularly from first-hand experience, I am sure that all hon. Members will join with me in saying that we look forward to further interventions from the hon. Member.
    It has happened frequently before that policies laid down and principles expressed in the Gracious Speech have not always been fully implemented by subsequent legislation. Rarely, if ever before, I think, have particular policies and principles been ignored or contradicted with such speed as they have been ignored and contradicted in certain respects by this Government. On some issues, indeed, they were contradicted almost before the ink was dry.
    The last paragraph on page 2 of the Gracious Speech as printed reads:
    "My Government will continue to play a full part in the European organisations of which this country is a member and will seek to promote closer European co-operation."
    Anyone reading that paragraph might well be forgiven for thinking that the rays of the Socialist sun would shine with great warmth upon those whom the Prime Minister calls our friends in Europe.
    What happened, in fact? By the very ham-fisted way in which the 15 per cent. surcharge has been put on, which was against the spirit and the letter of G.A.T.T., E.F.T.A. and the Irish Agreement, and certainly against the spirit of the Kennedy Round, so far from the Socialist sun shining warmly upon our friends in Europe, if it shines at all it is very watery indeed.
    The way the Government have played the hand has caused the utmost resentment and a great deal of ill-feeling. I am not surprised. But my fear is this. If the 15 per cent. surcharge is only a very temporary measure, I very much doubt whether it will do the trick. On the other hand, if it is to be kept on longer than a very temporary period, I am afraid that we of all countries are the most vulnerable to very damaging retaliation.
    In this context, I must say a word about the Concord. It is not only what

    925
    was done, but how it was done that has caused the damage. Politically, the Government's handling of the Concord project with the French Government has damaged the one firm Anglo-French bridge of co-operation erected since the breakdown of the Common Market negotiations. It has thoroughly soured the atmosphere. It has engendered a great deal of suspicion, not only by the French, but, I am afraid, by other counttries in Europe, and it may well make any future commercial or other venture upon an Anglo-French basis extremely difficult. This seems to me to be the political effect of what the Government have done. I do not think I need stress the importance of Anglo-French relations in terms of N.A.T.O. or in any other direction in relation to Europe today.
    In terms of economics and technology, what has been the result? The Government seem to be in danger of opting out of the one field of technology in which we had the lead over the Americans. We had achieved a break-through, and unless one is in the forefront in this sort of field, I do not believe that one is in the field at all. When I read, on page 3 of the Gracious Speech, that
    "Our industries will be helped to gain the full benefits of advances in scientific research and applied technology",
    in the context of what has been happening about the Concord and of the uncertainty and suspicion engendered, that sentence seems absolutely meaningless. So are all the speeches we heard during the General Election campaign about the need to get ahead in technology, the break-through, the brain drain, and so on, since the cream of the brains in the aircraft industry have been engaged for eight years in this joint project, I wonder what will happen to them now.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: Surely what the hon. Gentleman is saying is valid only if one does not replace the Concord by an alternative project to give equal scope to the talents and abilities of the technologists in the industry.
    Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Yes, but I listened to the whole debate when this was discussed last week and I got the impression that the Government were likely to haver so long that the Americans were rubbing their hands together and thinking
    926
    that here, at long last, was a chance, which they have not had before, of being able to catch up. I believe timing is the essence in this. We cannot dilly-dally any longer, because we are here engaged on a joint experiment which cannot be delayed very much longer.
    I must say a word about exports. In his maiden speech last week the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) made the somewhat novel suggestion in relation to the need to step up exports that British ambassadors should be judged by whether or not British exports to the country to which they were accredited increased or decreased. There may be something in this, but I do not think that that would be anywhere near the only yardstick. However, I must point out, particularly to Ministers, that it is not the fault of our Ambassador in Madrid that buyers of naval equipment for Spain are in Paris and America and not London. It is not the fault of our Ambassador in Paris that aircraft firms in France are looking for supplies other than from the United Kingdom and it is not the fault of our Ambassador in South Africa that the manufacturers of the Buccaneer are waiting to learn whether their contract is to be endangered in much the same way as seems to be the case with the Concord.
    While I am on the subject, the shipbuilders engaged on Polaris are waiting for a coherent statement about its future, which affects their employment. I repeat that the aircraft industry in California is rubbing its hands together in glee because it thinks that, at long last, the Government will hesitate long enough to enable it to make up the ground it has lost.
    So we have the paradox that, while the President of the Board of Trade goes to China presumably to break into new markets, his colleagues left here are doing their very best to destroy the markets which they could already be in. In short, the new Government's priorities are very strange.
    Frankly, nationalisation of steel is totally and absolutely irrelevant to the requirements of Britain in 1964.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that when new management takes over a business which is losing at the rate of more than £1 million a day it has got to do

    927
    something to get out of the mess that has been left and ascertain which of its unremunerative efforts it must cancel?
    Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I do not regard the nationalisation of steel as being anything more than purely a doctrinal attempt by the Labour Party to square a number of circles and keep going on with out-of-date policies which bear no relation to the requirements of today. Nothing said in the debate on steel yesterday carried any conviction, to my mind, that there was anything seriously wrong with the steel industry, certainly anything which could be put right by nationalisation. We have had no explanation from the Government of what they mean by nationalisation of the steel industry. If this is to be one of the early pieces of legislation that the Government bring in, it is a clear indication that their priorities are haywire.
    The principle that one should practice oneself what one preaches to others is not a bad one. I find it difficult to square up the freeze applied to office buildings in London, which may, in certain circumstances be wise, with the proliferation of new Government Departments and Ministries in order to house an enormous number of new Ministers, two of whom so far are not yet in either this House or another place.
    The truth of the matter is—we have heard it today, and, in particular, in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)—that the Government are about to incur as top priority a very heavy expenditure on social services in relation to pensions improvements and abolition of the prescription charge. This may well be a good thing, but I must point out that it is simply taking out a mortgage upon the future earning capacity of the country.
    What we and many other people are waiting to discover is whether in any practical terms the new Government have any ideas about how to increase the nation's wealth, efficiency and prosperity. Up till now, on the basis of the priorities which have been shown, all that we have had are some singularly ill-thought-out proposals and some singularly inept handling which, so far from being likely to increase the nation's wealth, seem much more likely to decrease it.
    7.59 p.m.
    Mr. Maurice Orbach: I am aware that as a person who has had five years of enforced silence, being prevented from speaking in this House, I cannot crave the indulgence of the House. Yet I speak as one of the Members for Stockport in a virginal capacity because, as far as I am aware, for a decade or more no Member representing that town has ever spoken from these benches or the benches opposite, even to the extent of tabling a Question on the Order Paper and reading out a number. So I ask for the privilege of discussing my constituency for more than a moment or two.
    Stockport is an industrial town and came into existence largely as a result of the Industrial Revolution. I am informed that the first use of power in driving machinery was in Stockport and that the first factory where such machinery was used still exists and is being used by one of the most modern of our industrial organisations. It might be a good idea if that factory were made into an industrial museum. But I do not want to talk about industry, nor follow the speech of the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) because the arguments he put forward have already been dealt with adequately by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    I want to discuss one or two things which have not been touched on, by and large, so far in the debate. First, I want to refer to the fact that, if we have in use in Stockport factories that were being used well over 100 years ago, we also have hospitals in the town which were in use during the Crimean War and should have been demolished and replaced long ago.
    That situation recalls to me the first statement made by the hon. Member for Windsor. He said that the Government, in the presentation of their case in the last week or so, had been guilty of overthrowing more pledges than any previous Government. I draw his attention to the fact that I have with me a schedule of the rebuilding of hospitals that was supposed to take place in the Stockport area arising from the hospital plan introduced by his Government with a great flourish of trumpets.
    I think that I can speak about hospitals and health with a little authority.

    929
    At various times I have been chairman of hospitals in the London area. My last chairmanship was terminated only in March, when I was succeeded by someone appointed by the last Government, after I had served 12 years with one of the most up-to-date district hospitals, the Central Middlesex Hospital. I have already had an appeal from my old friends there to intervene on their behalf in order to get some rebuilding done, but I have refrained from doing so because I have now discovered, as a Member for Stockport and as one who has spent two years in the town, how the country is divided into two nations and how superior the Central Middlesex Hospital is to the hospitals that people have to go in the northern part of our country.
    There are four hospitals in Stockport—one for infectious diseases, another for geriatrics and the others for general surgical or medical care. I must say to the House, as I have said to my constituents, that I have visited hospitals from here to Peking, Australia and the United States and have reported upon them for the lay hospital Press, but that I have never seen anything—apart from one at Carabanchel Prison Hospital, near Madrid,—as bad as one of the hospitals in Stockport.
    In Stockport, I found a hospital, in the year 1964, where one ward accommodated 72 people with two nurses trying to look after old, incontinent patients. In London, we get extremely annoyed when there are 30 or more patients to a ward but I have never known of 72 patients having to be accommodated in one ward.
    When I inquired into the state of the hospital services in Stockport I found that there were 6,000 persons on the waiting list. That perhaps does not sound very much but in a population of 150,000 it means that 12 per cent. of all the families in the town are affected by the fact that a member of each needs medical or surgical attention but cannot get it without waiting much too long.
    Visiting the hospitals, I inquired from patients how long they had been on the waiting list. I found young men with hernias and ladies with varicose veins who had been on the waiting list for as long as three years. We
    930
    would never tolerate that sort of thing in the South. I hope that we will not tolerate it any more in the North.
    I also found, however, that the waiting list is not a clear indication of how many people really need medical care because, in addition to the waiting list of people to enter hospital, there is a waiting list, sometimes amounting to three months, before a patient sent by a general practitioner can see a consultant. This means, of course, that many people may be suffering from aggravated illness, acute illness or may need immediate attention through an operation but are not seen because of lack of consultant attention. The reason is clear. There is not a single consultant in the town who is full-time. They are all on part-time, doing one, two or three sessions a week instead of the eleven sessions Aneurin Bevan hoped they would take up.
    I lay no blame for this state of affairs on the managements of these hospitals. The Stockport Infirmary—the very use of the name "infirmary" frightens me—St. Thomas's, Stepping Hill and Cherry Tree Hospitals are the other hospitals in the area. They have done their very best within the powers they have to improve accommodation and step up the intake of patients. But they have been prevented from doing that, first by a regional board which is rather dogmatic in its outlook and, secondly, by a Ministry of Health which, until recently, was completely ruled by the Treasury.
    It is significant that, in recent years, almost all over the country there has been a change of chairmen, deputy chairmen and other personnel in the 14 regional boards and among those who give direction to the boards.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend the new Minister of Health will do his best in the coming months, particularly next March when the opportunity arises, to change the personnel of these regional boards so that they are more representative of the country, of the districts they are supposed to cater for, and of the people in the Health Service itself.
    The Gracious Speech makes it clear that the Bill presented to the House on nine occasions by my old friend Fenner Brockway will be brought in as a Government Measure in due course and that racial discrimination in public places will

    931
    then no longer be considered as other than an offence against the State, as it has always been an offence against good taste. I do not think that racial discrimination will fade completely out of the picture because we pass a law to prevent it in public places but, of course, the whole process of arguing the Measure in this House, and the publicity it will receive, is part of the educative process of getting those of our people who have been tainted, to some extent, by racial hatred to an acceptance and mutual understanding of people of different ethnic origins.
    I regret that, in the Gracious Speech, there is no mention of a Bill which might make incitement to racial hatred an offence. This has taken place on frequent occasions and the House has been disturbed because gangs of people have set out to disturb quite innocent citizens of this country or people who have come from the Commonwealth. We have tried in various ways, by the imposition of higher penalties, to prevent this recurring. I hope that at some time the Government will consider introducing such a Bill and that it will be passed.
    Lastly, I welcome the statement in the Gracious Speech about the introduction of a Parliamentary Commissioner. I have great faith in the idea that an Ombudsman might accomplish a great deal in conjunction with Parliamentary representatives in giving the little man an opportunity in this society of ours. Too many people get kicked around. For instance, people who go to the National Assistance Board frequently find that the person they meet behind the desk apparently believes that he is handing out money from his own pocket, treating the person who has a perfect right to make the application as though he were asking for charity. This has caused a great deal of concern.
    Two cases have been presented to me only this week. One concerns an unfortunate person who works Saturdays and Sundays for a parks department and receives £3 a week and cannot receive unemployment benefit and who therefore has had to go to the National Assistance Board. He was told that the Board could not help him because he was in employment and that, because his wife had received some money recently, he could not get any help until that money was
    932
    completely absorbed. His colleague, in exactly the same position except that he has no wife who has received money, is now afraid to go to the Board because of the treatment meted out to his colleague.
    We have to get rid of that sort of petty officialdom. I do not say that all petty officials are included in that. I make no generalisation, but there are certain petty officials who treat certain members of the public, especially the humbler, in the most unconscionable manner, and the Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner, might be a useful addition to the democratic methods which we have accepted within our society from time to time.
    8.12 p.m.
    Mr. H. P. G. Channon: This is the first time that I have had the pleasure of hearing the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach), although I was in Parliament with him some time ago for a few short months. I was sorry to hear his description of the experience of his constituents with the National Assistance Board. I very much hope that he will find that they were isolated cases, because in my dealings with the Board I have found its officials nothing but courteous and helpful to people in distress. It was pleasant to hear the hon. Member and we shall look forward to hearing him again on many occasions.
    I do not want to take much time, because I know that others wish to speak and this great debate is coming to an end in a short time. For six days, the brave new Socialist world has been outlined to us. Speaking as a young Member of the House, I do not find it a prospect which particularly enlivens me. One depressing thing about the state of politics in the country at the moment is that we always seem to be ruled by the Scots and Welsh. If it had not been for the Scottish and Welsh votes at the General Election, a Conservative Government would have been returned with a very respectable majority. I hope that my right hon. Friends will seriously consider the point of view of the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, because it would be of immeasurable benefit to the English race if they should achieve the aims for which they have been campaigning.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Would the hon. Gentleman extend that to Northern Ireland, because we could do without some of those Members?
    Mr. Channon: I have the greatest respect for my Northern Irish colleagues, but I willingly accept that, if even if Northern Ireland were excluded, as the hon. Gentleman would wish, we would still have a large working majority. I hope that he will join me in the Lobbies about that some time.
    I would have thought that having a Socialist Government with such a small majority, we as an Opposition, and the country as a whole, would have been entitled to expect a period of moderate, sensible, middle-of-the-road Government, but that is not to be. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who is entitled to take this decision, which I hope he will regret, has decided to press ahead with every item of controversial Left-wing legislation that he possibly can. I see that some hon. Members opposite are in favour of that, but I am not sure that all their colleagues are.
    The right hon. Gentleman's first action as Prime Minister was to bring into the Government Mr. Cousins, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the Minister of Overseas Development. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is in the Government to bring some sane influence to bear on his colleagues. It must certainly make Cabinet meetings enjoyable occasions with wide divergencies of opinion around the table. The Prime Minister himself—and as a young man I welcome this—is the youngest Prime Minister we have had since the noble Lord, Lord Rosebery. I wish him as long a tenure of office.
    Having completed his preliminary appointments, we heard from the right hon. Gentleman not, "We are the masters now", but "We are the Government now". "We are the masters now", perhaps, has a special meaning in view of Lord Snow's appearance in the Government. I am sure that the one sector of the population which is so far delighted with the Prime Minister's actions is the Assistant Whips and the many members of the party opposite who have been found jobs, but who would not have been found jobs in previous Administrations.
    934
    I shall be interested to see—and I hope that it will be made clear to us in due time—how many extra civil servants will be needed to cope with this flood of new Ministries. I shall be interested to see how many extra civil servants are needed if steel nationalisation goes through and how many will be needed to administer the Crown Land Commission, should that go through. I was glad to hear from the Secretary of State for Scotland last night that the Government will take their time about the nationalisation of steel. That at least gives us some encouragement.
    However, I was sorry that the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster himself was not prepared today to give us more details about the Crown Lands Commission. During the election, we heard a great deal about it. My own view and that expressed forcefully by many of my colleagues is that it is much more likely to dry up the supply of land and thereby make houses less likely to be available than at present. However, if the Government are determined that we are wrong about this, I wish that they would come forward and give us their views. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) quoted the Economist when he said that intelligent members of the Socialist Party knew that the idea of the Commission was wrong. I believe, as Senator Barry Goldwater would say, that even the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows in his heart that he is wrong about the Crown Lands Commission.
    What of the future? Will the Ministry of Housing and Local Government or the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources be responsible for planning appeals? We were told that one Minister was to be responsible but then we were told the reverse. I hope that in a few days the Government will give us a clear definition of the rôle of the Ministry of Land, what Ministry is to be responsible in future for planning appeals and what shape the Crown Lands Commission is likely to have.
    I hope that I am being fair when say that during the first three weeks of this glorious period of one hundred days which we have been promised, the Socialist Government have achieved the following things; first, in spite of the Prime Minister's pledge to reduce the

    935
    size of the Cabinet, we have the same sized Cabinet as before, a size which the Prime Minister himself has thought to be unwieldy; secondly, we have included in that Cabinet men whose views are very divergent from many of those of their colleagues, men whose views I do not share and, I suspect, men whose views are not shared by some of their colleagues; thirdly, we managed to achieve on the first day of the debate on the Queen's Speech a continuation of the election atmosphere because of a taunt by the Prime Minister, which was very sad for the first day of the working of this Parliament.
    Immigration was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockport, South. It is an issue which will seriously concern both sides of the House in this Parliament. There are differences of opinion on both sides, but by and large there is general underlying agreement among most hon. Members about immigration issues. However, although it may be presumptuous for a young Member to say so, I cannot believe that these matters will be improved if we have taunts of that sort thrown about the House by leading members of the Government. I hope that we will debate the immigration issues on the facts, as we must, and in a calm atmosphere if that is possible. I believe that inflammatory remarks such as that do nothing more than increase the risks of racial hatred in this country, and that is something which I deplore.
    Another thing which I deplore about the Government is that in a very short time they have managed to create chaos in the aircraft industry by, as far as we can gather, going back on the Concord project. I criticise not only the merits of the decision to go back on the project, but the way in which it was done. I should have thought that it was the most tactless way to cancel this project just to mention it in a White Paper and give the French Government hardly any notice whatsoever of it. Surely that is not the way for the Government of Great Britain to behave towards their allies?
    The way in which we treated our allies with regard to the import surcharges is another example of the tactless way in which the Socialist Government have tried to infuriate them. I hope that this sort of behaviour will not continue. It
    936
    was not unjustified when some of my hon. Friends interrupted a Socialist Minister when he talked about our friends in Europe, because if we go on at the present rate it is unlikely that we shall have any friends left there. I should have liked to have been a fly on the wall when talks were held with the Danish Prime Minister the other day.
    In my constituency, for example, the effect of the imports surcharge on one type of imported yarn which is not available in Great Britain has been very bad. A firm which imports this yarn is committed by contracts to supply finished goods at fixed prices. These contracts were made for some months ahead, and the firm is now faced with bankruptcy as a result of this temporary import surcharge.
    One of the difficulties about this surcharge is the use of the word "temporary". A lot of people will hold back on orders because they do not know how long the surcharge will last. I hope that the Government will feel able to tell us how long "temporary" is likely to be.
    The Government said in their manifesto, and have made many speeches to the same effect, that they wish to encourage science and technology. I am sorry that by their actions they have set out, not to reduce the brain drain, but to increase it, because I cannot believe that scientists in this country will be anything but appalled at the action taken with regard to the Concord and by the action taken with regard to the Beeching Plan. I do not think that the way to modernise our country is to wrap us up in cocoons of cotton wool. Any attempt at modernisation which the Conservatives have tried to carry out during the past years is at risk of being threatened by the Socialist Government in their present state of mind.
    We should make Great Britain a more competitive country. We should try to modernise Britain. We should not be complacent about the present state of affairs, but I do not think that the way to make Britain more competitive is to impose temporary import surcharges and to cut the Beeching Plan. I do not believe in a Government which breaks its word. I think that we have broken our word by imposing these import

    937
    charges, and that we have behaved in an infuriating manner with regard to the Concord project.
    The Socialists say that we have lagged behind other countries in making progress over the past years. I do not accept that argument. Which country has attained a better standard of living and a better life than Great Britain over the past few years? I do not think that those standards have been achieved in countries which have practised Socialism. I do not think that even Sweden, which we hear referred to by right hon. Gentlemen opposite as a model example, has achieved what it has done without dropping a great deal of Socialist dogma. Comparable standards have perhaps been achieved in the United States, in France, in West Germany, to some extent Italy, and in the European countries where they believe in free enterprise and where they have encouraged it.
    I hope that the Socialist Government, if they continue in office, which I hope will not be for too long, will not allow the dead hand of Socialism to cripple the initiative and enterprise of the British people. That is why I shall be glad to vote for the Amendment so ably moved this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.
    8.25 p.m.
    Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I should like to indicate what the Liberal Party's intentions are towards this Amendment. I have not been outside the building since noon, but I understand that the fog is fairly widespread. Therefore, it might be convenient—
    Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I do not wish to challenge your right to choose speakers, but is it not customary to choose one speaker from each side in turn? My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) and I stood up, but we were not noticed.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): The hon. Member is quite right. He must not challenge my selection. I only say that there is a middle as well as both sides.
    Mr. Thorpe: Knowing, as I do, that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as I can.
    938
    We intend to vote to defeat the Amendment, and I hope that the arguments which I shall marshal will ensure that we have a majority for that proposition when we go into the Division Lobbies later tonight.
    Mr. H. Hynd: We will support the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Thorpe: That is very encouraging. The hon. Member does me the credit of pledging his support even before he has heard my arguments. That is the highest compliment of all.
    The interesting thing about today's debate is that the right hon. Member for Kington-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who moved the Amendment, never addressed himself to its content. The Amendment says that the effect of the Government's proposals will jeopardise
    "programmes of modernisation already set in train."
    It presupposes that there were modernisation programmes set in train. Of all the branch line arguments, this is one that is waiting to be axed.
    The Opposition go on to judge the Government within three weeks of their taking office. What modernisation have the Tory Opposition particularly in mind which they think will be so impaired by Her Majesty's Government? We know about steel. We voted with the Opposition last night on that subject. The Lands Commission is another aspect at which one will have to look carefully, and similarly with the Rent Act, but what specific measures for modernisation have the Opposition in mind?
    We know the present modernisation to which members of the Tory Party are addressing their minds—the method of electing their leader. That is a method which finds its equivalent in the method used for selecting the Dalai Lama. In Tibet the priests gather together and then go out to scour the country. They take opinions, and then wait for inspiration. Suddenly, they launch out and pounce on an unsuspecting person, who thereafter becomes one of the priestly class and is consecrated. We know that that is the modernisation to which the Tory Party is addressing itself at the moment. The election of a leader by tribal enstoolment may still give way

    939
    to the secret ballot, and we know, as the South African Government have told us, that those who are detribalised are subject to stresses and strains.
    What other programmes of modernisation are they worried about being impaired? Is it their record on law reform during the 13 years when they were in office, during which they ignored the Jenkins Report on Company Law? Is that in danger? During their term of office the Royal Commission's Report on Marriage and Divorce and the Franks Report were watered down out of recognition. Are they in jeopardy? They had not the courage to bring in the first half of the Wolfenden Report. Do they think that those measures are being impaired? Do they think that their radical programme for prison reform is being impaired? Do they think that the move to abolish the death penalty by a free vote of the House will undermine the Homicide Act, one of the most ghastly compromises which has ever been put on to the Statute Book? The only progress which the Tory Government made in law reform was, "When in doubt appoint a judge, arid when you disagree with him impugn his integrity".
    Do they think that their proposed modernisation of Parliamentary reform will be impaired? Do they think that the Life Peerages Act, by which the hereditary peer was perpetuated and the Tory benches were packed, was an act of modernisation which will be impaired? Do they regard as radical the turning of peers into commoners? As we know from the election, some are more common than others. Do they regard as conspicuous in their modernisation plan their reform of the procedure of the House of Commons? They utterly rejected the Report of the 1959 Select Committee on Procedure, relating to the appointing of special Standing Committees, and the curbing of the rights of speech of Privy Councillors.
    We had to wait until the last Prime Minister had come from the Lords before the Tory Party even had the courage to take up the question of payment to M.P.s. Three times did I have the doubtful privilege of waiting upon Mr. Macmillan as a member of an all-party
    940
    deputation, and three times were we turned down because the moment was not ripe. The only improvement to the status of Members of Parliament made by the Tory Party when in power was to see that one-third of the Tories became knights, baronets or dames.
    Do they think that their plans for radical development will be impaired when, after 13 years of government, they produced a plan for the North-East and parts of Scotland not to help forward regional planning but as a desperate attempt to grapple with unemployment? I was astonished to see the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann)—to whom I have given notice—arrive in the Chamber to take an Adjournment debate last week and to plead for the need for regional development in the South-West when he himself, from the Government Dispatch Box, told the former Member for Dorset, West that this was not practical during the lifetime of the Parliament in which he was a Minister.
    To see the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) brought like a carted Exmoor stag to sit on the Front Bench, when all he had contributed in 12 or 13 years was to be the only senior Minister to look at the problem of unemployment in the South-West, made one think that he was introduced no doubt to add gaiety to the proceedings. We know, particularly in the West Country, what regional development has meant. In my division it has meant that we have an area scheduled under the Local Unemployment Act ever since its introduction and that the number of jobs produced by this modernised form of Tory government for that area has been precisely nil.
    The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr. Channon) asked about the Beeching Report. That is a sort of virility symbol for Tory Members of Parliament—either they are for Beeching, and, therefore, "with it", or they are old fuddy-duddies. When a modern building is erected, one would think that it is necessary to be satisfied about the foundations on which it is built. Secondly, it is necessary to decide the purpose to which the building will be put. In my division I have a railway line which runs to an area of high unemployment. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) also has a railway line which runs into his

    941
    division from mine to another area of high unemployment.
    One would think that railway lines were of some importance in attracting industry, but what happens? The Beeching Plan recommends that both these branch lines be closed and at the moment the T.U.C.C. is sitting to consider that action. It is no use having one Minister who is prepared to pump red blood into an area if another Minister is proposing to cut the artery by which the blood is conveyed. That is why I welcome the statement made by the Minister of Transport that he is not proposing to take any decision unless he has a rational framework in which to operate the plan.
    Mr. Archie Manuel: Has not the Liberal Party a poor record when it comes to talking about the Beeching Report? Did it not vote against the Beeching Report and for the 1962 Transport Act which stemmed from the Report?
    Mr. Thorpe: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will remember a very eloquent and powerful speech that was made by myself at the time when the Beeching Report was presented. I must not get out of order, but I distinctly remember saying that a review of our railway system was long overdue; that many lines would have to be axed; but no such plan could go forward unless it was within a framework of regional planning and development. So one must first decide what are the requirements of an area. I know that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is very fair in these matters. If he will consult the record, he will see that I am guilty of the doubtful virtue of consistency.
    Is it the great hospital modernisation scheme which the Tories put in train about which they are now worried? It is true that the former Government claimed to have started one new hospital every 19 days. It is true that they closed down a hospital every 10 days. It is true that hospital waiting lists were 15,000 higher in England and Wales than in 1955 and that is why, apparently, the 10-year plan will end up with there being far fewer hospital beds. In the West Country we shall have 7,000 fewer beds as a result of the 10-year plan.
    It is also true that we have fewer doctors in proportion to our population than any
    942
    other country in Europe, except Norway. Perhaps it was the modernisation plan of the late Tory Government which led them in 1957, to make a 10 per cent. cut in the number of doctors. We also know their housing record. Do they regard it as a great progressive plan, which is now threatened, that there should be soaring land prices, so that in Enfield, where a constituency is represented by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), there should be 12 acres bought for £7,500 and offered to the local council two years later for development purposes at a price of £200,000?
    So one could go on through the list of achievements of the former Government. One could turn to restrictive practices and ask whether they feel that there has been great modernisation in this respect, and whether they are proud of the fact that 23 out of 25 Reports from the Monopolies Commission recommended firm Government action; that 18 called for action and that in only two of those cases was any Government action taken.
    1 regard this Amendment as giving a key to the reason for the Tory Party's defeat at the last election. It is an arrogant Amendment. It is a complacent Amendment and it is an Amendment which arises, three weeks after a new Government has taken office, out of partisan bigotry. There may well be occasions when the Labour Government must be attacked, and we on the Liberal benches shall not hesitate to do that as and when those occasions arise. But to be asked to say, first, that the whole of an extensive programme of modernisation has been set in train by the Tory Government and will be undermined specifically by Labour measures, and that the Government must be censured after only three weeks in office, is something which we on these benches are not prepared to do.
    8.38 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Doig: Like the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), I have read this Amendment and I wondered what were these programmes of modernisation which were already in train. One of the things which concerns me very much and also my constituents can be related to a quotation from the Gracious Speech where it states:
    "My Government will be actively concerned to build up the strength and efficiency of the police …"

    943
    Here I see no evidence of modernisation on the part of the former Government. Only recently we had a statement from Lord Shawcross that it was 5–1 against any burglar being caught. He gave very generous odds on a number of other forms of crime, and finished by saying that it was no longer true that crime did not pay. So the Tory record of modernisation in this regard is a very poor one.
    I ask the House to bear with me while I relate the experiences of one of my constituents who went on a motoring holiday during the summer with his wife and son. He visited Plymouth for the first time and went to see the famous Plymouth Hoe. He followed a line of cars and saw a number of cars parked on the side of the road. He thought that it was his lucky day, because just as the car in front of him passed, the driver of one of the parked cars indicated that he wanted to get out. So he stopped and let him out and slipped into his place. He noticed above the spot where he had parked his car a notice limiting parking to 45 minutes, so he carefully noted the time. He admired the view for a few minutes, had a cup of tea and came back again.
    Lo and behold, when he came back, his car was sitting in splendid isolation. Four or five of the cars in front had disappeared, as had the one behind, and a policeman was standing beside his car; so he looked carefully at his watch again and at the sign and found he had been away exactly 35 minutes while the sign prohibited waiting for more than 45 minutes and his car was right beneath it. He wondered what the policeman wanted. The policeman said, "I am sorry, Sir. You have committed an offence and I shall have to charge you." He asked what the offence was and was told that he had parked between the studs on a pedestrian crossing. He pointed out to the policeman that when he drove up he could not see the studs—it was utterly impossible because he was in a line of cars.
    This story has far-reaching effects, which is why I am relating it. The far-reaching result for this man was that he was charged after he came home from his holiday and getting back to Plymouth from Dundee would cost him at least 10 times whatever he was likely to be fined.
    944
    He received a notice summoning him to appear which said that if he pleaded guilty he would not have to appear. He thought about this, about pleading not guilty and arguing that he did not think he was committing any offence as the sign permitted waiting for 45 minutes. He decided it would cost him at least 10 times as much as any likely fine even if he got off.
    I wonder how many motorists do exactly the same thing; how many of them plead guilty? For a trifling offence, with about the maximum possible mitigating circumstances, which he explained in a letter, this man was fined £3 and had his licence endorsed. This was after driving for 30 years, for 28 of which he had never been convicted of any offence at all, and had only been convicted of one offence in the first two years. This is a shocking state of affairs and it is happening all over the country, day in and day out, and it is something which requires looking into.
    Yet it is no longer true to say that serious crime does not pay. This contrast convinces me that it is time that the chief constables of this country, who have more to do than they are capable of doing, started working on a priority system, dealing with serious crimes and forgetting about these trifling offences. When we consider the fact that the average of detected crime in relation to crime reported and known to the police is only 25 per cent. in robbery with violence and only 28 per cent. for all forms of serious crime but is something like 95 per cent. for these motoring offences, it is clear that this is something we have to look at.
    It means the police are not working a priority system. It means that, in order to get a number of convictions, an ambitious young constable, acting on his own or under the orders of an officious chief constable, is for the sake of promotion putting motorists, normally law-abiding people, in the position of pleading guilty even when there are no witnesses against them at all. This was so in the case I have mentioned, where only one constable was present. They decide to plead guilty because it is financially stupid to do otherwise.
    I am concerned about the endorsement of a licence for a trivial offence, because there are many people today who depend for their livelihood on a driving licence.

    945
    After three endorsements of this kind they lose their licence and their livelihood.
    This is a serious state of affairs. For this reason I welcome another part of the Gracious Speech, which reads:
    "They will propose the appointment of Law Commissioners to advance reform of the law and will propose new measures for the impartial investigation of individual grievances."
    The individual grievances can be summed up in that case, which is repeated thousands of times. These people feel that they have had a raw deal. They can appeal, but the cost of appealing, even if they are successful, is 20 times more than the fine imposed and there is therefore no point in appealing. It is financially stupid to do so unless one has plenty of money and money no longer matters. Not many people are in that happy position.
    I hope that the Government will consider making provision whereby an accused person may be tried in the area in which he lives. Had this been the case in the example which I quoted, my constituent would not have pleaded guilty. There is no reason why this provision should not be made. The documents can be transferred from one part of the country to another with no great problem. If there is any difficulty in transferring witnesses, they can be paid their expenses for travelling to the court, whereas an accused person is not paid his expenses. Thousands of accused people are pleading guilty to trifling technical offences day in and day out because it does not pay to do anything else.
    If we consider even the cost of the defence, we find that the very cheapest legal defence costs considerably in excess of the fine which one is liable to suffer for this type of offence. It is not even sensible financially to engage a lawyer for the defence.
    This is a serious state of affairs. During the war when I was in the Forces there was a rule that if one did not have a legally qualified man for the defence, then the prosecution were not allowed one either. If a person cannot afford to have a legally qualified person to defend him, it is no use saying that he can get legal aid, because if he earns above a certain figure he cannot get legal aid. In these circumstance there is justification
    946
    at least for considering a provision to allow people charged with trifling offences to be tried in their own areas.
    I have here a newspaper report stating that one motorist has decided to leave the country and is accusing the ex-Minister of Transport of driving him out of the country because he requires a driving licence to earn his livelihood, because he has had two endorsements of his licence for trifling offences and because if he has a third endorsement he will be out of a job. He decided to get out of the country instead. I am not suggesting that that is a good thing to do. Far from it. But it shows that this is becoming a serious matter which requires very serious consideration.
    Nine-tenths at the very least of these trifling offences are caused by the failure of the last Government to provide the necessary roads and parking places. I am not suggesting that a Government who have been in office for only three weeks could have provided all these things, but I am saying that an Administration lasting for 13 years should have provided them.
    In many parts of the country decent roads do not exist. In the last 13 years the mileage of new roads has increased by only 6 per cent. while the number of motor vehicles has increased by more than 130 per cent. Although the party opposite claim credit for the building of motorways, we still regularly hear of accidents happening on these roads, particularly during the hours of darkness. This is because many surveyors said at the outset of the construction of motorways that they should be lit along their entire length. Although this would have cost only 1 per cent. of the capital cost of the motorways, the Government turned the proposal down. As a result, accidents have continued to happen.
    If one is travelling at 50 m.p.h. on a motorway one can only barely stop in the distance one can see in one's headlights. At over 50 m.p.h. it is almost impossible to avoid having an accident. Had the motorways been lit the number of pile-ups we read about would have been reduced. This is not my view but that of leading surveyors and public lighting engineers.
    We also lack parking facilities. The present provision is totally inadequate

    947
    and the last Government did absolutely nothing to help local authorities to make more parking places available. This, too, has resulted in more accidents.
    Only last week in London I saw a policeman giving signals to cars to disobey the red "stop" traffic signal and pass the lights. When seeing this I recalled a test case of some years ago when a motorist was fined for crossing the traffic lights at red, even though he had been told by a policeman to proceed. I understand that it is still an offence to obey a policeman's command to go through a red traffic light. Is it not time the police spent their manpower and equipment solving serious crimes and left the trifling offences for the time being?
    8.54 p.m.
    Viscount Lambton: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) because it has been difficult for me, despite his having spoken for about 15 minutes, to know what nature of offence he had in mind.
    The debate we have had this week has been of great interest indeed, but I have not been able to help all the time recollecting the brave words used by the Prime Minister just before the election. In his election address he used these stirring words:
    "The choice is between those who want to stand still and those who want this country to advance, who are dynamic, and eager to make progress. This is the time for action, for decision, for exciting change."
    Now what have we seen this week? We have seen the Prime Minister and his lieutenants have the chance of advancing. This was their case, that we were in for a time of dynamism and exciting change, but very soon the expectations which we had were turned to disappointment, for during the whole of this last week, and today, we have seen from the Government no sign whatever that it is their intention in any way to move forward.
    I must condense what I have to say to only a few things, but we have seen, first of all, what seems to me convincing evidence that it is their intention to make this country in the next year or two a "little England". First of all,
    948
    we have this approach to the Concord. If ever there was a question of lack of tact, of bad management, this would seem to be the case. This cuts across very broad prospects indeed, for during these last few years we have seen France and the rest of Europe gradually drawing closer to this country, and one would have thought that it was above all necessary that our relationships with France should have been kept pleasant at this time, but precisely at the psychological moment when France is telling Europe that we are not to be depended upon we give full proof that that is precisely the case.
    We then have my right hon. Friend reducing all over the world our apportunities for trade—[Laughter.]
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman.
    Viscount Lambton: We then have reduction of our opportunities for trade all over the world. We shall no longer be able to trade with South Africa, and it may be that we shall soon not be allowed to trade with Spain, or Portugal probably, and as a result of all that there will be very great limitation for industry as a whole. What is exciting, what is advancing, what is progressive in all that at this time?
    Then, at home, we have nothing but nationalisation of everything. There is no suggestion that I hear of a new dynamism. There is no suggestion from any speaker on the Government Front Bench of any great new advantage which will accrue to this country. [Interruption.] The very behaviour of right hon. and hon. Members opposite is a living proof of the fact that there will be very little, if any, advance in the next few years.
    I think the time has come for me to sit down, but I would just say this. We have in these last few days seen no sign whatever of this renaissance which we were led to expect, but rather we have turned back to the very worst of Socialism of the past, and the prospect is that it will not be long before things will be very grim for this country and quite contrary to what the Government promised at the last election.
    8.58 p.m.
    Mr. Edward Heath: The debate on the Motion for an Address has

    949
    been notable for a number of things, some of which I should like to mention, but the first should surely be the number of hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches in it. I should like, if I may, on behalf of this side of the House, to offer them my warm congratulations. I understand that 33 hon. Members have made their maiden speeches in this debate, 26 of them from the Government side, and today we have had nine hon. Members so contributing.
    I think the House will agree that it is a very pleasant duty to congratulate them, though at the same time it would be invidious of me to try to distinguish from amongst the 33 Members any in particular. I would therefore say, as my own experience, that they have been marked by great sincerity, and by the fact that they were, almost without exception, contributions from individual knowledge and experience. It is this, I think, which the House appreciates above everything, and I should like to offer them my congratulations and the congratulations of those on this side of the House.
    Then I should like to offer my congratulations to the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House, taking part for the first time in the traditional procedure whereby the Leader of the House winds up the debate on the Loyal Address. If I may say so, the whole House has recognised in the past that he has proved himself to be a great Opposition Chief Whip. I some-times wonder whether right hon. Gentlemen opposite now enjoying the sweets of office—and more of them enjoying them than ever before, and anticipating, perhaps, more sweets than ever before—recognise how much they owe to the right hon. Gentleman for the work he did in holding his party together in difficult times. It is a pity the Prime Minister is not here to recognise it as well, because he would know it better than anyone. While the Lord President was holding the party together, the present Prime Minister was busily trying to displace his existing leader. But the Lord President's fairmindedness and straightforwardness will, I think, commend him to the House as its Leader.
    So we come to the first Loyal Address after the election, and to the end of the first debate. It was an election in which, we are told, the Prime Minister waged
    950
    the most brilliant campaign of modern times—indeed, what might be termed a copybook campaign—and the Prime Minister now finds himself with the support of fewer votes in the country than any of his precedessors since 1951; there cannot be much consolation for him in that.
    The right hon. Gentleman finds himself with a majority of four, but we now understand that we are exposed to a new hazard—the Patronage Secretary and the Government Whips are no longer able to count. [Laughter.] On one occasion in the last Parliament I mentioned that one was enough, but if the Patronage Secretary and the Government Whips cannot even count that one, then the Government are in danger, and the Whips may find themselves the first out rather than the last as is customarily the case.
    Having now seen the Queen's Speech and the actions of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues we are, perhaps, able to judge them on their progress so far, and on what has been said on the Address, and it is right that in winding up I should set out the Opposition's charges against the Government on this Amendment on modernisation. I would pick three subjects: first of all, the organisation of this Government, second, the way they have taken the economic measures that have been announced so far and, third, the general ineptitude and incompetence of the handling of our international relations during this period. In all of these things they have followed policies and matters of organisation that are immensely damaging to modernisation.
    It is astonishing how little we have heard during this debate about the machinery of Government, about the new Ministries that have been created—and, indeed, about those who hold positions in them. Of course, the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen sitting there are not there because the Prime Minister wanted them there—he has already told them he did not want them. He just had to have them. They are there on notice and on sufferance and, while they are there, at least we might ask what they are doing.
    There are two serious points on organisation that I should like to put to the First Secretary and to the Lord President

    951
    of the Council. First of all, we have heard nothing about the new relationship between the Department of Economic Affairs and the Treasury. Who, finally, is to decide financial policy, which bears on economic affairs? This is a matter on which one would have thought that the Prime Minister would have revealed the contents of his mind to the House, but not a word have we heard. We understand that, physically, the Chancellor of the Exchequer sits in his room at one end of the corridor, and the First Secretary sits in his room at the other end of the corridor—
    The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): A smaller room.
    Mr. Heath: Yes, perhaps, but still at the other end of the corridor. These things are all comparative. Then, half way between them, looking in both directions, is the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, which is quite right because he is by far the most intelligent and fluent of the three. This sort of arrangement is often known in international politics as the dumbbell arrangement; allegedly there are equal weights at both ends, but of course there is not much doubt about where the bell is and where the dumb part is in this arrangement.
    What is to be the relationship of this organisation to the Board of Trade, which has been shorn of so many of its powers? I understood the First Secretary to say that the little N.E.D.C.s are to be his responsibility. What is to be the relationship between those and the industrial departments of the Board of Trade, or has the First Secretary got his eyes on the industrial departments so that they can become part of his empire as well? What we would have then would be the worst of all possible worlds, one department with an interest in trade outward looking and the other industrial and inward looking and there might be constant strife between the two departments. It has so far been one of the merits of our system of government that we have had trade and industrial affairs in the same department where they can reconcile their differences under one Minister. I hope that the Minister will assure us that this is going on.
    952
    What is needed is that the industrial departments should stay with the Board of Trade, but I take it from the look of the First Secretary that he has his eyes on this empire, and that is most alarming. What is needed is a federal arrangement dealing with trade and industry and technology which goes with industry.
    We heard this afternoon a statement about the Ministry of Overseas Development. It is important that the House should recognise the major step which is now to be taken. According to the terms of reference announced by the Minister this afternoon this means the transfer of one of the most important aspects of foreign policy and the most powerful tools of a Foreign Secretary. They have been given entirely to a Minister concerned with technical topics of overseas development. This is a major development in the policy structure of the Government. Nothing was said about it by the Prime Minister—it was announced in answer to a Question this afternoon, and this is the second important development.
    What about the rest, who seem to be a demonstration of the Prime Minister's insatiable appetite for gimmicks? In the United Nations one official has been replaced by another. The one who was replaced was much more skilled and experienced in diplomacy than the one who had replaced him. The replacement has been sent to the House of Lords, I understand against his wishes, and certainly before his time. At one moment he was to be a full member of the Cabinet. That was an arguable proposition but it is no longer the case and now there is no difference between them. What is the Minister for Disarmament, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, doing there? He is occupying the same room as the Minister of State has always occupied and using the same staff. He is carrying out the same work which the Minister of State has always done. The only thing which has changed is his own political convictions.
    Then we have this proliferation of advisers. We are told that this is to strengthen the machinery of government. Take the case of Sir Solly Zuckerman, adviser to the Ministry of Defence. We were told that he was to be adviser on disarmament, but that was quickly can-

    953
    celled and he was made adviser to the Foreign Secretary. Of course he has always been adviser to the Foreign Secretary arid always able to advise when required. Now he is to advise on technology, but he has always done so. He is a very remarkable man, a distinguished professor of biology. I think that it is appropriate that an expert on tadpoles should be an adviser to the present Administration.
    Then we have the economists. [Interruption.] If the Government are going to appoint advisers of this sort and annouce them publicly and take them—not in Professor Zuckerman's case, but in other cases—from the sources that they have done, they must expect them to be open to criticism.
    It seems that we are in for a time of happy relationships. I have seen what Dr. Balogh has to say about some of the colleagues with whom he will be working, quoted by the President of the Board of Trade. He said he did not like the Snowesque scientific dilettante. It is not for us to describe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology in that respect.
    Then we have very experienced advisers like Mr. Kaldor. He has a remarkable reputation of advice to Governments. He has been official adviser to six countries. The net result has been: in two, bitter opposition, in one, the Minister resigned, in one, there was a general strike, in one, the Government fell, and in the last there was a revolution.
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Has it not always been the tradition of this House that critical and hostile attacks on civil servants are not made?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but I could not hear the last part of the hon. Gentleman's point of order.
    Mr. Silverman: I said that I always understood it to be part of the tradition of the House that Members speaking in debate do not attack civil servants who cannot reply.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It does not seem that any point of order arises. The right hon. Gentleman's criticism was of a Minister of the Crown.
    Mr. George Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It is in the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman referred to a distinguished civil servant, who gave hon. Members opposite very great support through 13 years, to whom he referred by name, Sir Solly Zuckerman, and then referred to him in a contemptuous phrase as a professor of tadpoles. [Interruption.] I am asking you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, despite the display of hon. Members opposite, which the country will know how to assess, is it in order to refer to distinguished civil servants in those terms?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the right hon. Member misquoted what the right hon. Gentleman said. I think that he had passed on from Sir Solly Zuckerman and it was a Minister of the Crown that he was criticising when the point of order was raised.
    Mr. Brown: In that case we understood, and so did the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the right hon. Gentleman was referring to Sir Solly Zuckerman, a professor of biology. The right hon. Gentleman said that, in order to lead on to what he hoped was a Smethwick-type term of abuse. He used a civil servant's name and he referred to his profession in order then to use this Smethwick-type term of abuse. I now ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is in order to refer in that way to civil servants who assisted right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I can only repeat what I said before. The right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) had passed on to deal with a Minister when the point of order was raised.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order. The point which I am putting to you now is that the question whether my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State quoted correctly or incorrectly what the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) said is irrelevant. I am putting to you that the tradition of the House is that in our debates we do not refer to civil servants by name at all, whether in terms of abuse or in any other terms.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I repeat what I have said already—
    Mr. George Brown: It is not what the right hon. Member for Bexley said. He attacked a civil servant.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We had passed on from there and the right hon. Member for Bexley was criticising a Minister of the Crown. Mr. Heath.
    Mr. S. Silverman rose—
    Hon. Members: Sit down.
    Mr. Heath rose—
    Hon. Members: Sit down.
    Mr. Silverman: In the hearing of all of us the right hon. Member for Bexley referred to a distinguished civil servant by name in order to use him for an attack on the Government. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that that is contrary to the traditions of the House and is out of order.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already given a Ruling and I am not going to add anything further to it. Mr. Heath.
    Mr. Heath rose—
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Heath: Let me make quite plain to the First Secretary of State, if he can regain his sense of humour, what I said. If the right hon. Gentleman will look it up he will find that I said that I admired Professor Sir Solly Zuckerman. Those were my words and I did not sneer at him. I did refer to the Government Front Bench. If the First Secretary of State wants to have my assurance about Sir Solly Zuckerman he can have it in full. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am not prepared to withdraw what I said about the Government Front Bench.
    Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) ought to be ashamed of himself.
    Mr. Heath: If hon. Members opposite are prepared to listen, and if they can keep quiet, they will hear what I have to say. If there is anything recorded which can give offence to Professor Sir Solly Zuckerman then of course I completely withdraw it, but I do not withdraw anything which has given offence to the First Secretary of State or to the Government Front Bench.
    Now, perhaps we can turn to the question of economic policy and the way
    956
    the Government are operating. I was going to say something about the First Secretary, but there is not time. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman can take his time."] Yes; I shall have to take some time from the Lord President.
    The Government imposed the 15 per cent. surcharges and the export incentives hurriedly. The Customs themselves that evening did not even know on what basis they were being levied and could not tell businessmen what was happening. What are the consequences? The surcharges fall on things which are already ordered and delivery must be accepted. Therefore, they cannot be avoided, and the surcharges have to be paid without anything being done to affect the balance of payments or the balance of trade. This puts up costs.
    The surcharge is levied on equipment for modernising the country, which is what the Government say they want, and this puts up costs. It is levied on chemicals, the raw materials of industry which cannot be obtained in this country, and this puts up costs, including the cost of exports. What is more—I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will note this—the effect of the surcharge is threatening firms in the development districts of Scotland and Ulster, particularly those with foreign investments. All this arises because of the way in which the surcharges have been levied.
    The Prime Minister goes to a great meeting, a "Feed the Mind" campaign, but what is the first thing he does? He slaps a 15 per cent. surcharge on books, periodicals and newsprint. Tobacco, apparently, is more important and is exempt. This is the Government's decision.
    Finally, manufacturers are to absorb these costs. What will be the effect of absorbing them? People will not stop importing. This shows the sort of muddle which the First Secretary gets into.
    Mr. George Brown: Who left the muddle? What about the £800 million?
    Mr. Heath: I am coming to that. They said nothing in the White Paper about the rise in costs which would result, the rise in wages, the increased demand on the home market and the effect on

    957
    exports. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman and his Government left the problem."] The First Secretary is responsible for these measures. What did the right hon. Gentleman say when he was interviewed? He was asked whether he had inherited solutions, and he said:
    "All I can tell you, Mr. Ffitch, is that his solutions were buried under an awful lot of 'bumph'. I decided not to go through the 'bumph'. I found my own."
    Mr. Brown rose—
    Mr. Heath: No, I have not got time.
    Mr. Brown: Who left the muddle?
    Mr. Speaker: Even right hon. Gentlemen, if the right hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House does not give way, must not persist.
    Mr. Heath: What about the export incentives, which amount to three-quarters of 1 per cent.? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity. He spoke for an hour. He did not explain the cost of all this, the £70 million, one of the most expensive ways of dealing with the problem. For the £70 million we get nothing. It will go to everyone who has already exported. It is only when one goes beyond that, when the Chancellor has to find the money, that one gets any benefit at all. How did they get into this position? [Laughter.] Let the First Secretary listen. The Prime Minister never deigns to come to the House—no doubt, he is seeing the Press again—but perhaps I may quote from his Swansea speech, which he has always proclaimed as the economic bible. With his infallible memory, the Prime Minister would recall that this passage appears at the fifth line on page 28 of the booklet:
    "If balance of payments difficulties arise in the next few months, we must meet them, as the Government always do. They must be met by using reserves. We should not be afraid to use them, nor in an emergency to use our very substantial drawing rights under the International Monetary Fund, to say nothing of other sources which can be mobilised in case of need."
    The right hon. Gentleman went on:
    "In addition, we should use short-term interest rates to staunch any flow of short-term capital."
    That was the policy in January—serious, sober economic policy. That was the policy which went on until the middle
    958
    of the General Election. [Interruption.] The First Secretary knew the figures; they were being published. [Interruption.] Of course they were. They were published by the Board of Trade; the First Secretary himself said so.
    Once we had got into the middle of the General Election, what did the Prime Minister—the absent Prime Minister—say? [HON. MEMBERS: "What did he say?"] It was "getting prosperity on the slate", or "putting us in pawn economically", or "borrowing from the Commonwealth". That is what the sterling area suddenly became—for political reasons. What has happened since?
    Mr. George Brown: What about the £800 million.
    Mr. Heath: What is the explanation now for this hurry and muddle? It is to try to create a political situation ready for the next General Election. Honest economics has gone out of the window—that is what has happened—and the Prime Minister is using it for this purpose.
    What about the figure of £800 million? The White Paper said that it was £700 million, possibly £800 million. The First Secretary automatically jumps to £800 million. It is for the year 1964. We are five-sixth of the way through 1964, and it has been coped with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So there was no balanced consideration of policy but merely immediate hasty action in the way that we have seen to try to create a political crisis.
    If we wanted another example, we had one this afternoon from the Postmaster-General. I have given him notice that I will discuss what I regard as the most disreputable action in modern times. He made a statement trying to give the impression that the Post Office was left making a great loss. In fact, it made a profit last year of £30 million. He then went on to give figures only for the postal services and not for the other services of the Post Office which always balanced it up. He went on to give a forecast of five years in order to get the figure of £100 million—only on the postal services, not the Post Office as a whole. What is more,

    959
    while implying that this was a loss, he was referring to something less than the 8 per cent., which is a figure fixed for profit—all of this in an attempt to mislead the House and the Press.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn)rose—
    Mr. Heath: I cannot give way. I have no time.
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think—
    Mr. George Brown: We have looked at the books now.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I am being addressed on a point of order. On that basis I will hear the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) made the direct accusation that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General made a statement—and I quote the right hon. Gentleman's words—"in order to mislead the House". Is that expression Parliamentary?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it is all right because it is criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General in his official capacity in that sense. I think that is right, but do not let us waste time about it.
    Mr. Heath: I will give way to the Postmaster-General as soon as I have finished what I wish to say. He has made a five-year forecast on one aspect only of the Post Office. Why not a 10-year or 20-year forecast? Why not the same forecast of what will happen on the railways as a result of slowing down Beeching? If he wants to make a statement of this kind he should put the full picture before the House and let us judge.
    Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Question I answered was put by one of his hon. Friends. It asked specifically about the postal services. Notwithstanding that, I mentioned the telecommunications service. Throughout the election campaign right hon. Gentlemen opposite said they had costed their programme. The figures I gave to the House today were known to
    960
    that Government and were deliberately suppressed for electoral reasons.
    Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman was answering a Question from one of my hon. Friends and might have answered it. He was asked what steps he was proposing to take in order to improve efficiency and profitability. He said nothing about that whatever. Now we know the intention of the Government on every occasion is to try to produce a snap statement which only presents half the truth.
    I want to give the Lord President of the Council whatever time he wants, even though mine has been cut so short, but I want to say a little about the international repercussions of the Government's Measure. When one goes through the Gracious Speech one stumbles across a most astonishing paragraph. [HON. MEMBERS: "Common Market."] That is just what I am coming to. There is in the Speech this startling sentence:
    "My Government will continue to play a full part in the European organisations of which this country is a member and will seek to promote closer European co-operation."
    How does that tie up with the statement on the tape tonight reporting a statement by the Danish Foreign Minister, after consultations here in London, blaming Britain's 15 per cent. import surcharge for the state of affairs in E.F.T.A. He has said:
    "E.F.T.A. is in a very severe crisis and the forthcoming meeting will be the most decisive we have ever had."
    This is the result of the foreign policy of the Government.
    The Government claimed that there was no opportunity for consultation. That is what the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said last week. Has he never heard of the Permanent Council of E.F.T.A. in Geneva, or of the Ambassador and his strong delegation to the E.E.C. in Brussels, or the Commonwealth Economic Council? All three of these are available for consultation. What has happened? In their first 11 days, the Government alienated 18 countries. Long before their first 100 days are up, the whole of the United Nations will have been offended. The President of the Board of Trade dropped off at Copenhagen. What did he say there? He said that it may be possible to help E.F.T.A. by early reduction of our tariffs for member-countries. How inept! Immediately

    961
    the rest of the world, through G.A.T.T., will claim that it is discrimination in favour of one group. Could there be anything more inept than the President of the Board of Trade's statement?
    We have got into this state of affairs because of one thing.
    Mr. George Brown: An £800 million deficit.
    Mr. Heath: Because of the Prime Minister's desire to have haste and being prepared to accept this sort of result. What is the fundamental reason?
    Mr. Brown: An £800 million deficit.
    Mr. Heath: It is the answer given by the Prime Minister himself in a broadcast made on 18th October. The broadcast was very interesting. It was recorded on 12th February last by the B.B.C. I find the first question put to him particularly interesting. This was on 12th February. The question was:
    "I think, Mr. Wilson, that you are the first Prime Minister of this country to come from a provincial grammar school."
    That was an interesting question for the B.B.C. to be putting at that time. What did the right hon. Gentleman say at the end of that interview? He gave his vision of Britain. He was quite frank about it. He said:
    "It's a vision … that has got a certain nationalist streak in it … you might call me a Little Englander in consequence …"
    That is what the people in Europe are calling him and his Administration—a Little Englander Administration. They are terrified of the protectionist movement in the party opposite. Let the First Secretary see how soon he will be able to take the surcharges off. Let him see the difficulties he will have.
    What we come down to is the fact that this Administration has already shown by its attitudes that it is not in tune with modernisation, that it is not capable of taking action to modernise the country, that it is capable of stopping the Concord and stopping London becoming a great capital, but not capable of modernising the country. For that reason alone we can have no confidence in Her Majesty's Government.
    9.36 p.m.
    The Lord President of lie Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): May I, first, in the calmer atmosphere, congratulate
    962
    the 33 maiden speakers, as the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) did, and, like him, not waste too much time in dealing with each of them individually? They were excellent speeches, those I heard, and I read the rest. Might I also thank him for his kind reference to me, and, in reply, make a kind reference to him. He was a great Patronage Secretary—and what patronage! I do not know what the ratio was, but it was probably one knighthood in five or something of the sort. Patronage it was!
    Today's opening speech by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), in moving the Amendment, was interesting in that it did not refer to the Amendment at all. He did not mention it from beginning to end. I listened to every part of his speech. I heard him build up a case on what he thought should be contained in our legislation and then begin to knock it down and argue why it should not be in the legislation. Of course, much of this legislation has not yet been drafted, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. It was not a very good speech. In fact, it was a poor speech. However, I should like to be fair to the right hon. Gentleman. I was here between 1945 and 1951, and, although his speech today was not a good speech, the right hon. Gentleman makes better speeches in opposition than in government.
    The right hon. Gentleman admitted that during the debate he had learned more about our policy in the Gracious Speech than he did from the speech itself. We, too, should admit that in the 22 days we have been the Government we have learned more about the previous Government's record than we ever dreamed we would learn. We are beginning to ask ourselves what the position is likely to be tomorrow, when we get to the Departments. [Laughter.] Right hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh, but I wonder whether the Postmaster-General did when he went into his office this morning and whether he realised what he would find.
    May I deal with the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Bexley? He would be well advised to discuss this matter with his former colleague the previous Postmaster-General and ask him why paragraphs 10 to 15—he has paragraph 9 of the Post Office accounts—were

    963
    not printed when the accounts were published. I am not suggesting for one minute that the right hon. Member for Bexley knew of these paragraphs, but surely the former Postmaster-General should have known. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he makes any more remarks of that sort, to check with his former colleague.
    The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said today—and I was interested to hear this—that he was worried for the tenants who would be under pressure and under threat of eviction. This is a bit much, coming from the right hon. Gentleman and the architects of the 1957 Rent Act, because if there are evictions amongst uncontrolled tenants they will be the result of the 1957 Act. I hope that when action is taken, as we expect it will be before very long, to protect tenants who are subject to eviction, the right hon. Gentleman will come over to our side of the House and help us to get that legislation through. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his interest in the matter.
    The right hon. Member for Bexley had a particularly difficult assignment in speaking to the Amendment. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—no? I beg his pardon—once referred to one of my colleagues as being too clever by half. That phrase just about sums up the speech of the right hon. Member for Bexley.
    I said that the right hon. Gentleman had a very difficult assignment. If one reads the Amendment, one appreciates what I mean by that. It was a particularly difficult assignment to talk to us about the programme of modernisation which is now in train, but the right hon. Gentleman has had difficult assignments before. Those who remember the Common Market days remember him coming back here, very often at a great deal of inconvenience, to give us the latest information about the negotiations—negotiations during which we made concession after concession. He always came back and made defeat sound like victory—it was a difficult assignment but he did it—until, finally, he got the rapier-like thrust from the General, and, good fencer though he may be, that defeat sounded like defeat. The right hon. Gentleman is accustomed to difficult assignments.
    964
    That is probably why he was put up to wind up this debate tonight.
    I should like to recall an occasion 13 years ago, almost to the day, when an old friend of most of us who were in the House, someone whom we greatly respected, Mr. Harry Crookshank, was doing what I am doing tonight, namely, winding up the debate on the Queen's Speech. He said—and many hon. Members will remember this—that when the Conservative Government got in in 1951 they found skeletons hanging from the candelabra. What did we find? We found that the candelabra had been swept under the carpet with the balance of payments deficit. [Laughter.] Oh yes, if you can sweep £800 million under the carpet, you can do the same with candelabra. Now, as the Postmaster-General told us, a little more has been swept under the carpet.
    I deal next with the Tories' programme of modernisation. I have been trying to do some researches to discover when this word "modernisation" first crept into use by the party opposite. I think that it arrived when the Leader of the Opposition descended on us from another place. It was at about that time that they decided to become modern. The word "modernisation" was used time and time again—in fact, they became "Mods".
    Having adopted this programme of modernisation they launched into a big poster campaign. We all remember it. One poster more than any other stands out in my mind, a new hospital every 19 days. What does that amount to? I have not a box of matches or a slide rule, but I think that it is 18 new hospitals a year. That is 90 new hospitals in a full Parliament—quite a programme. What happened to that poster? It seemed to disappear overnight. I am inclined to recall that up to that point the programme of modernisation had given us something like 4½ hospitals during the whole period.
    Then we had the White Paper on Expenditure, and here, I thought, was the programme—this was it. This was the programme of modernisation which told us something in detail of almost every Government Department, with a total figure of £1,915 million of public expenditure in excess of current expenditure required to carry out the programme

    965
    in five years; depending on a 4 per cent. increase in the gross national product which was, in fact, then running at about 2·6 per cent. What would have happened had the party opposite won the General Election? It would have returned to power and within these last few days it would have cut and cut and cut. That White Paper would have meant nothing whatever, and we know it. In fact, it would be impossible, with the sort of attitude to economic affairs, adopted by the party opposite—with its complacency and laissez faire attitude—for it to have got anywhere near achieving a 4 per cent. annual increase in the gross national product.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: A pretty poor speech.
    Mr. Bowden>: Apart from that, the Opposition have not the impetus to try it—I understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) said something. He made a speech on Friday and, if there is time, I should like to say a word about it.
    Before I do that, I should like hon. Members opposite, and the country, to appreciate—this must be appreciated—that had the position been reversed, and they had remained on this side of the House, tomorrow—or probably last Friday—we should have been going in for a Bank Rate increase, with a credit squeeze and the whole mixture as before. That is precisely what would have happened. When the economy needed an impetus and a shot in the arm, what it would have received would have been the old medicine as before and they would have kept on during the whole time they were cutting, telling the people that they had never had it so good.
    My right hon. Friend the First Secretary dealt earlier this week with the question of speculative office building. I should have thought that everyone opposite—everyone in the House—was aware of the position in London, where huge concrete boxes with windows in them have been built not to provide offices for immediate needs, but for speculative purposes. Many of them are completely empty. It may be that some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite regard that as the right thing to do. They probably do. But this is something which
    966
    has to be tackled. It would not have been tackled if the party opposite had come back as the Government. It is now being tackled.
    A number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have mentioned the importance of a national incomes policy. Of course it is important. It is the basis of the economic policy of the country, whatever party is in power. Whether one can achieve it is a very different matter. I feel that we have a much better chance of getting such a policy than hon. Members opposite had they been in power. The difficulty is that when working towards a national incomes policy one has to be seen to be fair. The result of what has to be done at a particular moment must be seen to be fair to both sides.
    With the sort of record that the Opposition have, how can one expect that one could ever attain that position? I recall that only a few years ago—and this is a clear demonstration of the sort of thing that happens—we had an increase in charges on the National Health Service of something like £63 million. Within a matter of weeks £82 million was handed over as a free gift to the Surtax payers. That is not the atmosphere in which we can get a national incomes policy.
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he did at least make speeches promising to try to do something to keep prices down and that is important. He made a speech on 24th January, which I will quote, in which he said:
    "Management should accept the responsibility of ensuring that prices are increased only where this is fully justified by rising costs and that, wherever possible, the benefits of greater efficiency in productivity are shared with the general public and by the reduction of prices."
    That, of course, is acceptable to everyone, but within four days the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) says.
    "Managements have no business to accept any such responsibility. The duty of every management is to conduct the business, including the price policy of the business, in the way which, in the opinion of the management, is likely to maximise the return on the capital invested."
    Now, which is which? This is the whole point, this is the whole difficulty with hon. Members opposite. That is why they are where they are today. That is why they have been rejected

    967
    by the electorate. When, in 1961, the more reasonable of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench began to talk about planning, about overall planning and even regional planning, the right hon. Gentleman for Wolverhampton, South-West, said, "Nonsense, nonsense." They really should get together on this. He is nodding in agreement. He still agrees. And now he has been brought down on to the Front Bench once again.
    A great deal of comment has been made about what are known as prestige projects. We accept at once on this side of the House that experimentation in any field is costly and it is necessary, whether it be in aircraft design or anything else. But there must be some limit, some point at which one calls for a review. One hon. Gentleman on the other side made a gibe, in which he said, "The only reason for cutting Concord is to abolish prescription charges." We have not yet cut Concord. We are simply asking for a review.
    But even if it were true, is that so very bad? Is it? Is it bad to save £60 million on a prestige product when one is in doubt whether that money should be spent, to abolish prescription charges? Is it? I should have thought that the prestige of this country never stood higher than it did when the National Health Service was introduced. That was a prestige project worth having. We cannot afford, in this or any other country, to waste money at present. Projects on which we feel that money is being wasted should be reviewed.
    This programme of modernisation, we are told, was set in train by the party opposite. It is a train that took 12 years to start and it looks as if the lines have been closed.
    I am required, as Leader of the House, to say one or two other things in reply to the debate, but time is slipping away from me. I want to say something about a subject to which some of us feel a little hesitant in making reference—the problem of Commonwealth immigrants and what is now, unfortunately, gradually becoming known as the Smethwick problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why."] Let me say why. I represent a Midlands constituency. I
    968
    had both a Liberal and a Conservative opponent. I knew my Liberal opponent extremely well, because we had fought twice before. The gentleman who was the Conservative candidate I had never met before, and I met him only once when we were both canvassing. By one look at him and by shaking his hand I knew that there would be no mention of the Commonwealth immigrants problem in that constituency—nor was there.
    But it is not a scrap of use pretending that this problem was not raised in Smethwick and a number of other constituencies. It was raised. I am sure that the majority of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—with us—wished that it had not been raised. The problem of Commonwealth immigrants is a social and not a racial problem. It is a problem of housing and of health. Let us face the fact that among the immigrants who come into this country there are many more white than there are coloured, but usually when we talk about the problem we are talking about coloured immigrants.
    This problem will be dealt with only on the basis of its being a social problem, and we must get away from the racial issue, but it is nonsense to pretend that it did not become a racial issue. It did. Many things were said in Smethwick and other Birmingham constituencies which ought not have been said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Such as? "] I have in my hand a leaflet which I particularly do not want to quote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "] Very well. I have a photostat copy of it and this is what it says—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the imprint?"] I will tell hon. Members that when we get to it. It reads:
    "What you might get with a Labour victory. This would happen. Perry Barr. Let's go with Labour!' 300,000 immigrants if you vote Labour—It's up to you on Thursday!"
    It was published by I. H. Gash, 382, Kingstanding Road, Birmingham—who is the Conservative Party agent for the Perry Barr constituency.
    Do not let us pretend that this was not done. I hope that now that this has been ventilated and that many hon. Members have mentioned it in the House we can forget the Smethwick incident. It was necessary to say this, and it has been said. I hope that we can now forget it, otherwise it will be not only

    969
    Smethwick or my constituency or any other constituency which will suffer; the whole country will suffer. If the term "Smethwick" becomes synonymous with Hola, or Sharpeville, or even Arkansas, it will be a bad thing for this country.
    This closes the debate on the Gracious Speech. It is too much to expect that the speech has been welcomed by every one in the House. Of course it has not. But the Gracious Speech has been welcomed by the country as a whole. During the many years that we shall be in Government we shall have very many debates. We shall have debates which are sometimes
    heated and, maybe, sometimes bitter. But there will be many occasions on which both sides of the House will be doing a good job together when the matter in front of us is not controversial—because, after all is said and done, outside our political controversy we are all Members of Parliament representing our constituents; and because we behave like that in Britain.
    Question put, That those words be there added:—
    The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 315.

    Division No. 2.]

    AYES

    [10.0 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Crawley, Aidan

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Curran, Charles

    Hastings, Stephen

    Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hawkins, Paul

    Astor, John

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hay, John

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Dance, James

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Awdry, Daniel

    Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Baker, W. H. K.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hendry, Forbes

    Balniel, Lord

    Dean, Paul

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

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

    Bell, Ronald

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Doughty, Charles

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Hopkins, Alan

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hordern, Peter

    Biffen, John

    du Cann, Edward

    Hornby, Richard

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Eden, Sir John

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

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

    Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Emery, Peter

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Blaker, Peter

    Emmet, Hn. Mrs. Evelyn

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Bossom, Hn. Clive

    Erroll, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

    Fell, Anthony

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Fisher, Nigel

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Brewis, John

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

    Jennings, J. C.

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Forrest, George

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

    Foster, Sir John

    Jopling, Michael

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith.

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Bryan, Paul

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Gammans, Lady

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

    Buck, Antony

    Gardner, Edward

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Burden, F. A.

    Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

    Kimball, Marcus

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Lagden, Godfrey

    Campbell, Gordon

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Lambton, Viscount

    Carlisle, Mark

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Goodhart, Philip

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Chataway, Christopher

    Gower, Raymond

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Grant, Anthony

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

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Grant-Ferris, R. (Nantwich)

    Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Gresham-Cooke, R.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Grieve, Percy

    Longbottom, Charles

    Cole, Norman

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Cooke, Robert

    Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Cooper, A. E.

    Gurden, Harold

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh (Hendon, S.)

    Cordle, John

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F. (Morecambe)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Costain, A. P.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Harrison, Brian (Malden)

    McMaster, Stanley

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

    Maitland, Sir John

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Pounder, Rafton

    Teeling, Sir William

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Temple, John M.

    Marten, Neil

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Mathew, Robert

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

    Maude, Angus E. U.

    Pym, Francis

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Mawby, Ray

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. (Tiverton)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

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

    Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Martin

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. David

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Mitchell, David

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Walder, David (High Peak)

    Monro, Hector

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    More, Jasper

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Morgan, W. G.

    Roots, William

    Wall Patrick

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Royle, Anthony

    Walters Denis

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Ward Dame Irene

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Murton, Oscar

    Sandys, Rt. Hn. Duncan

    Webster, David

    Neave, Airey

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Wells John (Maidstone)

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Sharples, Richard

    Whitelaw William

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Shepherd, William

    Williams Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

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

    Wilson Geoffrey (Truro)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

    Wise, A. R.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Speir, Rupert

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Stainton, Keith

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Stanley, Hn. Richard

    Wylie, N. R.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Stodart, J. A. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Younger, Hn. George

    Peel, John

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Percival, Ian

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Peyton, John

    Talbot, John E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Batsford and Mr. McLaren.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Carmichael, Neil

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Albu, Austen

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Alldritt, W. H.

    Coleman, Donald

    Floud, Bernard

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Foley, Maurice

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Ford, Ben

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Crosland, Anthony

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

    Barnett, Joel

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Freeson, Reginald

    Baxter, William

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Beaney, Alan

    Dalyell, Tam

    Garrett, W. E.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Darling, George

    Garrow, A.

    Bence, Cyril

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Ginsburg, David

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Bessell, Peter

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Binns, John

    de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

    Gregory, Arnold

    Bishop, E. S.

    Delargy, Hugh

    Grey, Charles

    Blackburn, F.

    Dell, Edmund

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Dempsey, James

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Boardman, H.

    Diamond, John

    Griffiths, Will (Manchester Exchange)

    Boston, T. G.

    Dodds, Norman

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Doig, Peter

    Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

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

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Hale, Leslie

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Driberg, Tom

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Bowles, Frank

    Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Boyden, James

    Dunn, James A. (L'pool, Kirkdale)

    Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Dunnett, Jack (Nottingh'm, Central)

    Hannan, William

    Bradley, Tom

    Edelman, Maurice

    Harper, Joseph

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    English, Michael

    Hattersley, Ray

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Ennals, David

    Hayman, F. H.

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

    Ensor, David

    Hazell, Bert

    Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Buchanan, Richard (Gl'sg'w, Spr'burn)

    Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Finch, Harold

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Callaghan, James

    Fitch,Alan

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    972

    973

    Holman, Percy

    Marsh, Richard

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)

    Hooson, H. E.

    Mason, Roy

    Silkin, John (Deptford)

    Horner, John

    Maxwell, Robert

    Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Mellish, Robert

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Howie, W.

    Millan, Bruce

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Hoy, James

    Miller, Dr. M.S.

    Small, William

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Milne, Edward

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Molloy, William

    Snow, Julian

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Monslow, Walter

    Solomons, Henry

    Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Hunter, A. E.(Feltham)

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

    Hynd, H.(Accrington)

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Steele, Thomas

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Murray, Albert

    Stonehouse, John

    Jackson, Colin

    Neil, Harold

    Stones, William

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Newens, Stan

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

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

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

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

    Summerskill, Dr. Shirley

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

    Norwood, Christopher

    Swain, Thomas.

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Swingler, Stephen

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Ogden, Eric

    Symonds, J. B.

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)

    Taverne, Dick

    Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Orme, Stanley

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W)

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Owen Will

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Padley, Walter

    Thornton, Ernest

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Paget, R. T.

    Tinn, James

    Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Tomney, Frank

    Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Tuck, Raphael

    Lawson, George

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Urwin, T. W.

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)

    Varley Eric G.

    Ledger, Ron

    Parker, John

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Wallace, George

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Warbey, William

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Watkins, Tudor

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Pentland, Norman

    Weitzman, David

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Perry, E. G.

    Wells, William (Walsail, N.)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Popplewell, Ernest

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Prentice, Reginald

    Whitlock, Charles

    Loughlin, Charles

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

    Lubbock, Eric

    Probert, Arthur

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Purcey, Cmdr. Harry

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    McBride, Neil

    Randall, Harry

    Williams, A. J. (Swansea, W.)

    McCann, J.

    Rankin, John

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    MacColl, James

    Redhead, Edward

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    McGuire, Michael

    Reynolds, Gerald

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Mclnnes, James

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Richard, Ivor

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    MacKenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Mackie, George Y. (C'ness & S'land)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Woof, Robert

    Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    McLeavy, Frank

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    MacMillan, Malcolm

    Rose, Paul B.

    Zilliacus, K.

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Rowland, Christopher

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Sheldon, Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mallalieu, E. L.(Brigg)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Mr. Sydney Irving and

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

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

    Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

    Manuel, Archie

    Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)

    Main Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
    To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Short.]
  Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Short.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Short.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Read a Second time.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).
  [Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of Section 3 of the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act 1959 and Part I of, and Schedule 1 to, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 till the end of December, 1965, and of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act 1943, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946 and (when in force) Part VII of the Licensing Act 1964 till the end of March, 1966, being expenses which under any Act are to be paid out of such moneys.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
  10.18 p.m.
  Mr. B. T. Parkin: It occurs frequently that when a Money Resolution is put to the House a back bencher will rise and ask a few questions about it usually directed to finding whether it is sufficiently widely drawn to enable Amendments to be introduced in Committee. Of course that procedure is not possible on this Bill because there is not a Committee stage which permits of Amendments to the Acts it covers.
  At the same time I should like some reassurances from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on one or two points which arise from the Financial Memorandum and the Money Resolution. We are told in the Memorandum, a little casually, that
  "The continuance of section 1 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 and of …
  976
  the Commonwealth Immigrants Act will involve the estimated expenditure of £2.5 million in 1965, consisting mainly of staff costs in the Home Office, Ministry of Labour and Commonwealth Relations Office. It is estimated that approximately one-fifth of the total cost is attributable to the control of Commonwealth immigrants."
  This in itself is an unfortunate confession that we spend four times as much on controlling aliens as we do on helping our own people, and there are questions which I should like to direct to the Financial Secretary.
  Surely as policy develops administratively towards the control of immigrants and their activities here, particularly in the fields of education and employment, there must be a progressive expansion of the demands on the resources not only of these two Ministries but of others as well. It is not for me to debate now how that expansion will take place, but it is fair to submit that the expansion of that kind of assistance will take place with or without any major pronouncements of Government policy, because there are throughout the country a great number of people who are producing ideas in connection with this subject which have nothing to do with name-calling at General Elections and the broad sort of controversies which we have seen take place.
  These are practical people in the localities concerned who are chockful of ideas which they now will hope to see implemented. Many of them will come to be implemented and I ask whether the Money Resolution will allow the expansion of the work of the Ministries concerned, plus some others, without having to wait for a Government statement and Supplementary Estimates later in the year.
  I should like to think that if the Ministry of Labour has to do more than issue permits and looks after jobs, and if it is called upon to fulfil not special functions but some of the functions which it already exercises for the citizens of this country and which it has to exercise to a certain degree in certain neighbourhoods because of the demands and special needs of Commonwealth immigrants, it will be possible for the Ministry to do that without question. If, for example, the Ministry of Labour is to give grants to a local authority for workshops for the blind—
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is an old Parliamentarian and he will know that this debate is very strictly confined to the money which we are voting for the purposes of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. The hon. Member is going a little wide now. He began in order but he has moved a little out of order.
  Mr. Parkin: I hope only a little way out of order.
  I am saying that there are various devices now in existence which can be used for the purposes which seem to me to be covered by this Bill and by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act and by the duties of the immigration officers.
  The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he will, I believe, have an opportunity during the Committee stage of the Bill to raise the issues which are very close to his heart.
  Mr. Parkin: Yes, Dr. King, and that is why I am taking this early opportunity to try to ensure that any orations which I or anyone else might make in Committee will not be frustrated because no provision has been made to supply the necessary money to carry out one's proposals.
  Perhaps I might be allowed to press the point regarding the immigration officer's duty covered by the Money Resolution. If, as a result of the development of policy, it were considered desirable to allow a permit to certain immigrants and to offer them the help of some kind of training course parallel in length and type of instruction with those already in existence, I should like to think that it would not be necessary to introduce a Supplementary Estimate to cover the cost either of the type of training which is available through grants from the Ministry of Labour under Vote VI, Subhead P, workshops for the blind, which is one parallel, or under Subhead N, rehabilitation for the disabled. Both of those devices could easily and smoothly be used in whatever area seemed appropriate, provided that there was no financial hold-up and no suggestion that we had run out of money for this year and it was necessary to ask for a Supplementary Estimate.
  The Chairman: Order. I have been very generous to the hon. Gentleman.
  978
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not need the approval of the Committee. I advise the hon. Gentleman to keep to the terms of the money which is to be provided for the purposes of the Acts the renewal of which we are discussing. This is no comment on the merit or demerit of what he is attempting to argue. My duty to the Committee is to confine him to the terms of the Money Resolution before us, which is closely confined to the Measures mentioned on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Parkin: I am very grateful, Dr. King, and if I have attempted to argue, then I have erred. What I was trying to do was to ask whether we might have from the Financial Secretary tonight an undertaking that this Money Resolution will cover any developments of policy, any enrichment of the services at present offered under the provisions of the existing Act, starting with the duties of the immigration officer who has to decide whether or not to admit an immigrant, whether he will come in for a job which he has found or is about to find, whether it is his intention to attend a course of training at a university or technical college, whether he has found such a place or not—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now trying to discuss the details of the Act itself. All that the Committee is considering at present is the supply of money under the terms of this Money Resolution for the purposes of the Measures mentioned in the Motion before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity at the Committee stage, if an appropriate Amendment is then before the Committee, of discussing any of the various Acts which it is proposed to renew. For the moment, we are merely discussing the provision of money according to the terms of this Resolution. It is not in order to discuss details of any Act.
  Mr. Parkin: May I conclude, then, by asking the Financial Secretary whether such money will be available under this Resolution? I shall then look forward, as, I am sure, other hon. Members will, with much greater relish to proposing ways in which it could be spent when the Act itself comes up for discussion.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): All I can say to the Committee, in answer to

  979
  my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), is that that is precisely what we are asking the Committee to do, to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament for such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Act in question. Of course, the only moneys with which we are concerned and which we can discuss now are those which would be incurred under the Act, and they would be the moneys necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Act for the control of immigrants.
  All the other questions to which my hon. Friend alluded—I appreciate that they are matters of great concern to him—would fall outside the framework of the
  980
  Act, and I cannot, therefore, deal with them on this Resolution.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.
  10:30 P.m.
  Mr. Speaker: I should be grateful if the House would forgive me and waive whatever the rules of order are to allow me to put right an error of mine. I denied the Government an opportunity of saying what should be done about the Committee stage of the Bill.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Lawson.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  AGRICULTURE (HILL COW SUBSIDY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lawson.]
  10.32 p.m.
  Sir Henry Studholme: The House has spent some time today in the rather heated atmosphere of the debate on the Address. I now ask hon. Members to turn their attention for a few minutes to the more peaceful climate of the uplands of Devon, where, however, considerable controversy has been aroused by the review of the hill cow subsidy.
  First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) on his new job as Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I hope that he will have a happy but not too prolonged term of office.
  The hon. Gentleman knows, though I do not think he was in the House at the time, how towards the end of the war, when the late Lord Hudson—Mr. Robert Hudson as he then was—was Minister of Agriculture, committees for England. Wales and Scotland were set up to look into the question of how to improve hill farming and to make recommendations. From their recomrnendations was born the 1946 Hill Farming Act from which the hill cow subsidy derives, and it was amended by the Livestock Rearing Act, 1951, which defined land eligible for subsidy as
  "Land in an area of mountain, hills or heath, which is, or by improvement could be made, suitable for the breeding, rearing and maintenance of sheep and cattle, but not to any material extent for dairy farming, the fattening of sheep or cattle, or the growing of crops for sale."
  Subsequent legislation has merely extended the period of the subsidy without altering the basic conditions for eligibility.
  In Devon, at first, it was only farms in the Dartmoor and Exmoor areas which were considered eligible, but subsequently, when Sir Thomas Dugdale, as he then was, was Minister, certain parts of the Holsworthy area, where much of the land is difficult, wet and
  982
  rushy—though not technically mountains, hills or heath—were included.
  It would, of course, have been much easier and much more agreeable for everyone if it had not been necessary to review the hill cow subsidy. But the Minister could not help himself. He is under a statutory obligation to review these subsidies from time to time to ensure that public money is not being spent on land which is not eligible. Moreover, the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General, those watchdogs of the public purse, were insistent that this should be done and therefore, in 1962, a review throughout the country was started.
  Of the 923 Devon farms then eligible it was considered that 433 needed to be reviewed. This was by far the largest number and the highest proportion of farms reviewed in any county in England and Wales. Of these 433 farms, 209—nearly half—appealed against the decisions to exclude them. I understand that 36 appeals have been allowed wholly or in part and that the remaining 173 farms are confirmed as ineligible.
  The fact that it was proposed to exclude such a large proportion of farms seemed to point to two things, either that the agricultural executive committee had judged these farms incorrectly in the first instance, or that a different yardstick was now being used to determine eligibility.
  The Ministry, however, has officially denied both these suggestions, pointing out that there are bound to be, as it said, slight differences of judgment between committee and committee and that, owing to modern techniques, some farms have so improved as to make them no longer eligible for the subsidy. This was stated in a letter from the Ministry to the Devon C.L.A.
  This explanation has satisfied neither the Devon County N.F.U. nor the C.L.A. nor the Devon M.P.s concerned. Rightly or wrongly, the impression has been created that the review in Devon has been carried out with undue severity. Judging by the half dozen or so of the farms struck out in the Tavistock area which I have inspected, I am most unhappy about the decisions arrived at.
  The farms I am talking about are at about 600 or 650 feet above sea level,

  983
  rather exposed and very close up against Dartmoor. They get the cold wind from the moor and a lot of rain. Grass does not usually start growing there much until May. I do not believe that the land could be considered suitable to any material extent for dairy farming, fattening or the growing of crops for sale, which, of course, is the criterion for ineligibility.
  The crops they grow are poor. The corn is only sown for rotation. Often, it has to be fed in the sheaf because it is not worth threshing when it does not ripen. Pasture needs heavy manuring or it reverts to what I call the "hairy" grass of these hills. I cannot imagine any farmer in his senses going for anything on these farms except livestock rearing, which is what they have always done.
  The sole object of the improvements recently carried out on their farms, at considerable cost to the occupiers and through Government grants, was to make the land more suitable for livestock rearing. In each case, the occupiers have undertaken comprehensive improvement schemes for which they have received grants from the Ministry. They have altered or reconditioned farm buildings to provide suitable accommodation for suckling calves which are reared and sold for stores; they have also built barns and fodder stores and have taken up bracken, scrub and stone which got in the way of fertilising and improving grazing. Now they are told that they are no longer eligible. There is no sense in suggesting that farms such as these should turn over to milk after having been specially adapted recently for livestock rearing. Besides, in most cases the water supply is not up to standard.
  Nor is there any sense in these farmers being told, as I gather they have been told, that if they liked to let their cows remain on the eligible common grazing attached to the farms, they could then get the subsidy. That would be quite contrary to good animal husbandry and merely encouraging farmers to overstock the commons. Moreover, the cows kept on these farms are used for multiple suckling in buildings provided partly by Government grant, with the result that many more cows are reared than if the
  984
  cows are kept out on the moors and only single suckled calves are kept. In the national interest we need greater production today to save imports and this will be obtained by multiple suckling of well managed cows properly housed, and in the interests of the cattle overstocking of commons ought to be discouraged.
  The exclusion of these farms does not make sense and one can only conclude that someone must have drawn an arbitrary line excluding farms below a certain contour, whereas, of course, the decision whether a farm should be in or out ought to rest on the land itself and not upon the precise district in which it is located.
  I have, naturally, taken a great interest in the subject of the hill cow subsidy, because a number of these farmers with hill farms who have been disqualified live in my constituency and I have frequently made my views known to the previous Minister of Agriculture, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames). I therefore all the more resented a letter written jointly by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and the Liberal candidate for Torrington which appeared in the Western Morning News during the election. It was written with the sole object of smearing West Country Conservative Members and denigrating their work on behalf of their constituents. I consider that a dirty trick, or, in more Parliamentary language, I would say that that sort of thing reflects no credit on the hon. Member for Devon, North and his friend.
  In their letter, these two gentlemen implied that I had done nothing for my constituents about this hill cow subsidy. Unlike some other people, I do not blow my own trumpet, but for the sake of the record it is only fair to state that it was thanks to my representations last year, backed by Mr. Percy Browne, that the Minister agreed to give special treatment to the Holsworthy area, as a result of which farms were inspected individually parish by parish instead of, as was originally intended, the whole area being automatically struck out.
  Earlier this year, at the request of Conservative Devon Members, my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Agriculture gave an undertaking that after all appeals had been heard by the A.E.C., he would be prepared to discuss with any Devon Members concerned, together with

  985
  the Chairman of the Devon N.F.U., any of the firms which had been excluded. I trust that the present Minister will fulfil that obligation entered into by his predecessor. I understand, too, that the Minister has recently sent an official to Exmoor who has put one farm back into the scheme against the judgment of the original inspector and the appeal committee. This surely indicates that there ought to be a reappraisal of the whole thing using this farm as the yardstick. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to assure me that these things will be done.
  I also ask that the Minister should consider in what other way he can help these farmers who have been excluded from the scheme, as after this year they will not only no longer be eligible for the hill cow subsidy, but also automatically excluded from the benefits of the new winter keep scheme. They will thus suffer a severe drop in income which they had been looking forward to receiving, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether these people could not even now be included in the winter keep scheme.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Perhaps I might deal, first, with the subject matter of the debate, which is the more important issue here. The position is that there are more farmers adversely affected in my constituency than in any other in Devon, and, as the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) said, Devon is more affected than any other county in the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Gentleman speaks publicly with great enthusiasm now that it is not his own Minister whom he is attacking. I have always maintained that this has not constituted a review, but that it has constituted turning the scheme upside down on its head. There is a farm on Exmoor, 700 feet up, which, in 1952, out of 255 improvement schemes for marginal farms in the county, was regarded as a typical example of a farm which should receive a £ for £ grant under the livestock rearing Act. That is a hill farm within the purest meaning of that Act. It is a farm such as that which has been pushed outside the scheme and the farmer's appeal has been turned down.
  If one goes up to Blackmoor Gate on the edge of Exmoor, and stands on the
  986
  bank, one can see four farms, one of which is in, one of which is out, another of which has not been reviewed at all, and another in respect of which an appeal is pending. It is almost impossible to see any geographical differences at all.
  I know that the Minister has inherited the position, and that it is not of his making, but I ask that he give sympathetic consideration to giving assistance to these hill farmers, many of whom cannot turn over to any other form of husbandry, and who face a loss in income of hundreds of pounds as a result of this arbitrary act of revision.
  The hon. Gentleman thought that I was unduly severe. He may take the same view of what the electorate did to his majority, but that is another matter. All I suggested was that when the hon. Gentleman spoke in this House, faced as he was with the fact that many small farmers were going to face bankruptcy as a result of this revision, all that he felt moved to say was:
  "I sincerely trust that in any marginal case where there is doubt, the farmer will be given the benefit of the doubt and treated as generously as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1964, Vol. 697, c. 1031.]
  I do not think that that was a clarion call.
  Sir H. Studholme: The hon. Gentleman's party has been out of office for so long that he does not know that when one is in office it is often better to go and talk to the Minister, which I did on many occasions. In this debate I asked that when there were marginal cases they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Surely that is only right.
  Mr. Thorpe: It is not for me to question the working of the Conservative Party behind the scenes. I, too, happened to go to the Minister, with the hon. Gentleman, but it is here in this House that we make known the views of our constituents, if one has any respect for this Chamber, which I have, and I would not have thought that to say, in a situation in which men were facing the possibility of going out of business, that one hoped the Minister would give them the benefit of the doubt in marginal cases, was exactly a clarion call. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that his was a clarion call, and that he has been looking after these farmers adequately, I disagree.

  987
  I hope that the Minister will be able to give consideration to these hill farmers. Many of them have put their land into good heart. It is very difficult land, and many of them are contributing to the beef herd of this country and doing a very valuable job of work.
  10.49 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I thank the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) for half the kind things that he said about me. He apparently welcomed me here, but hoped that my stay would not be for long. This does not surprise me too much, because I remember the last occasion on which this subject was raised, and I remember, too, the paeans of praise which he poured forth on the right hon. Gentleman who was then the Minister in charge of this Department. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman likened the Minister to the Archangel Gabriel, and I remember he did it to the detriment of the Archangel. I could never aspire to reach those tremendous heights, but I hope that with a little honest endeavour we might be able to do something for the farmers whose plight has been referred to tonight.
  First of all, I think that I ought to take this single case that was raised, about the recategorising of one particular farm. Let me say quite categorically that in that case the decision was not reversed by the Director of the Land Service. He, in fact, upheld the decision that had been arrived at by the agricultural executive committee. I think that that ought to be clearly understood so that hon. Members will realise that all this thought was given to it, that the A.E.C. on examination of the case made a decision and that the decision was upheld by the Director.
  I accept some responsibility. May I say right at the beginning that I have taken part in many agricultural debates, usually either opening or winding up from the Opposition Front Bench. The only change is that I am on the Government side tonight. It is true, too, that on the Public Accounts Committee I also played a part, and I accept my responsibility, along with the Comptroller and Auditor General and the
  988
  members of the Public Accounts Committee, for working not only on this scheme but on the other schemes which are to be re-examined. I repeat what I have often said, that one's job as a member of the Public Accounts Committee is to look after the public purse and to ensure that the money is wisely spent in the best interests of the country.
  However, I want to say that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tavistock for raising this matter tonight because many hard things have been said about this scheme, not only by the farmers but by the Press. In my reply—because the hon. Gentleman went wider than the hill cow subsidy scheme—I would also like to cast my net a little wider and deal with the subject of hill farming as a whole, one reason being that this difficulty does not only arise in connection with the hill cow subsidy scheme. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) will bear out, many times I raised with him the question of these subsidies for certain farms both in this respect and also in regard to the winter keep scheme. When one seeks to put farms into different categories this difficulty will inevitably arise. So I fought this battle before, from the other side of the House.
  Labour Governments, as the hon. Gentleman conceded, have always recognised that hill farming is one branch of the industry where special measures are necessary. The hill farmer has many problems to face. Primarily, there is the land which is incapable of any agricultural enterprise other than livestock rearing and is often unsuitable for afforestation. Climatic conditions are generally rather rugged, as the hon. Gentleman said, in the hills, and in winter they can be appalling. The hill farmer benefits only indirectly from the livestock guarantees, producing as he does mainly store and breeding stock for other farmers' use and having to sell them in the autumn at the end of the grazing season when the market may well be depressed.
  It is a matter of history that the first comprehensive legislation to assist the hill farmers was introduced by the Labour Government. I know that preparatory work had been done before 1945—I was not here at the time but

  989
  was still in the Army—but it was Mr. Torn Williams, the Minister of Agriculture in the Labour Government, who introduced the Hill Farming Bill in 1946, the first Bill to give assistance to the farmers. This is all I am saying on that point.
  The 1946 Act recognised that hill land had become run-down during the war period, and it introduced special grants for the rehabilitation of hill farms. It also renewed the hill sheep subsidy and the hill cattle subsidy, both of which had been introduced as war-time measures to encourage the grazing of sheep and cattle on the hill land to maintain the breeding flock and to compensate in some measure for the loss of demand from lowland graziers caused by the ploughing-up campaign.
  Aid to the hills was further widened by the Livestock Rearing Act, 1951, which extended the areas for which the rehabilitation grants were available by bringing in the land lower down the hill. In 1953, the Hill Cow Subsidy Scheme was introduced in England and Wales to encourage the establishment of regular breeding herds on such land and the improvement of the pastures. This is the scheme we are supposed to be discussing tonight, although we have ranged a little wide.
  Also under the last Government we saw the end of the power to approve rehabilitation schemes, and the introduction of grants to assist in the growing of winter keep. Through these subsidies and the rehabilitation schemes, no less than £82 million have been paid to the hill farmers of the United Kingdom in the past 18 years.
  The hon. Member for Tavistock dealt at some length with the recent review of hill cow land. I am bound to acknowledge that on the last occasion this was raised—I think much more forcefully—it was raised by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Thorpe) in a debate at which he and I were also present. I will look carefully at this matter. I make that promise, but I am bound to say at once that under existing legislation there is very little than can be done. The definition of eligible land which Parliament approved makes it abundantly clear that, regardless of its present management, if land is suitable for improvement to such an extent that the farming
  990
  enterprise could become one of dairying, fattening or cash cropping to a material extent, it cannot qualify for this special subsidy.
  One thing that is clear to me is that the review itself was carried out with a considerable amount of sympathy and commonsense. The view taken by those carrying out the review was that it would obviously be unrealistic to expect a farmer to carry out uneconomic improvements to his land. I am thinking, in particular, of course, of such matters as extensive drainage schemes which could not be carried out at a reasonable cost. On the other hand, where improvements could and should have been carried out as part of good management to bring out the natural potential of the land, these were taken into account as dictated by the statutory definition I have already quoted.
  Some areas were undoubtedly more affected than others by the review. Here, I should give some figures. The hon. Member for Tavistock mentioned Devon, where 39 per cent. of those eligible for the subsidy in 1963 were affected. I cannot say that I have seen anything that leads me to believe that the Devon farmers were treated any less fairly than those in other parts of England and Wales. Indeed, one fact which struck me most forcibly when I inquired into the conduct of the review was the extreme care with which it had been carried out, and the fair manner in which the agricultural executive committee had considered farmers' representations.
  The review procedure used in Devon was no different from that used elsewhere in England and Wales. Under the overall control of the Ministry's headquarters and with the help of two colleagues from other regions, the Regional Land Commissioner for the South West Region identified the fringe areas of Dartmoor and Exmoor to be reviewed against the national standard of eligibility. After that, the land was carefully considered.
  With appeals the A.E.C.s. independently went to great trouble to do this—not having a cursory glance, but walking the land, each farm individually, just to make absolutely certain that justice was done. That is why I should like to put on record, in view of the criticisms that have been made, the very high regard we have for the people who did this job

  991
  and for the tremendous trouble they took to make sure that justice was given to each farmer.
  I had hoped to say very much more, but I gave way to the hon. Member because I thought that he had better get his little quarel settled and then get on to the business which mattered. But, in conclusion, the House will be interested to know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has asked me, as a matter of urgency, to look at the present pattern of hill subsidies to see whether they could be rationalised or modified in any way to assist this important branch of the agricultural industry, and I hope to obtain through the members of the Hill Farming Advisory Committee the views of a good cross-section of the hill farming industry. When we come up with any proposals we shall, of course, be consulting also the associations representing the various branches of the industry.
  992
  Needless to say, I shall also be keeping in close touch with my colleagues in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, because I finish as I began. This problem affects farmers in all parts of the country. But I hope that with the assurance which I have given the hon. Member, the House will accept that we shall give this matter special and urgent attention. We know what it means to this large section of small farmers. I can give an assurance that we shall lose no time in dealing with the problem, because we know how keenly it affects these people. Their very livelihood depends on it. I assure hon. Members that we shall lose no time in dealing with the—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

POST OFFICE
  Greetings Telegrams
  Greetings Telegrams
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosks (Wrongful Use)
  Kiosks (Wrongful Use)
  Telephone Circuits, Orpington and London
  Telephone Circuits, Orpington and London
  Elderly People
  Elderly People
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Advertising (Cigarettes)
  Advertising (Cigarettes)
  Pirate Broadcasting Stations
  Pirate Broadcasting Stations
  Reception, South Down
  Reception, South Down
HOUSING
  Local Authorities' Houses
  Local Authorities' Houses
  Decontrolled Tenants (Protection from Eviction)
  Decontrolled Tenants (Protection from Eviction)
  Milner Holland Committee (Report)
  Milner Holland Committee (Report)
  Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946
  Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946
  Housing Corporation
  Housing Corporation
  National House Builders Registration Council
  National House Builders Registration Council
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Sewage Pollution
  Sewage Pollution
BOARD OF TRADE
  Exports and Imports
  Exports and Imports
  Kelty
  Kelty
  Llanrwst
  Llanrwst
  Office Building, London Area
  Office Building, London Area
  Import Duty (Representations)
  Import Duty (Representations)
TRANSPORT
  Vehicle Licences
  Vehicle Licences
RAILWAYS
  Proposed Closures
  Proposed Closures
  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  MINISTERS AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (REMUNERATION)
  MINISTERS AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (REMUNERATION)
  HOUSING, GLASGOW
  HOUSING, GLASGOW
  CIVIL SERVICE (NATIONALITY RULE)
  CIVIL SERVICE (NATIONALITY RULE)
  NATIONALITY
  NATIONALITY
  TREATY OF GHENT
  TREATY OF GHENT
  SHOPS AND FACTORIES (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  SHOPS AND FACTORIES (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Beet (Sugar Content)
  Beet (Sugar Content)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  Trading Profits and Professional Earnings (Assessments)
  Trading Profits and Professional Earnings (Assessments)
  Weekly Incomes
  Weekly Incomes
  Toll Bridges
  Toll Bridges
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Blackcurrant Juice
  Blackcurrant Juice
  Import Charge
  Import Charge
  Hydrocarbon Oils
  Hydrocarbon Oils
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS
  Admiralty Jurisdiction
  Admiralty Jurisdiction
SWAZILAND
  Railway
  Railway
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Ghana Navy (Frigate)
  Ghana Navy (Frigate)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Service Voters (Registration)
  Service Voters (Registration)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Pesticides (Committee's Report)
  Pesticides (Committee's Report)
  New Hospital, Lindley
  New Hospital, Lindley
HOSPITALS
  Nurses, Huddersfield
  Nurses, Huddersfield
  St. Lukes Hospital, Huddersfield
  St. Lukes Hospital, Huddersfield
  Regional Hospital Boards (Public Relations Officers)
  Regional Hospital Boards (Public Relations Officers)
  Waiting List, Huddersfield
  Waiting List, Huddersfield
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  EUROPEAN INTER-MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
  EUROPEAN INTER-MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Wandsworth Prison (Ronald Arthur Biggs)
  Wandsworth Prison (Ronald Arthur Biggs)
  Service Voters (Registration)
  Service Voters (Registration)
EMPLOYMENT
  Shipyard Workers, Clyde District
  Shipyard Workers, Clyde District
  Average Weekly Earnings
  Average Weekly Earnings
SCOTLAND
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Feu Duties
  Feu Duties
  Fada-Fionn Hydro-Electric Project
  Fada-Fionn Hydro-Electric Project
  Playing Fields, Glasgow
  Playing Fields, Glasgow
  Clarkston Road, Glasgow
  Clarkston Road, Glasgow
  Glasgow Overspill
  Glasgow Overspill
  Beet (Sugar Content)
  Beet (Sugar Content)
  Teachers (Education, Training and Certification) Regulations
  Teachers (Education, Training and Certification) Regulations
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers (Widows and Orphans)
  Teachers (Widows and Orphans)
  General Teaching Council
  General Teaching Council
  Longannet Power Station, Fife
  Longannet Power Station, Fife
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Pensions and Benefits
  Pensions and Benefits

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

CANCELLATION OF ANGLO-SPANISH NAVAL EXERCISE
2.38 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: 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 on what grounds the joint Anglo-Spanish naval exercises planned for the month of November have been cancelled.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, provisional arrangements for this joint naval exercise had been under consideration for several months. However, the timing of the exercise was such that the new Government were left with insufficient time to consider fully all the implications. This being so, the Government felt unable to approve this particular exercise's going ahead.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, if I am in order, may I, first of all, be permitted to congratulate the noble Lord on his first appearance at the Box and to say how delighted we all are to see him? May I also ask him whether he is aware of the very great success which has attended these Anglo-Spanish naval exercises in past years, and of the fact that the Spanish-American exercises which followed them were the biggest amphibious operation since D-Day? This I think, shows the importance which our American Allies attach to these exercises, from the point of view of the defence of the Straits and the Western Mediterranean. Having regard to this, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will impress on Her Majesty's Government the importance of considering this matter
216
very carefully, with a view to a resumption of these exercises at an early date?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks, and the House for its reception of them. This decision does not necessarily rule out future exercises with the Spanish Navy, and I can assure the noble Lord that the matter will be very fully considered. It is a difficult matter to go into in any great detail at the present moment, but I have certainly noted what the noble Lord has said.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether, when the decision was come to, it was announced as a postponement or a cancellation, because there seems to be some misunderstanding among a good many members of the public?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think it was announced as a decision not to go ahead.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: Is that a cancellation?

PROPOSED EDINBURGH BY-PASS
2.41 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the new traffic pattern created in Edinburgh and Southern Scotland by the Forth Road Bridge, they propose to initiate the early construction of the orbital highway around Edinburgh for which the need was foreseen and advance plans were laid many years ago.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, a survey of traffic entering and leaving Edinburgh was carried out in 1960 but did not produce evidence justifying any high degree of priority for an orbital highway around Edinburgh. It is too early yet to say whether the Forth Bridge has caused any substantial change in the volume of traffic which does not need to enter Edinburgh and could pass the city on a

217
by-pass. A survey which will reveal changes in the pattern of traffic, following the opening of the Bridge, is planned for next summer; and its results will be studied carefully by my right honourable friend and Edinburgh Corporation who are, of course, responsible for traffic plans within the city.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer.

DECIMAL COINAGE
2.42 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make as to their intention to introduce a system of decimal coinage in the United Kingdom.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): No, my Lords. The Government are not yet in a position to make a statement.
LORD FRASER of LONSDALE: My Lords, is this not a matter which has very great technical merit? Also, is it not very much in tune with the technological reform and progress which Her Majesty's Government have declared they wish to see in Britain? Having regard to these factors, will Her Majesty's Government be able to make a statement before long?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, we are mindful of the issues that are involved here, but I would remind the noble Lord of the difficulties, because certain vital issues are still unresolved. For instance, the choice between 10s. and £1 as a unit was, as the noble Lord will know, a bone of contention in the Halsbury Committee upon which they divided 4 to 2. With regard to a further announcement, I can assure the noble Lord that the question will be examined, but I cannot say any more at this juncture.

ROAD ACCIDENTS AND DUAL CARRIAGEWAYS
2.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: 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 consideration is being given to road accidents that take place at the end of dual carriageways, and whether ample warning should not be given to motorists to reduce speed at such points.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, we are aware of the difficulties caused by drivers failing to reduce speed sufficiently at the end of dual carriageways. We consider that the best solution to the problem lies in the proper use of adequate traffic signs warning drivers of the situation clearly and in good time. I am sure that the new traffic signs recommended in the Worboys Report will result in a great improvement. Where appropriate, their use has already been specially authorised to indicate the end of dual carriageways. The signs include one telling drivers to "Reduce Speed Now".
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the actual placing of these signs will be the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport or of local government?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, it will be the responsibility of the highway authorities in association with the Ministry. Lack of standardisation of signs has been one of the failings. The Ministry, in conjunction with the highway authorities, are trying to secure standardisation, and a manual is being prepared to be submitted to them. They, together with the divisional road engineers, will establish uniformity to the greatest possible degree.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord when he anticipates that these signs will be erected?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, we hope that the regulations will come into force on January 1 next. Then, in con-

219
junction with the highway authorities, the signs will be erected as soon as possible after that. Some of them have already been erected in suitable places where new signs have been required.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord take note that the excellent signs at the ends of motorways, and at their junctions with other roads, have proved such a success? Why can they not be duplicated straight away?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, they are the signs to which I have already referred: "Reduce Speed Now", and "Dual Carriageway Ends". In fact, on motorways, and, I hope, on other roads, this will given an indication of the distance to the end of the dual carriageway.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his reply, and to wish him every success in the arduous task of representing Her Majesty's Government on a subject in which this House has always taken a great and intelligent interest.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Crook, the Lord Archibald, the Lord Ailwyn, the Lord Cawley, the Lord Airedale, the Lord Douglas of Barloch, and the Lord Strang, be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Earl of Longford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
2.46 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved on Tuesday last by Baroness Wootton of Abinger—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in the following terms:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this afternoon we resume the debate on the Motion,
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty",
which was so eloquently and interestingly, although perhaps not entirely uncontroversially, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. After rather a long week-end of refreshing ourselves, mentally and physically, it will no doubt be expected that that high standard which was maintained during the first two days of our debate, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, referred, will continue this afternoon; and, looking at the list of speakers after myself, I have no doubt that that will be the case. Nevertheless, since noble Lords speaking from the Front Bench of the Government craved a certain indulgence of the House, on the grounds of their inexperience in that position, I think I might point out that my position is not very much better inasmuch as I am by far the most junior ex-Minister to have spoken from this Front Bench so far. In fact, I am only one-half of a Front Bencher, because I have one foot on the Front and one foot on the Back Bench. I realise that the noble Earl the Leader of the House, as he has said more than once before, prefers both my feet to be on the Back Bench; nevertheless, I will do my best.
Before I start on the serious business I should like, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches—in fact, I think on behalf of everybody in your Lordships'

221
House—to welcome the advent of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, who is to speak very soon after me and who will, in fact, be making his maiden speech from the Government Front Bench in this House. I know that the noble Lord comes up from another place with a great reputation, and I was particularly interested to hear it whispered that he has very great experience with the technical side, if I may so put it, of Amendments, especially Amendments in opposition. He will have to deal with a great many Amendments for the Government—looking at the gracious Speech, that is no doubt the case—and I hope he will feel very much at home doing that. But, of course, if al any time he likes to help us on this side with our Amendments he will be very welcome.
Another thing I would say is that I am most delighted, in spite of what has been said in the Press and by the Prime Minister on more than one occasion, that the sheer merits of my old school have not been entirely overlooked on the Government Benches, and for that reason, too, I welcome him. May I also take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who is to wind up to-day, on his appointment? Our paths have not often crossed in debate, as we tended rather to deal with different subjects, but I wish him good luck and a safe and happy return to this side of the House.
If I may now turn to the gracious Speech, I should like to read out the sentence that referred to the problem of housing. Here it says:
"My Government will pursue a vigorous housing policy directed to producing more houses of better quality, and will promote the modernisation of the construction industry."
It is most gratifying to find that after such a short period of office the Government have come to the obvious and inevitable conclusion that they could not do better than carry out the policy of the previous Government, for that is precisely what those words mean, and I think it is just as well to set the record straight at the beginning before turning to an examination of the methods which the Government intend to pursue.
I need not go back to as early as 1951—it has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Dundee—when we increased the speed of building after being
222
told that we could not do it. Noble Lords will remember that only at the beginning of this year my right honourable friend the previous Minister of Housing promised that we should put up the rate of house building from 300,000 this year to something getting on for 340,000 or perhaps 350,000, that next year we should get more than that number, and that thereafter, in two years hence, aim at 400,000. It is a well-known fact that we have exceeded that promise already and that this year very nearly 370,000 houses or thereabouts are going to get built—we are to reach that figure a year ahead of time. After that we should have been aiming at 400,000 and should have been confident of fulfilling that aim in the coming year. In fact, as we come out of office there are 432,000 houses under construction. Therefore I think that the figure for housing at the end of 1965 should quite easily top 400,000. Of course, the credit, as I am sure the noble Lord will be the first to acknowledge, will be to the previous Conservative Government. But if, by any chance, that target should not be reached, then, of course, we on this side should require a full explanation of why there has been a failure to reach the figure of 400,000.
The latter part of the sentence I quoted from the gracious Speech referred to better quality. Of course, the noble Lord who is going to follow me will be well aware that that was also the policy of the previous Government, and in fact a Working Party was set up by the National Federation of Registered House Builders and staffed by the Council of House Builders and the Federation of Building Trade Employers, with representatives from the Government as well, to go into this very problem of quality. The previous Minister had given his views very clearly about it before the Working Party was set up. Its report has been published and it made the recommendation that it should, if necessary, be compulsory for all house builders to register with the Council, so that the standard would be uniform throughout the private building industry, with regular inspection and a two-year guarantee. We made it quite clear that we wished to see that happen and were quite prepared to bring in legislation to that effect. Therefore, on the ground of better quality, the pre-

223
vious Government were showing the way, and I hope that the present one will bring in such legislation. If they do we will certainly support it.
When we come to modernisation, relating to industrial systems of building, the previous Government had made giant strides in this direction. We set up a National Building Agency to co-ordinate both the private and the public side of the building industry, to make sure that they were aware of the latest developments and were industrialised. Our aim was to help them, especially the smaller firms, to co-ordinate and in general to be able to make progress in these systems. Not only that, hut we had got together many local authorities with a view to forming groups or consortia. We have spoken about this before in your Lordships' House, but I think it should be made generally known at the beginning of a new Session and a new Government. In fact, there are now already, as I have no doubt noble Lords will have discovered, 68 of the larger local authorities grouped together in ten different consortia, and those 68 represent no less than 25 per cent. of the total of local authority house-building.
In addition, there are another 400 local authorities talking about these ideas, and we hope that a good many of them, perhaps most of them, will eventually get together into these consortia, thereby enabling a great group of orders to be placed well ahead, so that modern factories can be set up on an economic basis for manufacturing standard component parts and economise, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to speed up the whole process of the construction industry. If those other 400 local authorities came in there would be no less than 75 per cent. of the whole of the building industry, in so far as the public side, the local authority side, is concerned, in these consortia; and that is the greatest advance that could be made for encouraging industrial systems of building.
Again, building regulations are being reviewed very thoroughly. The necessary consultations were being carried out by the previous Minister of Public Building and Works and the regulations and the by-laws would have been put on a national basis. I believe they are quite near the stage when it will be possible to publish
224
them. That, again, will be a great step in the direction of economy and efficiency. So, my Lords, the previous Government took all those steps towards modernisation, and I put that on the record now. I think we can agree with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn who, when winding up on Thursday and speaking of economic trade expansion and such matters, referred to the fact that a better inheritance could hardly have been passed on from one Government to another. I think this applies very much to the field of housing.
If I may I will now turn to the methods the Government are proposing to employ to back up this policy of ours which they intend to pursue. First, I come to the important matter of the Lands Commission. We are bound to disagree fundamentally with this approach, for two reasons. First of all, we believe that if anything can wreck the previous housing policy, which is being pursued, or the intention of the present housing policy of the Government, it will be the Lands Commission, because we do not see how after a period of time, say two years, land will as readily come forward for sale; and without land housing cannot go up. The second reason is that we disapprove fundamentally of a policy which appears to be first cousin to nationalisation of the land. We need not go into that in any great detail now, but there are three questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord, and I think he should perhaps at this stage be able to answer them.
Before the General Election the impression was, I think, that all land obtaining planning permission would automatically come under the eye of the Lands Commission and be acquired. Then, during the Election it seemed to be made plain that this would refer only to urban land. I should like clarification of whether this means only urban land on which planning permission is required or all land with planning permission. If the former, how will urban land be defined? I dare say that the noble Lord already has some idea as to what that would comprise. The second question is this. If compulsory powers are to be applied in the case of the necessity to acquire land in peri-urban areas—and this is just the sort of case in which land is required for the expansion of existing communities—will these areas be acquired compulsorily if they are still agricultural land? Land

225
which is not actually built on and which is required for building normally is agricultural land. I d) not see how the Government are going to get over that point.
Thirdly, what is the real object of this Lands Commission? Is it, as we were originally told, to cheapen houses or is it simply to acquire betterment value for the State? It seems to us that these two objectives are mutually exclusive. If a reasonable price to tempt people to sell is to be given to the owners of land, so that sales will not be held up, and if the State wishes to make a profit, that means selling to the builder at market value, and obviously he will pass that on to the client, to the person who wishes to buy the long leasehold, to whom it will not be any cheaper. If, on the other hand, the Lands Commission merely covers its overheads, then it will have to control the price at which the builder sells and also the price at which t le prospective owner sells. I do not see how the Commission can attain both these objectives. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to clarify that point.
That brings me to the question of leasehold enfranchisement. Here we find, on the one hard, that Crown leaseholds are to be up. On the other hand, it is said clearly in the gracious Speech that private leaseholds are to be virtually abolished—or, at any rate, that people owning these leases will have the right to have them enfranchised and to own the property. How can the Government reconcile Crown leaseholds with the abolition of private leaseholds? What is the logic of that? Is the Crown leasehold a moral and righteous thing and the private leasehold an unrighteous thing? I do not quite follow, and I should like to hear the noble Lord's views on that subject.
Further, how is it possible to ignore the protection which has already been given to lessees who have leases which were originally signal for over 21 years? They are protected, except in cases where land is needed for redevelopment or for personal occupation of the owner. I suppose that the more important aspect is redevelopment. But is the redevelopment of these houses, many of them very old ones, to be considered a crime? Surely, in this modern age, we want redevelopment. I gather that this rule
226
does not apply to Crown leases. Therefore there is going to be no choice for the private owner of a long lease. That is made quite clear. The Crown intend to develop. Why should that right be denied to the private owner of land because he leases it?
Then there is a question of rents. Here we believe that reimposing rent control over a very wide area will, in fact, reduce the number of houses available for rent in future, because whenever houses become vacant they will be sold and will not go back to renting. That is what happened before the Rent Act, 1957, was passed. This system will introduce an inflexibility and immobility over the whole country. It is all right for those who have a place to rent, but what about those coming on who want a place? How will they be able to get one? What happens when younger members of a family leave home and the older people are left in the house? How are the young people ever going to be able to get a house? There will be a situation of under-occupation. It seems to us that this is not the right way to solve the problem of providing houses to rent.
Is it the intention of the Government to bring back under control all those houses decontrolled since 1957? That is what it says in the Labour Manifesto. Yet, the other day in another place, the Prime Minister did not say quite that. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 701 (No. 4) col. 77]:
"But we shall not try to put the clock back to where it stood in 1957. We see this as a great opportunity for moving forward to a new, juster and more humane relationship between landlord and tenant."
Perhaps the noble Lord could interpret the meaning of those words "put the clock back", because I am afraid that I am not clear about what they mean. Are only some rents to be controlled? I do not know.
That brings me to the special situation which exists in London. The previous Government recognised this, when we set up the Milner Holland Committee to inquire into the special difficulties and cases of hardship in London. We knew that there were these special cases, but it was difficult to prove exactly where. We wanted to have all the facts and we intended to act on these facts when we had them in our possession.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would excuse me for a moment. We welcome help from any quarter. The noble Lord said that he does not think we have the right solution to the shortage of houses to rent. What is the right solution?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, our first solution was to build more and more houses. But we do not believe that inflexible rent control is the way to make houses available for rent, or to keep available those now existing. That is really the difference.
I was speaking about the Milner Holland Committee. Is it the intention of the Government to bring forward legislation for rent control before they have the results? We said that we would act on recommendations made and, if necessary, bring in legislation for London and for other specially congested cities where similar problems exist. But I do not believe that it is right to extend rent control over the country as a whole. At the same time, we welcome the promised review of landlord and tenant relations, because that is what we intended to do after we had had the Milner Holland Report.
Finally—or nearly finally—there is the question of offices. In moving the humble Address, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger seemed to imply that offices had been going up at the expense of slum clearance. But the noble Lord knows of course, that only 4 per cent. of all building is attributable to offices. When we were dealing with the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill eighteen months ago, the noble Lord, Lord Latham was concerned about what he called "slum offices", which exceeded in number the slum houses. I hope very much that this standstill in office building is not going to prevent the redevelopment of offices which ought to be redeveloped. There is the question of compensation and the smell of retrospective legislation. After all, the Act which in its Third Schedule gave tolerance rights for redevelopment and existing use was laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in 1947. Now, another Labour Government is going
228
back on that Act. I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to comment on this particular attitude.
It is difficult to get a development certificate for an office, when it is not known who is going into the office. This is bound up with the larger problem of the location of population, industry and commerce. There is no doubt that the Government want to tackle this problem, but they are proposing to do so in a way which I think they may find is heading them for a fall. If they are going to try to make people go into various parts of the country, however desirable that may be theoretically, they may come up against that old problem of the individualism and obstinacy of people. I think they need to be careful of making a paper plan and then trying to make people fit into it, especially when they are trying to deal with young married people and young married workers. The young are not noticeably tolerant of interference, and the old are of course especially obstinate. It is perhaps right to say that the only really reasonable people are those of about my age—the middle-aged people! I feel that the Government may have considerable trouble in trying to make people do things they do not want to do.
The gracious Speech refers to
"reforms in taxation and better arrangements for local government finance."
This is tucked away on the third page where one can hardly find it. However, I am wondering whether under this short sentence are hidden all these reforms in the Labour Manifesto, of 100 per cent. loans for house purchase, of low interest rates for local authority housing, and the general borrowing powers of local authorities, which, of course, were revised earlier this year under the Public Works Loans Board. These are major matters which we have no time to discuss now, but they can bring about a vast change in the whole field of local authority administration and of national finance. We shall have to keen a sharp eye open on this question. After all, the 100 per cent. loans have been available since 1959, and 80 per cent. of local authorities use them. Therefore, I do not know why such a shout was set up about this by the Labour Party during the Election, unless they are going to

229
produce the money for the local authorities and put further charges on the taxpayer in this respect. I do not know what the intention may be.
The gracious Speech refers to various measures in the fields of housing, transport and so on, which will he directed towards meeting
"the needs and aspirations of the time".
After reading the Labour Manifesto and the gracious Speech, and after hearing and reading speeches in another place as well as in this House, I very much wonder whether this should not read, "the needs and aspirations of the Labour Party." What I should like to see is "the needs and aspirations of the people". I think, as time goes on, the Government will find that the needs and aspirations of the people are not those which they have set out in such precise teens in the gracious Speech or in their Manifesto; when the time comes these people will show that the Government have mistaken some of the needs and aspirations, and will vote accordingly.
3.14 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, before I pass the few comments I propose to make on the gracious Speech I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in giving congratulations to the noble Lord who is to reply. I wish him very good luck in his task, which I am sure he will find no problem at all.
One of the things which I read with interest and excitement in the gracious Speech was that it was the intention of the Government
"to modernise and develop the health and welfare services"
of the country. That, I thought, was some reward for me, because I have been talking about this to your Lordships on a great many occasions over quite a long period of time. I felt that at last some of what I had been saying was going to come back. However, my feelings of joy were rather shaken when I found that under the new Government there was not to be a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health sitting in this House. I realised that perhaps my feeling of success was not so justified as I thought. What I propose to do now is to repeat, not in quite the same words, some of the things I have been saying in the past, because we do not quite know what is proposed and
230
something that I say may put some idea into the minds of those who are considering this matter.
The really important point is that we should regard the health and welfare services of the country as one service and not as two services. This applies particularly when you are dealing with old people and with the young. Here, again, I should like to emphasise what a great similarity there can be between the problems of the old and of the young. When one comes to look at the way these services function it appears rather strange, because the local authorities have health and welfare functions, and the hospitals and Regional Boards have health functions—they are not quite the same, of course—and it is difficult to come to a real dividing line between these three types of services provided by two different kinds of authority. There are a number of local authorities at the present time which have moved a step forward and combined their health and welfare committees. I believe it has been done with encouragement from the Ministry of Health, and we trust that more of this will occur. Indeed, one would like to see things go so far that medical officers of health for the local authorities become the chief welfare officers, as has occurred in some local authorities.
Another thing one finds is the split which occurs between the hospital beds provided under the Regional Hospital Boards and the beds for the infirm and the frail which have been run by separate authorities. This causes a good deal of delay, difficulty and hardship. It occurs particularly in London, where things are not suite as satisfactory as they are in some other parts of the country. The lack of continuity which one finds in the care of some of these people who move from one institution to a hospital and back again can, I regret to say, lead to quite a lot of waste of effort and time on the part of the hospital authorities, the welfare authorities, the medical staff and nursing staff, and the auxiliary staff employed in treating these people.
I should like to quote one case in point. There was a woman admitted into one of my beds some time ago. She was, from my point of view, a comparatively young woman of about

231
67 or 68. She had suffered quite a bad stroke, and it took us a long time to get her into a mobile state where she could lead a comparatively normal life. Unfortunately, because of certain difficulties with the family, it was not possible for her to go back to her home. She was transferred to one of the local authority homes, and one kept an eye on her for a short time. One then thought that she was going on well, and did no more.
About four months ago—that is, about six months after she had been there—I received a message saying that she had become what they call one of the chronic sick (that unpleasant phrase) and would I please go and take her over as she was too ill for them. I went and saw her, and I found that she had been put to bed immediately she got there and kept in bed for six months. She came back to my hospital. I do not claim any particular credit for myself, but by our working on her again—she was a very willing person—she has now come back to being a normal and mobile individual as she was before she went away ten months ago. That seems to me to be a great waste of time, trouble and effort on the part of the various authorities, and at the same time not to be very good for the patient. I wonder whether, if we are to modernise and improve the welfare services, some of the beds which are at present reserved for the frail and infirm could not be tied up more with the medical services so that that sort of thing need not occur again.
May I quote another example, which is rather more encouraging? There was a man who had been admitted to a local authority home quite a long time ago, and they approached us saying that he was terribly sick, that he was a complete cripple, suffering from bad chronic bronchitis, and could we admit him. He did not seem too bad when I saw him, and when he came into hospital one soon found that he was not a cripple at all. He was perfectly mobile, so much so that one day he put on his clothes and left, saying he was going for a walk. He went down to Sandown Park to the races and came back with £25 in his pocket. Two days later he did the same thing. He went to some other race meeting and came back with £70 in his pocket. I do not call him a person who should be regarded as
232
chronic sick and taken care of at public expense in some hospital. He has now gone back to a welfare home, where I expect he is still making money when he goes out. That is one thing to which I should like to draw Her Majesty's Government's attention.
There is another point I should like to mention briefly. Is it not time that the cumbrous structure of the Ministry of Health, Regional Hospital Boards and hospital management committees was changed into something rather more modern and developed in some better way? A great deal of time is wasted in projects moving up and coming down this great staircase. I think I am right in saying that when the National Health Service Bill was first talked about in Parliament it was said that it was not the intention that the Ministry should keep a real financial stranglehold upon the Service; but that, unfortunately, is going on now. One wonders whether that situation could not be improved. There have been various suggestions made, one by my own Party and one by the Report of the committee under the chairmanship of Sir Arthur Porritt, which suggested area health boards which would comprise the local authority, the general practitioner and the hospital service, making one service for the people in need of medical and welfare care. I admit that it would involve some change in the local authority functions, and might be rather difficult to do, but I think it is something which is well worth thinking about seriously.
There was something else mentioned in the gracious Speech which I was pleased to see. It said that steps were to be taken to increase the number of doctors in the country. We need more doctors in the country, first, because the population of the country is increasing and, secondly, because in some of the town areas there are definitely not enough doctors to go round. They have far too much work to do. Too many patients go to their surgeries, and they cannot give them the proper attention they would like to give. If the Government really persist in their intention to create more doctors, I trust they will not just train more doctors in the same medical schools. Medical schools are full to capacity, and if we are going to push more students into a school which is full it merely means that the standard of teaching will fall. What we want to see is a great many more

233
medical schools started. I cannot make a prophecy about the number we shall need, because it is difficult to find out what the increase in the shortage of doctors is going to be. We certainly want five or six more medical schools.
And we must not forget that it takes a long time for a doctor to be produced. So one cannot wait too long for the medical schools, because the supply of doctors from foreign and Commonwealth countries may not be quite as big as it was. We want to produce our own doctors to replace those excellent people who come from India and other Commonwealth or foreign countries. They come here because they can learn a great deal that they can take back to their own country. Finally, supposing that more medical schools are to be con. structed, I hope there will be some place in them for a certain number of students from Commonwealth countries, and even from foreign countries. There is a great demand for such people to come here and carry out their medical training in this country, and one would like, if possible, to meet it.
3.27 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, may I begin by thanking, most warmly and sincerely, both the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for the personal remarks they were kind enough to make about me? These things are sometimes said with grace and sometimes apparently without conviction. In this case they were said with so much grace that I feel there must be some conviction. I am exceedingly thankful for that.
May I also confess to your Lordships a difficulty about which I think I must ask for some indulgence? I am not quite sure how virginal I am. I am here to answer for the Government on a variety of matters, and Lord Hastings, while kindly and courteously appreciating my difficulties as a maiden speaker, asked me a number of questions to which he required replies. I am not quite sure that the replies can be given at this stage, and that I will say in a minute. But I have a suspicion that behind the velvet glove there lay an iron hand, and that these questions were
234
designed, not only to elicit information but also to show me how misguided I was. We all know about misguided virgins, but they are a very difficult case to deal with in practice.
I should like to refer first to the points put by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, because all I can say to him is that I listened to his speech with the greatest interest and attention, but that I think my noble friend Lord Stonham will more conveniently deal with it at the end of the debate, and I hope to the noble Lord's satisfaction.
To the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, may I say this? I much appreciate the difficulty in which your Lordships may be put by any conventional reluctance to interrupt me. I rather like being interrupted. If I had had that more in recollection at the time I feel sure that I should have refrained under some provocation from interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. But these are surely matters on which legislation will have to be introduced, and which will have to be discussed when they appear in legislative form.
The noble Lord very kindly referred to my own crude attempts at drafting, but these are apparently unnecessary in Conservative circles, since he expected a Junior Minister, at a very early stage in Parliament, to be able to deal with matters many of which would be the concern of skilled draftsmen, upon which expert advice would be needed and, I hope, consultation with public bodies and others who may be affected by them. That, I have always understood, though I have never been a Minister before, was the proper course for legislation, and I feel that to deal with it without those preliminaries would certainly trap me into all kinds of awkward statements and would not really satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Hastings—he would have shot a very small rabbit indeed.
Therefore, I should like to take up one thing he said which, I must say, surprised me. He told us, if I have the words correctly, that in the field of housing a better inheritance could hardly be imagined. I must say that I think that will surprise a great many people. I do not wish to be contentious—I am trying, so far as I can, not to be—but when I think of the people who are looking for houses in and around London,

235
and of the people who have to live under what are really disgraceful conditions, both in London and the larger cities, I can only imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has not met many of them lately. Perhaps he would like to tell them what he told us to-day.
My Lords, I want to deal, as briefly as possible, with quite a number of subjects, and to begin with housing. I would say, with respect, that this involves the most intimate human problems, and I had hoped that the Government would have the sympathy and support of your Lordships in the attempts they propose to make to deal with the many difficulties of housing. I still hope so. I feel sure, too, that we shall be able to discuss them without undue prejudice, agreeing that neither landlords nor tenants, neither housing authorities nor developers, are all good or all bad, even if their interests inevitably sometimes conflict. I trust that we shall regard housing as a field where the main impulse will have to come from a partnership of the Government of the day and the housing authorities. But there remains ample room for the constructive help of housing associations and other voluntary bodies.
I do not think your Lordships will expect me at this stage to say much about policy or about the measures required to implement the statements in the gracious Speech. They are, I repeat, matters in this case for my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and they are also matters which require detailed consideration and detailed explanation. But I should like to say a few words about the present position, with little comment on my part on what has happened or has not happened in the recent past. I cannot, however, refrain from pointing out that the target set by Conservative Governments varied from time to time. In May, 1963, it was 350,000 houses, and then, by the autumn of 1963, it was 400,000. These figures are really quite beyond anything that has actually been attained during the thirteen years of Conservative Government. The figures in those thirteen years have varied one side or another of 300,000, the highest figure being reached, oddly enough, at about the time of a previous Election in 1955.
236
One, of course, welcomes the coincidence of policies in many respects. Housing is, after all, a grave public responsibility, and it is good to know that during the last year, at any rate, of the previous Government there was a great deal of coincidence between measures which we had been advocating for some time and those which they had found it right to adopt. Quite sincerely and without any backwash, if I may put it like that, I say that one welcomes that. This is a matter in which conditions change and policies must change from time to time with them.
I should like, therefore, to turn again to what is the present position. The last Report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government pointed out, quite rightly, that, in spite of what has been done under successive Governments, of both Parties, since the war, there persists a severe shortage of houses, especially in and around the main centres of employment. In Greater London, for instance, there are about 215,000 more households or families, whichever you like to call them, than there are dwellings. This means shared dwellings which are sometimes overcrowded and a good many families in the care of the London County Council as homeless. Most of the larger Provincial cities have substantial waiting lists. I must repeat, I can hardly call this a particularly good inheritance.
But I am afraid that that is only part of the story. For those who want to live in London and, indeed, for those who have to live there because of their occupation, accommodation is hard to find and unduly expensive. In terms of human relationships such a situation offers tempting opportunities to landlords who are more concerned with the financial aspects of what they do than with the personal and social consequences. The effect of the Rent Act, 1957, particularly the decontrol of houses on new tenancies, commonly called "creeping decontrol", has not been to increase the supply of available accommodation. In too many cases it has removed the security of tenure inherent in the original idea of control of housing. To stop unjust evictions has become an urgent necessity.
I now turn to some questions which particularly affect the activities of local authorities. Whatever estimate we may

237
make of the total number of houses required to be built in a year, I hope that we shall all agree that there must be a proper balance between houses built by public authorities and those built by private builders. In 1951 there were about eight houses built by public authorities for every one built privately. By 1963 the proportion of public authority Houses had fallen to a startling extent; there were only about five houses built by public authorities for every seven built privately. Houses built privately are not, as a rule, built to let, and I am driven to the conclusion that no proper balance has been kept between the requirements of those who, for one reason or another, can ill afford to buy, even with the help of a loan, and those who can buy and are prepared to face the uncertainty of mortgage rates. One result has been to oblige many young people to buy houses when they would have preferred to rent them, and the shortage of houses to let interferes with the mobility of labour that may well be required if we are to modernise industry.
The gracious Speech mentioned
"central or regional plans to promote economic development. with special reference to the needs of the under-employed areas of the country."
However attractive to developers it may be to provide more accommodation around London, it is clear from the words I have just quoted that there will be at least as great a need for new housing in and around centres of industry existing or to be established in other parts of the country; and much of that need will have to be met by public authority housing in one form or another, no doubt including New Towns. In this connection there will have to be an early review of housing subsidies, which in recent years have failed to encourage a sufficient proportion of public authority housing.
Without, for the time being, going into the complicated questions of improvement grants, general reconditioning and slum clearance, I should like to point out that much remains to be done by way of plans for urban renewal. The connection with transport problems is obvious and was well illustrated by the Buchanan Report. Similarly, if new industry is to be established in parts of the country where it has not hitherto existed there must obviously be co-ordination
238
both with transport and with housing. I feel sure that your Lordships will appreciate that if industry and our economic problems are to be regarded as a national matter, the strategy of housing and transport must also be founded on national requirements. After all, if we want a man to take a job in some particular place, and perhaps to acquire a new skill for the purpose, we must provide him with a home reasonably near his work and, let us hope, with less difficulty in travelling between his home and his work than he meets under present conditions. I would admit at once that these are aspirations, but we can make them targets and do our best to move towards them.
The gracious Speech mentions the control of rents and the establishment "as rapidly as possible of a Crown Lands Commission". Your Lordships will not expect me at this stage to make more than the most general observations on either of these topics, which are of course connected. It is the possibility of getting a high price for urban accommodation, whether on sale or by means of a high rent, which had led in a few cases to the most reprehensible steps to evict sitting tenants and in many more cases to pressure on them one way and another to get out of the house they have occupied for so long. One underlying cause for this is, of course, the shortage of houses to which I have already referred.
Another cause of rising rents, whether paid to the private landlord of to a housing authority, is the high price of land, for of course a private landlord can get higher rents if the alternative is a house to be built on expensive land. As regards local authorities, the high price of land is reflected in higher rents and rates, and it affects not only housing but the buildings required for their other services, such as those in connection with education and health. No one can promise an immediate or startling reduction in the price of land, but some action in this direction is imperative. The object of the Lands Commission, which will be within the province of my right honourable friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources, is to deal with the problem which has troubled us all since and before the Uthwatt Committee; that is, to ensure that some part of the development value of land will ensure to the community, since it is the community and

239
its actions which have brought the development value into being.
I know the interest that your Lordships take in National Parks, and I should like to add that they, too, will fall within the province of my right honourable friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources.
There are two other matters I would mention in connection with housing. The price and the rent of houses depend, of course, not only on the cost of land but also on the cost of building, and I hope your Lordships will welcome on general social grounds, as indeed the noble Lord. Lord Hastings, did, both the reference in the gracious Speech to the modernisation of the construction industry and—here perhaps we part company—also the recent statement about offices in and round London. It has been generally realised that if London housing conditions are to be improved some check is needed on the growth of offices in the metropolis, and I can only say how glad I am that firm steps have been taken without delay; it was high time for them. The construction industry is, of course, concerned not only with housing but with other calls on it; and the number of houses built, as well as the extent to which demands for more schools and other public buildings can be met, must depend, whatever figures Governments may give from time to time, on the capacity of the industry and on its full utilisation. There is clearly, I think, a duty to review the position. We shall have to see what improvements can be made.
Lastly I turn to the field of social security. Your Lordships will recollect the passage in the gracious Speech in which we make it clear that we think that our existing schemes of social security need radical changes. We are starting a review of these schemes at once and this will be comprehensive and far-ranging. We have already indicated the broad lines on which, in our view, changes should be made. We shall give high priority to working out our plans for ensuring to people already retired and to widows an adequate minimum income received as of right. Means of improving the retirement pension scheme for those retiring in future and the possibility of introducing short-term wage-related unemployment and sickness benefits will also be considered. But these are
240
inevitably longer-term measures. Meanwhile, social justice demands that something should be done as soon as possible for the old, the sick, the widows and other members of the community suffering misfortune. Their needs cannot be expected to wait while major measures of reform are worked out, and we intend, therefore, to introduce early legislation to provide for a general increase of flat-rate benefits on the present pattern and for the necessary increases in contributions. The amounts and other details will be for my right honourable friends to announce, but I do not expect that your Lordships will have very long to wait.
My Lords, may I say personally that I hope I have not been more contentious than the occasion required. I cannot claim to have been non-contentious. I have done my best to obey that very fine piece of Jacobean English in your Lordships' Standing Orders and not to he offensive. If I have gone too far, it was no doubt through lack of experience, but I think your Lordships would forgive me a little indiscretion in that respect if I went as far as I could to give the information required, although I must repeat that most of the questions I was asked seem to me to be matters which we shall have to consider at a later stage with legislation before us.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, may I just say that I restrained an almost overwhelming impulse to interrupt the noble Lord on at least half a dozen occasions.
LORD MITCHISON: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and regret that he did not do so.
3.50 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has already been very generously and very sincerely welcomed by Members of the two Benches opposite, and it is my own privilege in following him to speak from the rather more sparsely occupied Bishops' Bench but with no less sincerity. Indeed, I hope that the noble Lord, when he hears the reply of the Bishop, will not accuse me, any more than he did the other two speakers, either of a lack of grace or a lack of conviction. But, in welcoming and congratulating a noble Lord on his maiden speech, however much we are apt to say that we hope he will on many other occasions address us, in

241
this particular instance it is quite clear that the requirements of either his own Party or the Parties opposite will ensure he does speak on many occasions. I need only add that we shall look forward to these occasions with great anticipation in view of his past record, and the able and felicitous way in which he has spoken to us this afternoon assured us that we shall listen to him with great profit.
I should like to take up the point with which he and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, began, a id say a little on this matter of housing, because, as has been rightly said, this a human problem. One of your Lordships twitted the Government, I think during the earlier stages of the debate on the gracious Speech, on trying to chase too many top priorities at once. But housing is a top priority; it is a bread-and-butter matter of life; and while there are many other matters which concern the lives and the amenities of people which come within the compass of this debate, none of them can take the place of a house, a place where a family can live. We might be in danger of being rather like Marie Antoinette suggesting a diet of cake to a breadless populace if we were to suppose that other things could ever take the place of or be a substitute for adequate housing in a community.
We are aware indeed—though we do not stop often enough to think of it—of what it would be to face a houseless future, of the plight of a young couple trying to make a home when they cannot get a home, or of a family which has to try to preserve family life in decency and privacy, if not in comfort, in overcrowded conditions. And, of course, we are aware of the hopeless prospects, which have been referred to, of many old people who dread the time when they may be taken away from the normal life of the community into some quarters where they feel isolated and cut off. It is fair to add that part of the sting of Smethwick, on which so much has been said, not always wisely, was a housing and not a racial problem: and although housing involves a great deal more than merely building houses, it is first of all simply on the matter of houses that we must be concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, referred kindly to the part played by voluntary housing associations. They fluctuate to some extent in the response
242
they obtain from the public, in the same way that public opinion fluctuates on this whole issue. Sometimes we are quiescent. Sometimes when the lid is taken up by somebody and we realise the actual conditions under which some people have to live feeling is then aroused. I believe that the present moment is a time when the public conscience is seriously exercised about the conditions of housing—at a time when there is so much prosperity in other fields. The part played by the voluntary, non-profit-making societies is a long and an honourable record; it is largely local, largely intimate and personal. I am happy to say that only recently, under the initiative of the British Council of Churches, a new housing trust has been started, hacked by the London County Council, backed not merely by individuals but by the Churches themselves, whose purpose is to stimulate the formation of local housing societies and, of course, to stimulate public opinion about it. I am sure your Lordships would all wish them well in this new venture.
However, it is not really on the voluntary side of this matter that I should like to speak, because this is only touching the fringe of the main problem. Surely, what is disquieting at the present time about the housing situation is not merely its size, but the fact that we never seem to keep pace with it. The requirement of new families is going to grow. Young people marry younger, and people live longer. This is one factor. There is a "bulge" coming up from the educational world which has been its headache over the past ten and fifteen years; it will now become a housing headache in its turn as these young people marry. And I suppose that, as conditions and standards of housing are raised elsewhere. so by contrast the quality of some of the older houses diminishes, and what believe is technically called the obsolescence rate rises. Then there will be an increasing demand for new houses by new families, and side by side with this there is the problem of replacement. This, I would say. is the most disquieting feature of all.
It is the plain fact that over the last few years the target of slum clearance which local authorities have set themselves—something like 80,000 to 85,000 houses a year—has never yet been reached in any one year. Slum areas,

243
some of them near to hand but certainly some in the North of England, at the present slum clearance rate will take not two or three years to deal with, but two or three generations. Indeed, at our present rate we shall never catch up with slum clearance. That, of course, means, as has been indicated this afternoon, that we must raise our sights and have a larger target. We are grateful to hear from, and to be reminded by, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, of the higher target which the Conservative Party has set. I noted a slight doubt in his own description of this target, as to whether this would have been reached, or would in fact be reached, this year, and perhaps a desire to unload some of the responsibility for that if it did not happen. In fixing large targets we may be trying to call "spirits from the vasty deep" and not getting them. I am not sure whether the present Government have yet fixed their target. Perhaps they are not yet fully confident enough to do that. But there is no doubt on all sides that the old target of something like 300,000 new houses per year, will simply not add up to our present need, and it must be increased to something like 400,000 at least.
The question that concerns so many of us who do not understand the technicalities of this is: are we capable of reaching this larger figure? We have never reached it yet. Indeed, we have rarely come up to our target of 300,000. The average lies well below that. Are we capable of advancing it if we want to do so? Do we take seriously enough the necessities which would be laid upon us if we were to achieve that target? We are dealing with limited commodities. We are dealing with land, money and building resources. These are all in their own way limited. But the policy or the choice as to how to deploy these resources is a national choice and not a matter of leaving it to circumstances to work out. The way in which we use—control, if you like—the land and land usage, the amount of money we release for housing, and the way in which we deploy our building resources seem to rest with Government and national policy about which many of us, as I say, do not understand the technicalities. I feel gravely concerned about all this.
I do not want to detain your Lordships long on this matter. An observer
244
looking at our situation as it is at present and as it has been for the last two years, would, I think, note and feel concerned on three particular issues. Knowing the need for houses, and side by side observing, shall we say, the multiplication of prestige office buildings in the middle of London, he would be inclined to say that here was a great distortion of priorities. I cannot conceive what are the feelings of an overcrowded family from the East End of London when it sees so much of the building resources of our country harnessed to erecting monuments to commerce against the skyline. Some action has been taken; and, indeed, I welcome this. I am not certain whether banishing offices from a certain area necessarily solves the problem; it is a beginning of doing so. But it is a national choice as to how much we are prepared to put the human values of housing beyond the claims, not of proper industrial development, but of profit or of status or even of convenience, and to decide which comes first.
The second fact which would strike the observer is that although the total number of houses which are being built, or which have been built, has remained fairly constant in the past few years, the balance has varied and altered very definitely. I am not denying the needs of owner occupiers and the increasing number of those who want to purchase and rent privately their own houses and live peaceably in their own habitations. That is a very laudable objective. But I have seen calculations, based on proportions of income, which suggest that in regard to buying by mortgage, a house of the value of £3,000 (and one cannot get a house for much below that), the number of people who are able to do that out of income, on a reasonable basis of proportion of income to be spent on mortgage, is something like 6 per cent. of the community. Perhaps not much more than twice that percentage would be among those who would be able to rent privately owned, and therefore privately financed, houses of the same sort. This means that something like four-fifths of the country are not in a position to buy or to rent privately built houses of their own. Yet I do not think we can deny the fact that many of them are in the greatest need.
Side by side with that is the plain fact that the proportion of local authority

245
housing in these years has diminished, and the present proportion is variously calculated as something between 20 and 40 per cent. of the whole building operation. Some of this no doubt is due to other reasons and causes outside our control, but some of it, at least, is surely due to official national policy. It is something on which many of us are bound to feel concerned when we think of the need, and when we think that the hands of the public authorities—who alone, I believe, can deal with the problem on a basis of need rather than of profit—are to some extent tied, or at least handicapped, in what they can do at present.
When all is said and done on this issue the plain question remains—this lurks in my mind, and had been mentioned in the gracious Speech: with the best will in the world, whatever one does about land, or whatever money one releases for it, would any Government be able to achieve a target of something like 400,000, unless there are radical alterations in the building industry or in building construction methods? This is something which has been referred to in the gracious Speech, and I welcome it.
Last week a local paper carried a report of a meeting of a housing association at which this very question was raised: whether the local authority might not use different methods and different construction materials in order to build houses more quickly and more cheaply. The reply was given that the use of these new materials was a risky thing in the English climate, and that it would seem better to push on as best they could with traditional methods. The English climate may be in some ways a liability; but so is the Englishmen's innate reluctance to change in this matter. As to what can be done, we have much to learn in this from many of our Continental neighbours. We may not want to "go Red," but we seem to want to remain "red-brick" in this country, ignoring some of the possibilities that are open, in terms of modern construction, if only they can be properly geared into the whole operation.
Some of these houses might not last so long, but I am not certain whether that would matter. We have fixed a certain age which is the right age for a house, something like three score years and ten, or four score years, if I may borrow the human equivalent. But I wonder whether
246
that is necessary, when one thinks of some of the houses that were built in the first half of the last century and are still being occupied, so that one only wishes that they had fallen down earlier. Such is the fluid condition of our day that a different and more experimental approach to this problem seems to be desirable on other grounds quite apart from urgency. At any rate, I welcome what might lie behind the references to this, hinted at on both the Opposition and the Government Benches this afternoon.
4.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT WEIR: My Lords, I trust that your Lordships will extend your usual kind indulgence to one addressing your Lordships' House for the first time I have been greatly tempted, since hearing the speeches of noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate, to follow in a field about which I do know a little—that of housing—but I will not do so, and will carry on with the theme upon which I had intended to speak.
I have been unable to find in the gracious Speech any reference to a problem which is, I believe, of considerable public concern and interest: that of our water supplies. In most of the world's older communities pressure of population increase, advancement in standards of living and increased industrial uses are all imposing a heavy burden on existing water resources. Nor is the problem confined to established communities. In a report published this year by the United Nations it is clear that water shortage is going to be a growth-controlling factor for the developing countries. It is therefore not surprising that increasing attention has been given in recent years to schemes for drawing on that inexhaustible source of water supply, the sea, and converting sea water into potable water.
The process requires a very high degree of efficiency. Sea water contains 33,000 parts per million of dissolved solids, and for healthy human beings this content must be reduced to 500 parts per million. We are therefore aiming at attaining water purity greater than 99·8 per cent. Various methods have been suggested, such as separation by freezing or by electro dialysis, but it was the process of distillation which was the first to be adopted and which, up to now, has been the most successful. Indeed, it

247
is quite fair to say that whereas there have been a number of sizeable distillation plants at work for some years, the other processes have hardly yet emerged from the pilot or demonstration stage.
My Lords, it is not my intention to say more than the minimum on how the distillation process developed. It had its origin on board steamships, where it was obviously convenient to use the sea as the reservoir and to draw on it at will. The process was refined and improved; and it should be noted that by 1955 the best and most efficient plants could produce some 4 lb. of distillate for 1 lb. of steam supplied as the initial source of heat. A number of plants—some quite large—were supplied to arid parts of the world where it was clearly cheaper to produce water locally than to transport it from some less arid territory.
By 1956, however, a very substantial advancement, amounting, indeed, to a technical break-through, was achieved by the development of what is now generally referred to as multi-flash distillation. Curiously enough, this process was developed practically simultaneously by two British engineers, Dr. R. S. Silver and Dr. A. Frankel, although both were working quite independently. I am not going to try your Lordships' patience with technical detail, but will refer only to the striking improvement in performance that this process achieved. Through it 1 lb. of steam can now produce 11 lb. of distillate, and, of equal importance, capital costs have been approximately halved. This materially stimulated demand and led to the increased adoption of distillation plants abroad.
Between 1959 and the present year the two British companies involved—Messrs. G. & J. Weir and Messrs. Richardsons, Westgarth—who pooled their resources in 1962 as Weir Westgarth, were able to secure orders for 40 installations; this being rather more than 70 per cent. of the available market. These plants were for communities widely scattered all over the world; from Peru on the one hand, to the Persian Gulf on the other. This outstanding British achievement is less widely known than it ought to be, and I think we can take some measure of
248
pride that in a new and growing engineering field we are the leaders.
So far I have traced the development of the distillation process, and briefly referred to the significant contribution Britain has made. It is natural that it should have been adopted and found its readiest applications overseas in arid or semi-arid communities. But even on this island, my Lords, abundantly supplied as it is with rainfall, we have our problems. In the past our catchment schemes have served us well, but, as they become more distant from the demand centres they serve, their distribution costs will rise. They will also press increasingly on our limited land resources and threaten the remaining beauties of our countryside. As an alternative, or, as I refer to regard it, as a supplementary source, we have sea water conversion, using the sea as our reservoir and making minimal land demands.
A cost comparison must be made between the two systems. In this connection, it is gratifying to note the announcement earlier this year that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has given a grant to the Water Research Association which will inter alia be used to investigate the true incremental costs of additions to conventional water supply. It is to be observed, however, in comparing the two systems, that we already have our extensive network of reservoirs, and so on, for rain water. While these systems are continually being extended, it is difficult to know precisely the true cost of such extensions, since they undoubtedly benefit from the existence of facilities constructed in times of cheaper labour and capital long since written off or paid for. While welcoming, therefore, the approach by the D.S.I.R. to provide and start and set on foot this investigation, I hope that these factors will be very substantially borne in mind. I hope that these inquiries and investigations will be pursued, as only when they are available can we make a proper comparison with the alternative of supply by sea water conversion.
One aspect of this problem has already engaged your Lordships' attention. On July 15 this year, my noble friend Lord Wakefield of Kendal asked a question in this House on the possibilities of distillation of sea water, utilising, as a heat

249
source, nuclear reactors. As a result, my noble friend Lord Bessborough, then Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, made arrangements whereby Weir Westgarth have been able to discuss with both the D.S.I.R. and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority the feasibility of such a project. This has been very welcome and heartening to the company, who will be glad to collaborate in the investigation. It is also satisfying that the D.S.I.R. has set up an advisory committee and is financing research and studies of desalination economics. This will enable a broader survey of the whole field to be undertaken and will involve consideration of alternative techniques, although my personal view is that distillation currently enjoys a considerable lead and may well increase it.
The subject of sea water conversion has attracted world attention and was, indeed, mentioned specifically by the late President Kennedy and, again, by President Johnson. Your Lordships may be familiar with the work of the Office of Saline Water in Washington. This is a division of the Department of the Interior and has already promoted research on a large scale involving very substantial expenditure. Mr. Khrushchev also indicated Russian interest in the matter and, indeed. I believe there is the possibility of collaboration between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. on this subject.
British leadership in this field will be hard to maintain in the light of the challenge of these two major Powers. The success of the two companies and their associate, Weir Westgarth, has attracted much attention and provoked wide and strenuous international competition. The company has welcomed the evidence I have cited of support and encouragement, and I have drawn attention to the relevance of their work to our domestic water problems. I hope that as a valuable contributor and leader in a growth field, the Government will find the company worthy of their support and encouragement, and will follow on the good start made by their predecessors.
My Lords, I may have omitted to declare an interest at the beginning, but I do so now. I thank your Lordships for your kind and patient hearing.
4.18 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this House always welcomes speeches from noble Lords who are able to talk to us with knowledge, authority and experience. We therefore welcome very much the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, who obviously speaks on a subject of which he has had great knowledge and experience. We hope that we shall hear more about the topic on which he has spoken. Water is not a very exciting subject. It is not a thing which one talks about until we are short of it; then, of course, it is a great topic of conversation. Even though this matter is not mentioned in the gracious Speech, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will allow themselves some flexibility in dealing with this vitally important subject.
We have had another maiden speech this afternoon—the speech from my noble friend Lord Mitchison. He was not quite sure how virginal he was. Well, he ought to know; but I could only say with certainty that he is a not inexperienced maiden. Certainly, he has had very considerable experience in making speeches in another place. He showed from his speech here this afternoon that he was not unduly overawed by speaking here, although I can well imagine that the first speech is always somewhat of an ordeal. I hope it was not too much of an ordeal for my noble friend.
Now I should like, in his absence, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Longford on his accession to the leadership of the House; my noble friend Lord Gardiner, the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, on his attaining his very high office; and all my noble friends who sit on the Front Bench, who richly deserve their elevation, and particularly those noble Lords who are here for the first time. Some of my noble friends have worked their passage very hard. I see one of them, my noble friend Lord Stonham. Nobody deserves office more than he does, and I am quite sure that he and they are going to do well at it. I am quite sure also, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, that they are going to be there a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, rather gave me the impression that he was not quite accustomed yet to being in Opposition. At times, I rather felt as if he thought

251
he was speaking for the Government and explaining the Government's achievements, their aspirations and expectations, and so on. I hope he will have a very long time to get over that feeling, and I am sure he will. I am also sure he will render very valuable service in that place in Opposition, and no doubt, when the time comes, he will learn something from my noble friend about drawing up Amendments.
Last Wednesday my noble friend Lord Attlee told the House that it was 43 years since he made his speech from the Back Benches. I cannot claim to emulate that record, but it is 23 years since I spoke from the Back Benches and it is, therefore, to me, somewhat of a novelty after all this time. I take courage from the fact that my immediate predecessor in the seat in which I sit was the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who made a great many interesting, effective and important speeches from these Benches. I hope I may do the same. I will speak in general support, I hope friendly support, of Her Majesty's Government, but I hope that, sitting this distance away from the Front Bench, I may be allowed at times to speak with a little candour. It will be friendly candour, and always in the hope that any advice I give to Her Majesty's Government may be acceptable to them.
Now I propose to speak particularly on two aspects of the gracious Speech. The first, which will not surprise your Lordships, is on housing; the second is on law reform. I want to say at once that I do not expect a reply to my speeches, especially after the little statement we had from my noble friend Lord Mitchison during the course of this debate. I fully understand that most of the questions and most of the proposals that I want to put forward on both the subjects on which I want to speak are matters which can best be dealt with in legislation, and that the legislation will require a good deal of consideration when we come down to preparing the details of it. All I hope is that Her Majesty's Government may be pleased to take note of what I say, and possibly take it into some consideration when drafting the legislation.
First, my Lords, on housing: in the gracious Speech there is a reference to more housing of better quality. Of
252
course we need more housing, and we need housing of better quality. But we have to remember that houses and other buildings are erected to last 100 years or more. I think it is time we asked ourselves, perhaps, whether we need to build houses to last 100 years. After all, the conception of a house to-day is, I hope, a very different one from what will be the conception in even 25 or 50 years' time. What was regarded 50 years ago, or 40 years ago, as a very fine, modern house is to-day regarded almost as a rabbit warren. The houses are tiny. The living room of 150 to 160 square feet, meant to house a whole family—a husband, wife and perhaps three or four children—is quite ridiculous in these days. When we talk of having raised the standard of living in the past 25 years or more we surely must mean, in that term, an improvement in the quality of our houses. Therefore, I hope that when we come to build to-day we shall look ahead and remember that houses are intended to be occupied not only by the present generation but by generations to follow.
At the same time, I wonder whether it is not possible so to design a house, not necessarily of to-day's materials, that it is not intended to last the full period that we assume to-day of 100 years; that it could last, perhaps, 50 years or thereabouts, and then be demolished—and, of course, it would be a cheaper price, using possibly less expensive material, than an existing. house. My Lords, I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, sitting in his place, because I am sure this is a subject in which he would be interested. I believe he has given some thought to it, and if at some time we can get the benefit of his ideas and the ideas of others on this particular problem, it would be of great value.
There has been a good deal of competition about the number of houses built or intended to be built. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, proudly boasted that one day the Conservative Government would have built 400,000 houses in a year if they had been given the opportunity, and said that if we do not get 400,000 houses in 1965 he will want to know the reasons why. I think these numbers are quite irrelevant by themselves. They are a measure of something, but they are not a measure of

253
the way in which we are satisfying the needs of the community. I was driving through Chelsea and Westminster this afternoon, and I saw large numbers of luxury flats for sale. They have been up for some time—I think well over a year, and some of them much more than that—and they are still empty. If the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, likes to go to Brighton, Eastbourne and Bournemouth, he will see literally hundreds and hundreds of flats which have been built in the last three or four years and which are still empty, waiting for people to occupy them, to buy them. I should like to ask him, as he is boasting of the number of houses that the Conservative Government built in those years, what contribution those properties are making to our housing needs. What is the value of including them in the number of houses we have to build?
I submit to the House that what is relevant to this issue is not the number of houses you have built but the number of houses you have built to meet the needs of the community—and that is a very different thing. That implies, as I have said before—this is not a new thought; a have said it to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on many occasions, but he has never answered me—not only counting the numbers but where these houses are, the types of houses they are and the prices at which they are being made available.
The gracious Speech refers to the retraining of people who may be rendered redundant as the result of improvements in production and of making them available for other types of production. In many cases, that must mean making them available in other parts of the country. But what is the use of retraining people, making them able to take on jobs in other parts of the country, if the housing is not available for them? I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Mitchison make some reference to the need for mobility. But I want to carry this a stage further: the need for mobility means that houses must be provided in the places where they are needed and at the right rents. I beg the Government to give particular attention to that aspect of the housing question.
And we should recognise that if they do so there must be some element of
254
direction. If it is left entirely to every local authority, and particularly if it is left to every private builder to build wherever he likes and whatever he likes, we shall not get either mobility or the stock of housing we require. While I certainly should not wish the Government to embark on a wholesale policy of direction, I must confess that, without some element of direction, of encouragement (perhaps they could do it by way of subsidising houses that are required and not subsidising those that are not required); or, at any rate, without some influence of that kind—and I use the term "influence" as a generic term—I cannot see that we shall get the right type of house in the place we want it.
I was glad that my noble friend Lord Mitchison referred to housing associations; and I was rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, did not. I believe that they have a great part to play. I am not sure that we on this side of the House have always been as encouraging to housing associations as we might have been. Nor, incidentally, have the Party of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. If he looks at the record of what was achieved during thirteen years of office he has nothing to shout about. The numbers of houses built by housing associations have been very tiny in comparison with the numbers built by the local authorities. But let us agree that it should be a non-partisan, or bi-partisan, policy to encourage housing associations in the future; and I hope that in that we shall have the co-operation of noble Lords opposite.
I hope that the Government will be prepared to encourage the housing associations to the fullest possible extent. One of the last things the last Government did purported to make £300 million available to the housing associations for the building of houses at rents which tenants could afford to pay. I hope that some money at least will be made available by the present Government and that, if need he, more money will be made available for housing associations. The big part they have to play is that they cater for families who are not eligible for local authority housing, who do not need or qualify for subsidised housing, but cannot afford, or to whom it is not convenient, to buy a house. It may be that they want to rent one for a few years. Possibly they have large families who are growing up, and

255
when the time comes they want to leave their present house and go into something smaller. There is a large demand for houses of that kind—houses which can be let at an economic rent but without providing a profit for the developer. This is the function—and it is a very important one—of the housing associations.
I am very glad that there is a reference in the gracious Speech to the repeal of the Rent Act. I have never used strong language in this House—and I am sure noble Lords will bear me—out but I think the Rent Act, 1957, was one the most wicked Acts ever passed. As my noble friend beside me remarks, it was a scandal. At a time of acute shortage of houses, it put in the hands of landlords a power to force out those who were most helpless in connection with their house; that is, those with large families and people of small means who happened to come within the scope of definition of those whose houses became decontrolled.
I never thought the justification for that Act was even plausible. The justification was that it would make more houses available to let. But that could happen only if people were forced out of their existing homes, and the Act could be of advantage if only they were able to get something else. What has in fact happened, is what we said would happen, and what anybody who had given one moment's thought to the problem would have anticipated: namely, that the Act enabled landlords to force tenants out and to sell their houses with vacant possession. It rendered a large number of people homeless and forced overcrowding.
I am very glad indeed that the present Government will reimpose control. They call it "rent control": I suppose that is a term of art. The important thing is not so much rent control—although that is important—as giving the tenants security of tenure, so that the landlord cannot arbitrarily turn them out. There is proposed machinery for ensuring that a landlord gets a fair return. Nobody wants to provide security for the tenant at the expense of the landlord. Like any other owner of property, he is entitled to get a fair return on his property, and the machinery will be created which will enable this fair return to be settled. I hope that this machinery will not be too cumbersome, or too difficult for the tenant to take advantage of it.
256
I hope also that, coupled with the granting of security to the tenant and a fair return to the landlord, there will be provision for ensuring that the house is in good condition. In any case, I should hope that the rent that would be charged would have some relationship to the condition of the house. Although I want to give noble Lords opposite credit for having introduced the Housing Act, 1964, which enabled some improvement to take place in the conditions of houses, I criticise them severely for not going quite far enough and for enabling landlords to get possession of their houses by wholly improper means—by what we described as "Rachmanism". I hope that all that will go, and that we shall now have the opportunity of giving tenants security, at a fair rent, with their houses in reasonable condition.
The "fair rent" condition may cause some difficulty, and I would suggest—and this is only a suggestion—that it might be possible for the Government to give some guiding principle on what is a fair rent. We have recently had all our properties re-rated, and there are new rateable values which, in theory, are supposed to have some relationship to the rental value. A fair rental value might prima facie be so many times the rateable value. That need not be conclusive, but, unless there are exceptional factors, the Government might suggest that so many times the rateable value should be the normal rent to be charged for a house which becomes decontrolled.
I want to say a few words about the proposed Crown Lands Commission. This, I recognise, is something which fundamentally divides the two sections of the House. I do not know why it should. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, asked what was the object of the Commission. The object is that the community should get some part of the value of the improvements which the community itself creates. All this is quite elementary. It is merely repeating what I said in 1947, when the Town and Country Planning Bill was introduced. In that Act, provision was made for the payment of betterment to the community. I was very distressed when, in 1953, the present Government repealed the financial provisions of the 1947 Act, and even more distressed when they put nothing in its place. I could have understood if they had said, "We have tried this and

257
we do not like it", or "It does not work", or something of that sort, and if they had put something in its place which was better. But they did not.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, to prevent misunderstanding, may I point out to my noble friend that he inadvertently said the "present" Government?
LORD SILKIN: I seem to have fallen into the same mistake as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. I am sorry. In a sense, this proposal is going back to 1947, except that it is not intended to give the community 100 per cent. of the increase of a development value.
Let me give the House an extreme case of how this operates. A man owns a piece of agricultural land fronting an arterial road, which is possibly worth £200 an acre—I will be generous and say, £500 an acre. This person has the bright idea that it would be a good thing to have a petrol filling station on this road. He applies for planning permission and gets it. Well, he has had a bright idea; he deserves to be patted on the back and to receive some financial recompense. Immediately on getting planning permission that bit of land becomes worth (I will be modest and say) £10,000 an acre. I have known cases where it was much more. It has increased in value because there is a demand for a petrel filling station from motorists travelling along an arterial road which was built by the community. None of these things has been contributed to by the owner of the land himself. Nevertheless, at present, he is able to put in his pocket £9,500 an acre, merely for the bright idea that it might be a good thing to have a petrol station on his piece of land. The same applies if he has the idea that it would be a good housing site, though he may not get quite so much.
Is it really fair to the community that this man should be able to pocket the whole of that money, when it was the community who made it possible for this development to take place by spending money on services? It seems to me right, and I am glad that it seems to the present Government to be right, that the community should get some part of the increase of value due to the granting of a planning permission. This
258
comes into operation only when planning permission has been granted for development or for redevelopment involving a change of user. That surely answers the question which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, asked about whether this is to apply to urban or rural land. It applies to any land which is about to be developed, on which planning permission has been given and which involves a change of user.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I do not think that that answers the question at all. There is a fundamental difference between agricultural land and urban land. As the noble Lord knows very well, a third party, who does not even own the land, can get planning permission. It makes a great deal of difference whether the land is urban or agricultural.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I recognise that these are points, but, as my noble friend has said, they are points which might be put in Committee. Of course, this would not operate, if a stranger who had no interest in the land got planning permission and the owner had no intention of taking advantage of that permission. But I cannot imagine that a complete stranger is going to apply for planning permission, unless he had some expectation of acquiring the land. But this is a point which has to be provided for and will be dealt with.
I would say to Her Majesty's Government that this is certainly controversial. We must face it. This was a big issue in the Election. I am not sure that it is not a very popular thing to deal with land, because, as I have said, it is an attempt to give the community the benefit of the expenditure incurred by the community, and because it is also an attempt to bring down the price of land; and that is something which affects everybody.
I would suggest that when we introduce a scheme we make it simple, easy to understand by everybody, and incapable, so far as possible, of misrepresentation; and, secondly, that we make it as fair as possible—I would even err on the side of generosity to the owner of land, so that at least he cannot complain that this is not a fair scheme. If we do that, I think it would remove the argument, which I regard as somewhat fallacious, that landowners will hold back arid not

259
apply for planning permission, in the hope that there will be an early return of a Conservative Government which will "knock all this nonsense on the head". I do not believe that there will be an early return. I believe that noble Lords on that side are there for a very long time. And any landowner who holds back the development of his land in the hope and expectation of an early return of a Conservative Government is just fooling himself. But I would remove even the temptation on the part of some people to hold back by giving them a fair return for the trouble and expense they have been put to in getting planning permission.
Therefore I would suggest that we give to the owner of land half of the development value, while the community takes the other half. I think that that would be generally regarded as generous and fair, and I believe that most owners of land would be very happy to settle on that basis. I may say, in passing, that in the past few weeks I have discussed this matter with at least a dozen developers. I put the question to each of them: "What would you think of a scheme of that kind?"—and every one of them, without exception, said that he would be very happy to back a scheme of that kind, that he would certainly not hold back. and would be quite satisfied if he could get one half of the development value of his land. I ask the Government to consider this seriously, and I am sure it will save them a great deal of trouble. I also ask the Opposition to consider it and see whether it is not a fair solution to the objections that they have raised.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but a person who is going to build a house under that system would never get the freehold. An Englishman likes to have his castle and own his freehold. The danger I see is that the Lands Commission may be asked to give 50 per cent. of the development charge to go towards the general taxation.
LORD SILKIN: Is that not another point from the one I have just made? I was coming to the question of freeholds later, and if the noble Lord will have patience he will find that I will
260
deal with it. On the scheme itself, I think it would be fair.
The gracious Speech deals with the question of leasehold enfranchisement. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, did not have a lot to say on this matter, and frankly I am not surprised, because it is a most difficult subject. I must confess that I have sympathy with some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on this matter. I see some conflict between a scheme which, on the one hand, creates leaseholds on a large scale, and, on the other, enfranchises leaseholds. It would appear as if existing leaseholds might be enfranchised and every other tenure now created would be a leasehold tenure. I find it a little difficult to reconcile these two aspects. I suggest to the Government that they give a lot of thought to this subject.
There is no urgency about introducing leasehold enfranchisement. It is promised in the gracious Speech, but it is not promised for the present Session, and I think it will need a great deal more consideration than appears to have been given to it so far. If there is any urgency, would make two suggestions. The first is that the Government should introduce a measure to give lessees under a system of leasehold enfranchisement the same protection as is given to-day under the Landlord and Tenant Act to occupiers of business premises. That would enable them to carry on without fear of being evicted when their lease comes to an end. Secondly, there could be a provision for enlarging existing leases for a period of, say, three years, to enable the Government to make up their minds about leasehold enfranchisement. I am sure that a great deal more consideration needs to be given to this subject, pressing though it is. One must realise that it is a burning question in many parts of the country, and particularly in South Wales, where leases are coming to an end and tenants are tremendously worried about losing their homes and the benefit of the leases under which they have lived, or of having to "pay through the nose".
I want to mention, also, the question of payment for enfranchisement. This is a difficulty that will have to be faced. If the payment is to be at the recognised price for the reversion—that is, the shorter the term the bigger the price—and it is to be at the market price,

261
then the tenant may not be in any better position than if he bought the leasehold in the open market. Alternatively, if the reversioner is going to get something less than that, it will be unfair to him. The Government have to reconcile that, too. I do not expect art answer to that either to-day or to-morrow, but it is a matter which requires much more consideration than I think has been given to it.
The gracious Speech promises that the Government will promote modernisation of the construction industry; and I hope they will. The previous Government tried this, but not very successfully. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, made a statement of what has been done in the past few months, but in actual practice we have not seen the results in any modernisation. I am not so sure that house production has materially increased in efficiency in the last half century or even century. I remember when I first became a member of the London County Council, nearly forty years ago, when I was appointed to the Housing Committee I was told: "You can expect one house to be built per annum for every person employed in house building." Applying that test to-day, I find that there are 287,000 men employed in the housing industry in this country, and there were 270,000 houses built last year. That is less than what I was told we might expect forty years ago. There was no sign of any improvement then—I think the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, who I believe was a member of the Housing Committee at that time, will bear me out—and there has been no improvement whatever in those forty years. We have to get bigger production of housing. If that is what modernisation means, then good luck to the Government in trying to bring it about!
If am afraid I have been a long time, but I want to say a few words on the second aspect of my speech—namely, law reform. First of all, I am glad that it is proposed to facilitate the introduction of a Bill for the abolition of capital punishment. I have a personal reason for wishing this, because I wound up the debate that we he d some years ago on the subject, and I am afraid we were badly beaten, possibly on account of the bad speech I then made. I should like to get my own bark and get this House to agree to the abolition of capital punishment. This, I take it, will be on
262
a Private Member's Bill and not official Government business, although the Government will facilitate the passage of such a Bill.
It is proposed to appoint "Law Commissioners to advance the reform of the law". That is a general term, and I am not clear as to what exactly is meant by "reform of the law". Is it reform by simplification of language? Is it reform by means of consolidation, codification and modernisation—that is, by bringing laws up to date to meet modern requirements? If that is so, then it is simply a matter of people devoting themselves to the task, recognising the need for it and so on. We have far too many Acts of Parliament dealing with the same subject, and there is a real need for codification and consolidation. I see that I referred to this matter when we discussed the Housing Act, 1964—that during their term of office the last Government had introduced 23 Bills dealing with houses and rents. I pity the poor lawyer who has to make his way through 23 Acts of Parliament to find out what is the law on a particular subject. So there is plenty of scope for the activities of these Commissioners. But is that what they are going to do, and is that solely what they are going to do?
I feel that there is an equal need for a reform in the language of Acts of Parliament. After all, no self-respecting Act of Parliament is really effective until there has been a decision of the House of Lords on almost every clause that it contains. One cannot make out what an Act says until the House of Lords has decided. I always thought it was Parliament who decided what was intended, but in reading an Act of Parliament what was intended has no relevance whatever. But when an appeal comes before the House of Lords you are not allowed even to quote what was intended, or to read what was said in support of a Bill; or even to quote the memorandum or the sidenotes in an Act of Parliament. All you can do is to take the Act literally and read it as if you were coming fresh to the subject, and make what you can of it. That seems to me preposterous. If the Law Commissioners are to have some function in trying to make laws intelligible, trying to bring in aid what was really intended in the introduction of a Bill, they will be of very great value.

263
I also want to complain—I have complained many a time—about the complexity of the language in Acts of Parliament. I know that it is said to be necessary to provide for every possible contingency, however remote. But is that really so? If, somehow, the intention of a particular section of an Act could be made clear, could it not be left at that? However, I do not propose to go further into that aspect. I am really asking whether, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor comes to reply to-morrow, he can give us a little more information as to what he proposes the Law Commissioners should have to do, and how they propose to set about it.
I am very glad to know that we are going to have somebody who will be able to carry out an "impartial investigation of individual grievances". That is a long term for what has become known as the Ombudsman. Some three years ago, I introduced a Motion into this House asking the Government to consider the desirability of appointing an Ombudsman. Naturally, I received no encouragement whatever from the Lord Chancellor of the time. I am not at all sure that he fully appreciated what I was after. But at any rate he certainly gave me no reason to think that the Government had any intention of doing it. But it is the case that there are many grievances from which the individual citizen suffers for which he has no remedy at all. There is no court, there is no tribunal, there is nobody—except his local Member of Parliament—to whom he can go to get a grievance remedied. If his local Member of Parliament happens to be a very busy man, the sufferer will not get much satisfaction there. It is therefore suggested that there should be some individual, or group of individuals, regional or otherwise, to whom a person in that position could go, to put forward the grievance that he has suffered, at the hands of the Administration or otherwise, and have it properly considered. As I say, I am very glad that the Government are contemplating making that provision.
We have all had cases of that kind. We had the Crichel Down case where there was no remedy in the ordinary way. There was no tribunal that one could go to; no appeal. There was the Bognor Regis case, which I brought up some months
264
ago, where a local authority exceeded its functions and obtained compulsory purchase orders and then sought to act on quite other grounds. There are many cases of that kind. This is not an unknown experiment. It has been tried in New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries and in other countries with considerable success.
My Lords, I have referred only to a very small part of the gracious Speech: matters which, if they stood alone, would constitute a busy Session's work. Your Lordships are going to be kept very busy in the coming Session in dealing with the various measures which will be brought forward. I know that your Lordships will act in a responsible spirit in not attempting to frustrate the efforts of Her Majesty's Government, and will be prepared to look at each measure strictly on its merits, and with the sole desire of attempting to improve it. Everything with which I have dealt will have to be the subject of full discussion and debate; and has been, of course, during the recent Election. I would suggest that all these matters are matters which the electorate has approved, and the Government can be considered to have a full mandate to carry through these reforms. As I have said, it will be hard work, but the results will greatly benefit the community, especially those least able to help themselves, and will contribute to the happiness and welfare of countless families in giving them a feeling of security and justice. I promise the Government that I will give them every possible assistance to achieve these ends.
5.8 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I have often thought that if I were a Communist agitator or, better still, an anarchist, the best way in which the economy of the country could be brought to a standstill would be to promote strikes in the works of the British Oxygen Company, because their product is used in nearly every major industry of the country. If, on the other hand, I wanted to bring the work of the Government to a standstill, the correct way would be to promote strikes in the office of Parliamentary Counsel, because a mere glance at the Queen's Speech this Session, and listening to your

265
Lordships' debate this afternoon, show that they are going to be most tragically overworked.
Your Lordships, in the topics that have been discussed this afternoon, have mentioned several of the matters which will obviously be the subject of long and complicated legislation. Most of the matters mentioned have affected the citizen in his everyday life and his liberty. Therefore, I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, developing with comfortable fullness the theme of the liberty of the subject. It drew our attention to this particular portion of the Queen's Speech:
They "—
that is, Her Majesty's Government—
"will propose the appointment of Law Commissioners to advance reform of the law, and will propose new measures for the impartial investigation of individual grievances."
It goes on:
"In so doing they will be acting in the spirit which has always animated Parliament, whose seven hundredth anniversary will be recorded in this Session."
It may have animated Parliament, but it has not always animated Government Departments.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred both to the Ombudsman and to the Law Commissioners, and I should like, if I may, for a few minutes to take him up on both those points and examine them with a little care from a different point of view. Of course, the Ombudsman is superficially an extremely attractive proposition, and particularly at Election time. There is, on the face of it, much to be said for it. But we shall hear more of this, I expect. The case has, in my opinion, not yet been fully made out; neither the need for the Ombudsman nor the nature of his work, nor its scope. It may well be that there is a solution to the problem. But do not let us be over-persuaded by what has happened in Scandinavian countries which have enjoyed the dubious privilege of a more or less permanent Socialist Government, or in other countries of two or three millions population only. I have studied this with some care, both in Scandinavia and New Zealand, where I was recently, and many people there have expressed doubts whether the system would work as well in a country of over 50 million people. It may, but it wants very careful examination.
266
When I first saw the Socialist Party in their Election Manifesto putting this proposal forward I was fearful lest it meant that they realised that many of their proposals would undoubtedly give rise to such injustice that an Ombudsman would obviously be required. I was therefore comforted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, put forward a plea for a certain amount of generosity in the behaviour of the Crown Lands Commission. We shall obviously hear details about this in due course. May I suggest to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack one or two points which I hope will be borne in mind when the scope of the Ombudsman's duties is being considered? I think it most important that we should not in any way detract from the importance and the standing of the Back-Bencher either in this House or in another place. He is the real Ombudsman. He is an imperfect one, often handicapped by rules and regulations from getting at the truth or from establishing justice, but it is for that reason that a Member of another place sits there and we sit here, for the redress of grievances. We are in Parliament the prime and the first Ombudsman of this country, and I should like our powers reinforced before other Ombudsmen are set up. Far too often, I am afraid, in a democracy the Member of a Parliament becomes merely a welfare officer or a post office between his constituents and a Government Department, and is fobbed off from doing his proper job of Ombudsman.
I hope, too, that we shall do nothing to detract from the power of the Parliamentary Question. That really is a weapon of democracy. A Minister standing at the Dispatch Box defending his policy, in very public gaze, is able to get away with little if he is astutely cross-examined. I was hoping to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, on his graceful appearance at the Dispatch Box for the first time this afternoon. It was originally said that the reason why Sir Alec Douglas-Home (Lord Home as he was then) would not be suitable as Foreign Secretary was that he could not be cross-examined at Question Time. But, of course, that was said by those who do not realise what an effective weapon a Parliamentary Question can also be in your Lordships' House. Admittedly, four Questions only can be put down on the Order Paper for one day, but there

267
being no rules of order in your Lordships' House, we are perfectly entitled to ask twenty-seven supplementary questions—most of them irrelevant—and noble Lords opposite who have not had this experience before will find that after about the twenty-fifth supplementary question the Dispatch Box becomes a very confused and lonely place. Therefore, I hope that when we have our Ombudsman nothing will be done to detract from the work of the Back-Bencher and the power of the Parliamentary Question.
I hope, too, that we shall not do anything to detract from the effect of local government work. The local government representative, the borough or city councillor, is declining in public importance. Less and less work is being put his way. This is why the standard of candidates coming forward for local government service is declining. A "Crichel Down" can start just as easily in the town clerk's office as in a Government Department, and an injustice is no less unjust merely because it is a little one.
I also hope that nothing will be done to upset the delicate constitutional relationship between a Minister and his senior civil servant. This is not understood, generally, I think outside the "corridors of power", but those who have walked those corridors know how essential a feature of our Constitution is that delicate and most important relationship between a Minister and his senior civil servant. I do not think many civil servants are going to like another civil servant breathing down their neck, asking to see their confidential files and wanting to know what went on. I think there is a danger of our piling a big bureaucracy upon a bureaucracy, because our Ombudsman must, of necessity, be a much bigger organisation than those in New Zealand or in Scandinavia.
I think, therefore, it is necessary for us to examine the whole of this proposition with much more care than has hitherto been given to it. I am happy to realise that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is an expert in this matter, and I know he has given a great deal of personal attention to it. Therefore we at least can know when he puts this matter before us that it will have had expert preparation. Might I ask him in
268
due course—I do not expect an answer either to-day or to-morrow—to let us know what happened to the inquiry which I think was made in all Government Departments two or three years ago to find out whether improvements could not be made in the existing machinery for the redress of grievances? I believe that a comprehensive inquiry was made into this question but I have never yet heard the results of it. I think the noble Lord, not surprisingly, will not find a senior civil servant in Whitehall is in favour of an Ombudsman. But that is his affair, not ours.
Of course, a great deal of the success of this scheme—and if we are going to have it we must try to make it a success—depends on the character of the Ombudsman himself. Obviously, he has got to be a man who commands universal respect and he has got to be a man of respected background and of immense erudition and learning. Come to think of it, I might even like to have a shot at the job myself. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord may be kind enough to make a note of my name when the time comes.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to the Law Commissioners. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack gave an interesting interview to the Economist newspaper on March 28 last. He said:
"There should be a permanent body of Law Commissioners whose sole job it would be to conduct a systematic review of English law, taking it bit by bit, and see what is working properly and what isn't".
These are fine sentiments and we are happy to think it is the noble Lord again who is going to have the chance to put his ambitions into practice. Will he in due course tell us a bit more than the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has asked him for? Can he tell us from where he is going to recruit his law commissioners—whether they will be academic or practising lawyers, or both; whether they will be barristers or solicitors? Will he need to appoint more Judges in order to release other Judges to take part in this work without the judicial system in any way suffering?
And what is all this going to cost? This Government that so preached the question of economy at Election time has been appointing people left, right and centre. I think that the bill is

269
going to become quite considerable in due course. These, again, are details which we shall have to consider when these matters come before us. I understand that they are likely to come before us rather than before another place, and that very soon. This I welcome. Obviously, these are matters which are suitable for us to discuss in this House, and to discuss as best we can.
The present Government have got into considerable trouble over an Act of Queen Anne. This is very careless of them. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, managed to run the country for six years or so without having a row with Queen Anne, and even Ramsay MacDonald managed to do it. Now we are being fobbed off with some ramshackle defence that it is E. Statute which must be done away with in this modern age. This is nonsense. The Government just forgot all about it. That is all that happened. They might have made a clean breast of it. The reason for the Statute of Queen Anne was, of course, not to have too many placemen in the House of Commons. The modern reason is to provide for suitable representation of the Government in this House. Owing to this Government, which is so attracted to planning and has spoken so much about planning, having forgotten to plan for Queen Anne we are now having to have a wholly avoidable amending Bill. This Bill has been no more planned than a hiccough.
Nevertheless, we welcome the new Ministers. We welcome particularly those we know, those we shall get to know, those we did not even know belonged to the Socialist Party. We shall get to love them all in due course. I welcome particularly and sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, who has been appointed Lord in Waiting. Incidentally, I see that there is, so far, only one Lord in Waiting, the noble Lord, Lord Habson. We used to have three in the old days, but two are missing, at the moment. I sympathise with Lord Hobson. He his to answer for the Post Office, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Power and if that surprises you, my Lords, I can only say that it will not surprise you half as much as it will surprise the Post Office, the Board of Trade, the Ministry
270
of Transport, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Power. I wish, however, that the noble Lord were not called a "Lord in Waiting". I think that this name is a misleading anachronism, and the noble Lords opposite might, in their reforming zeal, see fit to do away with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred the other day to the difficulties experienced by Mr. Heath, the previous Lord Privy Seal, in explaining to foreigners that he was neither a Lord, nor a Privy nor a Seal. The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, will have the same trouble trying to explain that although lie is a member of Her Majesty's Household he is also a Party politician, and it often causes trouble when a Lord in Waiting makes a Party political speech in the House or in the country. People do not realise the Minister's dual function, and the Lord in Waiting as often as not receives a large postbag from indignant colonels in Cheltenham saying that he has no right to bring Her Majesty's name into political discussion.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, is the noble Lord speaking from experience in this matter, or is he referring to the experience of other noble Lords in Waiting in the previous Government who also dealt with departmental matters?
LORD MANCROFT: Both. I am certainly speaking from personal experience. I remember having a difference of opinion with Lord Jowitt across the Table. The noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, hit me, Parliamentarily speaking, "on the nose", and I "bopped" him one back—and a good time was had by all! There were quite a lot of rough words, for your Lordships' House, and they were fairly widely reported. The next day I went to Stockholm to open, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, the British Pavilion in St. Eric's Fair, and I was given a "roasting" in the Swedish Press for the speech I had made in your Lordships' House and for having brought Party politics into my duties as a Courtier. But I compared notes with other Members of your Lordships' House who had occupied this post and found that many of them had had the same treatment. I got a fairly heavy postbag

271
which I sent to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham (as he was then), now Mr. Quintin Hogg, when I last raised this matter in your Lordships' House.
There is no need for me to labour this point. In five or six months' time, when the Government go to the country again, I will ask Lord Hobson what his experience has been, and he will tell me that it has been exactly the same as mine. I suggest that we change the name to some such thing as Assistant Paymaster General or Parliamentary Secretary to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. There should be no difficulty about this. If the Government can do what they have done with Queen Anne, they can certainly solve this difficulty.
I hope also that they will bring, as much work as possible to your Lordships' House. It is clear that there is going to be overcrowding of the Parliamentary timetable. It is clear that if the Government genuinely wish to do this work, and do it properly, and not in a half-baked way, they will have to use your Lordships' House to the full. I welcome noble Lords opposite, congratulate them on their posts, commiserate with them on the work that lies ahead. But if the House is to be faced with all this work, I think it is clear that we shall have to reconsider the rate for the job.
5.25 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, owing to the comprehensive nature of this debate, I propose to comment very briefly on certain aspects of the welfare services which have been mentioned in the gracious Speech. In the first place, I believe the whole House will welcome the major review which it is intended to make of the social security schemes with a view to effecting radical changes, because it will be recalled that before the Recess we had a most interesting debate, in which Members on both sides of this House took part, and when I think it was agreed that considerations which might have determined the structure of a scheme in the late 1940s are no longer valid. Furthermore, I should remind the House of the anomalies which have proliferated over the years and, of course, these can no longer be dealt with by amending legislation, but can be remedied only by a complete reappraisal of the whole situation. Meanwhile, of
272
course, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, legislation will be introduced to increase the National Insurance rates.
I like to talk about this subject when my noble friend the former Leader of the Opposition is here. The needs of the widows will receive special consideration. I say that because over the years my noble friend often reminded me that his mother was a widow for many years, and many of the qualities which we admire in him he attributes to that very fine woman who was responsible for bringing up her family. However, I hope he will support me now on this. While we remove the earnings rule from the widows we must not fail to recognise that the earnings they are then entitled to keep are still not commensurate with the work which they and other women perform in the field of industry.
While a great deal has been said about productivity keeping in step with wage increases—in fact, every time we open our newspapers we read an addition to this theme—little is heard of the millions of women workers whose productivity outstrips their meagre wages. And while the economists and the statisticians and the technologists argue among themselves, industry in this country is being kept going in a great measure by the exploited labour of the women who are denied the rate for the job. During the Election it gave me considerable satisfaction in the industrial towns of the North, where there are very many women workers, to point out that Labour's Manifesto alone promised equal pay. I would say that, if accumulated unpaid wages of women denied the rate for the job were calculated they would assume a colossal sum, which would represent the amount by which the employers of women's labour in industry have been subsidised over the years. Women workers, I feel, will particularly welcome the promise to establish an incomes policy based on a close relationship between the increase in productivity and the growth of incomes. However—and my noble friend will tell me if I am wrong in this—in this case equal pay must be basic to any arrangement arrived at by the two sides of industry. And of course a first step to this is to ratify Convention No. 100 of the International Labour Organisation.

273
It was very fortunate that this question was examined fairly recently at the last Labour Party Conference in Scarborough. I told the noble Lord I would raise these various points which we expounded in the charter of the Election. I am giving these details because, although he may not be able to give an answer to-night, this will give him an opportunity to read the whole case. I would remind him that a delegate to the conference at Scarborough last year from the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers called upon the next Labour Government to ratify Convention No. 100 of the International Labour Organisation on equal pay for work of equal value. The motion goes on to say:
"and by legislative initiative to facilitate the achievement of this objective throughout industry and commerce within a specified period".
And the delegate reminded the conference that 35 countries have already ratified this Convention, but the British Tory Government have consistently refused to do so, although they have been approached by the trade unions.
This motion, which is of great importance, was seconded by Mr. Corfield, a delegate from the Transport and General Workers' Union. I should like to put on record that he said:
"The realities in British industry to-day are that women workers doing work which in terms of skill, responsibility and effort is the equivalent of men's ate taking home at the end of the week, for every £1 a man takes, 10s. This is not only disgraceful, but it is, in comparison with our industrial competitors, one of the worst situations in Europe."
I am pleased to say that the Labour Party Conference supported the resolution unanimously, and the spokesman for the national executive committee of the Labour Party gave an undertaking that, in the event of Labour being returned to power, they would seek a means of implementing the resolution in the first term of office. We are indeed fortunate in having the former General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, together with the former President of the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers, in the Government to help to redeem that pledge. I am sorry that the noble Lord who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Technology has left the House. He is new to the Labour Party and he may not have been familiar with what happened last
274
year. If he hears what I have to say—in any event, he can read Hansard to-morrow—no doubt he will be in an excellent position to prod his right honourable friend.
The other thing I have to say is about the Ministry of Health. There will be a lot to say, but I want just to make a few comments. The new Minister of Health is now faced with formidable tasks. He has to repair the yawning gaps in the Health Service. He cannot hope to do this within even the lifetime of a five-year Parliament, because we cannot educate a doctor in five years. We were told in the Platt Report three years ago that we relied upon 3,628 foreign-born doctors to help us run our hospital services alone. The position has deteriorated. The Chief Medical Officer of Health states in his report, published last week, that 4,000 of 9,000 junior posts in hospitals under the National Health Service are held by doctors from overseas. This has all happened during the last few years. Furthermore, the conditions of service of the general practitioner are so unsatisfactory that there is widespread discontent, which no doubt is in a great measure responsible for the annual emigration of nearly one-third of the output of British medical schools. I think you will agree that it was not an over-statement when I spoke of "yawning gaps" which the new Minister of Health has somehow to repair.
I want just to say a few words about the abolition of the prescription charge. I know that this may seem a trifle to your Lordships. It is of course a trifle to those who are well off. Nevertheless, the prescription charge of 2s. per item deters many of those who may be in urgent need, from seeking treatment, and in this weather I think particularly of the aged sick and children in poor homes. The newspapers have had many cartoons on this subject, and no doubt the removal of this charge will encourage the compulsive pill-taker. But he or she is always with us: nothing changes his or her attitude to life. The compulsive pill-taker will continue to take pills whatever the prescription charge may be. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has just arrived. He will be pleased to hear—he knows very well the case I have put forward over the years on this subject—that I am not pursuing the question today because there is so much else to say.

275
The other side of the Health Service is, of course, the Hospital Plan. It does not seem long ago that we had a major debate in this House to discuss the Ten-Year Hospital Plan. Noble Lords who were in the Government of the day came here and made speeches to remind us that their Government proposed to introduce into the country hospitals which would revolutionise the situation. Well, the Ten-Year Hospital Plan, which was introduced with such extravagant promise, has failed already in its initial stages, if we are to judge from the orders to mark time which have been issued to the regional hospital boards. The noble Lord who used to speak on health matters is not here to-day. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but perhaps I could be told of one regional hospital board in the country which has not been warned that they should not proceed because all kinds of difficulties of planning, costing and so on have arisen. I understand, therefore, that the Minister is going to review the whole scheme indeed, he must review the whole scheme. The position is such that these detailed plans, which on paper looked most impressive, have remained only paper schemes.
May I ask my noble friend whether he will ask the Minister of Health to give priority to maternity services? The neglect of the maternity services is such that the condition now reminds me of the position in an underdeveloped country. This was revealed in a report published last week, which states that London is desperately short of maternity beds. Again, am I indulging in an over-statement when I quote the experience of the Emergency Bed Service, which was introduced in order that in this large city of ours there would always be a bed in an emergency? For example, if one of your Lordships had appendix trouble and could not get into a local hospital or a nursing home, there would be an emergency bed service ready and waiting with accommodation for him. But what happened last year? The Emergency Bed Service, which provides for every emergency, had to provide 4,000 beds for women who were unable to find accommodation during their pregnancy. It means that during every stage in their pregnancy, from beginning to end, these women desperately sought
276
accommodation in some hospital and were turned down. Is it any surprise that in London alone the general practitioners are disappointed? They had to say, "Wait until you are in labour; then we will 'phone up for an emergency bed and we can get you in." This report was produced the week before last, and no doubt it can be found in the Printed Paper Office for your Lordships to read. That is why I ask my noble friend to ask his right honourable friend to give the maternity services priority.
What has been the result of this situation? This grave shortage has resulted in women being discharged from hospital 24 hours after their confinement. An underdeveloped country, indeed! We have had to conduct our health services with foreign doctors; we have had to discharge our mothers 24 hours after the baby is born. I must ask my noble friend to read the warning given by Sir Andrew Clay, the eminent obstetrician and gynecologist, in the British Medical Journal of October 17, a copy of which is to be found in the Library of your Lordships' House. Sir Andrew believes that while the confinement may be efficiently conducted, early discharge may result in the failure to protect adequately the mother and child after their return home.
My Lords, this matter of the Welfare Services is one which calls for long debate, and no doubt we shall be afforded ample opportunity to debate various aspects of the services. On this first occasion I do not want to weary your Lordships any more than to remind you that there are these urgent matters which need attention, and my noble friends on the Front Bench will find their time fully occupied. On this first occasion I would add my best wishes for success in their endeavours to those engaged in promoting the services which are so vital to human happiness.
5.41 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, for a long time there has been an increasing feeling among those interested as to the need for a tightening up of the powers of town and country planning. When I speak of town and country planning, I think of all those powers which are directed to preserving the amenities of the countryside, its beauties in the interests of the health and happiness of the people; the

277
control of urban development, so that industry and commerce may be placed in the best localities, and so that the conditions of work and the transport of the workers in those areas may be as agreeable and as pleasant as possible.
I welcome the indications which we have had that the new Government intend to tackle these problems. The first indication is, of course, the creation of new Departments. I do not normally welcome the creation of new Departments of State. I believe that, generally speaking, it is better to give increased powers to the existing Departments and to rearrange and improve the organisation within them. In so far as the creation of these Departments is an indication of the intention to take action, I welcome it; but I want now to ask some questions about how these Departments are going to allocate their different responsibilities between them. I hope that I may have an answer, because I gave warning to the Government that I should be asking these questions, which are matters of general interest.
There is, first, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I understand that it is to retain what I may call the "Silkin powers"; that is to say, the power of the Minister to hear appeals from local planning authorities and, in suitable cases, to call in applications for his own decision. Then we find that the Ministry of Economic Affairs is going to be responsible, apparently, for regional planning. The idea of regional planning has become increasingly accepted, and, in particular, by the Conservative Party. A publication called Change and Challenge, issued a short time ago by a committee appointed by Mr. Butler, urged that there should be planning at three levels, the national, the regional and the local. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, how the responsibilities of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in supervising the planning under the Silk in Act are going to be co-ordinated with the regional and national responsibilities of the Ministry of Economic Affairs.
Then we have the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. That—or, rather, the Lands Commission which is to be set up under its auspices—is to be responsible, apparently, for the acquisition of land for which planning permission has
278
been given. Presumably, that planning permission will be given by the planning authorities or by the Minister of Housing and Local Government; and it is not, at first sight, apparent therefore how the responsibilities are to be divided between that Department and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
Here I would express my personal welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, and would say what a pleasure it is to his old friends and associates in the House of Commons to find him coming to this House, and especially undertaking the responsibilities of this kind, when we remember the care and attention that he gave to housing—even when his care and attention were largely devoted to persistent and pertinacious criticism of the Government which we supported!
We have had a statement on offices. The ban on the building of offices in London and the announcement of the necessary legislation are the first fruits of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. It is a blunt instrument which the Department is wielding, but in view of the need for speedy action it is none the worse for that. When the Bill is introduced, naturally the Government must expect that we shall examine very closely how it is intended to work. In a Motion for Papers in this House two years ago, I drew attention to the problem created by office development in London. The Standing Conference on London Regional Planning also expressed the view that this whole matter would have to be studied urgently with a view to legislation. I feel, therefore, that the Government are entitled to say that in taking drastic action they are supported by that Standing Conference.
Planning permissions have been given in such vast quantities that there is a great pipeline full. Even if the tap were turned off now, and if no further planning permissions were given, there would continue to be a vast number of these planning permissions to be carried out, amounting, apparently, to 250,000 extra jobs in London alone. Therefore I see the need for this new procedure, in order that the turning off of the flow may take place, not at the inlet end of the pipeline but at the point of outlet. Both the Conservative committee and various other bodies have looked at the possibility of

279
office development permits analogous to the industrial development certificate which was introduced under legislation in the '40s. There will, of course, be very great difficulties in applying it. We shall have to go further into this problem when legislation is introduced. But I would say to the Government that Political and Economic Planning, in one of their reports on this matter, make some very interesting suggestions as to how control could be established over the number of persons employed.
My Lords, this is a drastic power, because this new Office Development Permit to be given by the Board of Trade is to apply in the Greater London Council area even in cases where planning permission has already been given. As I have said, I think that this is essential to deal with the number of planning permissions already in the pipeline. I hope that some consideration will be given to extending this procedure to the Green Belt. There should not be many planning permissions given in the Green Belt. If there are some which have been given, we ought to consider whether the Green Belt around London ought not to be included under the additional control which is being applied by this legislation to London.
I recall the case of 1,000 acres of railway land in London which the Railways Board have been trying to dispose of. I think we ought to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Conesford who originally raised this matter, in 1962 on the Transport Bill and, indeed, persuaded your Lordships, despite the large Conservative majority here, to carry an Amendment against the Government. That was to ensure that a large proportion of those 1,000 acres should be used for housing and other social purposes, and should not be disposed of for offices so that the Railways Board could make the greatest profit.
I think it is clear from the White Paper on Offices that the danger with which my noble friend was dealing has now disappeared under the proposals of the Government. Your Lordships' House can feel some satisfaction that, when you took the line that you did some two or two-and-a-half years ago, you held the position. Under the new section you inserted in the Bill, any dispute between
280
the Railways Board and the London County Council had to be referred to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The dispute regarding the use of the 1,000 acres has not yet been settled by the Minister. Therefore the land is still available, and under the new legislation will be preserved.
My Lords, I hope, also, that when they introduce legislation the Government will bear in mind the question of the 10 per cent. margin that is allowed when existing offices are rebuilt. I put forward the argument that the 10 per cent. of cubic space, which frequently resulted in some 40 per cent. of additional floor space under new designs, should be dealt with. It was dealt with inadequately under the Act which your Lordships passed last year. When I moved an Amendment that the 10 per cent. margin should be completely done away with, the Government argued that it was not desirable to prevent some slight expansion in cases where expansion was desirable. My Amendment meant only that compensation would not be payable if a local planning authority properly refused to give planning permission for that extra 10 per cent. I hope, therefore, that when the Government are drafting their Bill, they will have another look at the matter. With regard to paragraph 7 of the White Paper, it is extremely important that the change of use be brought under the same control by the Board of Trade.
What will be the effect of all this upon rents? It may well be that it will result in an increase in the rents charged in London. But I hope that the Government will not be unduly concerned about that, because, of course, an increase in rents in London will encourage concerns to disperse their offices. But I know that the idea of increased rents and increased profits is extremely distasteful to the ideology of the Government. So I would urge upon them to follow the good example of the previous Government, and improve upon it, in trying to disperse out of London as much as possible of the Government machine and the Civil Service. The example of the last Government was a good one. The Accountant-General's Branch was removed to Chesterfield, and the Post Office Savings Bank is going to Glasgow. I hope that this Government will

281
do as much as, or even more than, the last Government.
I would say to the Government, that they will have to be very careful of the pressure brought to bear on them by some of their own supporters. I was very sorry that the Minister of Defence for the Army has ordered a re-examination of the proposal that Woolwich Arsenal should be moved elsewhere. This is obviously exactly what ought to be done. To remove Woolwich Arsenal and its great engineering works to parts of the country which are more suitable for engineering undertakings, is an enlightened policy of dispersal. I hope that the Government will not give way to those of their supporters who, whatever they believe is the right principle, consider that an exception should be made when it affects their own constituencies. In paragraph 10 of the White Paper on Offices, it is stated teat no compensation will be paid. I think that we must reserve our position on that point, and he free to raise that matter when the Bill is introduced.
My Lords, I turn from the most urban of land to the wild and lovely areas designated as National Parks. It is eight years since the National Parks Commission, presided over by my noble friend Lord Strang, asked that there should be legislation to increase the powers of that Commission. The defects, which experience of the Silkin Act had shown, needed attention, but nothing has so far been done. I very much hope that we shall have the necessary legislation. I took the late Lord Birkett's place as Chairman of the Standing Committee on the National Parks of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. We wrote some months ago to the last Prime Minister on the whole subject of the preservation of amenities, both within and, incidentally, without, the National Parks. He invited us to prepare a full memorandum on what we wanted, and undertook that it would be taken into account when that Government were formulating their land policy. I hope that the memorandum will reach its final form the day after to-morrow, and we shall then send it to the new Government. I venture to express the hope that it will receive favourable consideration.
One matter of great concern to us is the ever-increasing demands being made
282
on our countryside to meet the ever-increasing need for water. I am sure your Lordships listened with great interest to the speech by my noble friend Lord Weir this afternoon dealing with the desalination of sea water. We are much troubled by the renewed threat by Manchester to the Lake District. It causes great anxiety to the Friends of the Lake District, and therefore to our Standing Committee. The new Department is concerned with all natural resources, but water is specified as one of the things transferred to it. I hope that the Department will give attention to the need for increased economy in the use of water, and will also give expert consideration to the Morecambe Bay barrage project. My Lords, I am sure that if this new Department of Land and Natural Resources gives enlightened and enthusiastic attention to the preservation of the beauty of our countryside, it will enjoy the good will and the support of your Lordships' House.
6.3 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like first to echo the congratulations that have been offered from all sides of the House on the occasion of the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, and the noble Viscount, Lord Weir. I am quite sure that I express the view of all your Lordships when I say that we look forward to hearing their future contributions in debates to come.
My Lords, the gracious Speech from the Throne outlines a very big programme of legislation, and the Prime Minister has promised 100 days of dynamic action. Reviewing matters so far, it begins to look like the start of 100 days of warnings and limitations. We are moving at the moment, I think, towards a Government of "don'ts". Not all the "don'ts" are to be condemned, but a surfeit of "don'ts" becomes a depressing meal for the body politic—don't import too much; don't trade with those whom you politically dislike, like the South Africans or the Spaniards; don't build in London; don't get into the supersonic field; don't close railways that don't pay; don't question the need for more taxes; don't make too many profits; and, above all, don't give any credit to the Tories for the high standards of life which have been

283
achieved during their years of administration.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, they probably think that the Tories have taken so much credit already that they should not borrow any more.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: All this builds up, I believe, to the danger of a public image, here and abroad, of a nation beset by so many problems that these can be solved only by a new team of brilliant and ruthless political rulers. It builds up to the public image of a nation needing and about to receive a severe disciplinary dose to get it straight on the Socialist rails. The truth, in fact, is that we have got a Government elected on a minority of votes; that we have problems that are no worse than others that we have had in the past and which we have overcome in the past; and that we have a set of largely inexperienced new Ministers to whom we wish well personally but who are just ordinary men, subject to failure and success, and who will obtain our support for measures which we feel are in the national interest. If the Government go on in their present condition of warnings and rebukes, I believe they will risk something which is essential for the success of any Government—the willingness of the people to "take it", whatever may come.
I would remind the Government that, to get people to accept change, you need not necessarily adopt the role of a prophet of gloom. I would urge the Government to remember the words of Mr. Winston Churchill—and I was a humble member of his Administration—in 1941, when his Ministers were constantly proposing limitations and controls. One of the war-time proposals of Ministers was that no one should be allowed to keep a pig, otherwise he had an advantage over those who were not allowed to keep pigs. Mr. Churchill looked at all those limitations and regulations, and he questioned each one, saying, "Stop it. Let the people enjoy what they can, even if the executive bureaucracy are shocked by a lack of conformity". I would urge the Government to have some regard for what t would call a spot of gaiety in their outlook and actions, and not keep repeating these sombre warnings of troubles around us, now and in the future, which we have
284
heard daily, and sometimes several times a day, ever since the General Election. Do not try to depress people who will not be units or be pushed around in a controlled State. Let the Government invest in joy, as well as investing in industrial effort and skills. Let them do all they can to encourage leisure and pleasure—and I will make, if I may, a very few suggestions for injecting some more joy into our daily lives.
When the Government train and retrain industrially, as they have said they are going to do, and indeed as is necessary in our new technological age, do let them see that at the training centres, parallel with the provision of the necessary facilities for work, there is also the provision of entertainment facilities. See that there are cinemas, that there are playing fields, that there are diversions there for the men, apart from the need for them to concentrate upon the work, because I believe that leisure and amusement for them will be almost as important as the work in the classroom. Then I am afraid I must be so bold as to say to the Government: Have a go at Aintree. See if you can preserve Aintree as the centre of a great national event, the Grand National, which counts for a great deal in this country and in other parts of the world. Why not have a national sweepstake? It is not really very immoral, because every church does it for its own church funds. Do something dramatic and exciting like that, and I believe you will get an enormous measure of public support.
Next, I would say, do not be too pompous about radio and television as educational media for the improvement of the mind, while regretfully admitting that some decadent people like comics, Westerns and even boxing. If people like television at odd times—and, after all, nowadays many people in industry work at odd times—let them have it and, subject to the rules of decency, let them laugh and have it for a much greater time than at present, even though the princes of gloom, some of whom we have in your Lordships' House (they may not he present to-day), do not approve.
Next, do please check the planners and their extravagances, the control planners, central and local, with their terrific urge for strict conformity: every gate and every fence in the housing estate must

285
be of a standard size and painted a standard colour, the unauthorised tool shed must be torn down. The planners' extreme determination that we shall all be the same I think makes public asses of some of them. I was reading in the Daily Mail last week about a case in Basildon, Essex, where a master builder tore down an old bungalow and almost completely rebuilt it. He is now told he must restore it to its former slum condition. Then he must comply with an enforcement order and demolish it. He had permission to repair the bungalow, and if he had rebuilt it bit by hit there would have been no trouble, but because he demolished it he now needs planning permission to re-erect it. It is really bumbledom gone mad when you get that sort of thing.
Next, why not paint buildings brighter? Let public and private buildings be smartened up and not be this terrible regulation grey. My appeal to the Government is to get Britain brighter. That should be a slogan of the Government. Finally, let the Government encourage and support great national events. Lord Morrison of Lambeth's Festival of Britain was jeered at quite a lot at the time, but in fact it was a very good show and Battersea Fun Fair still survives and is enjoyed by tens of thousands of people each year.
Here, my Lords, I speak with a particular interest which I must declare. I am the Chairman of the Commonwealth Arts Festival project which we have worked up from small beginnings over several years and with the constant support of the London County Council in difficult times. We later got the support of Her Majesty's Government, and in September, 1965, in London and in the national centres of Cardiff, Liverpool and Glasgow there will be the most exciting events that this country has seen for a long time. All the Commonwealth countries, and particularly the new countries, are keen to send dancers. African musicians, Canadian ballet, Australian symphony orchestras—they are all coming, and it is going to be "really something" for this country.
The last Government have given us support and we may well be coming to ask for further support from the present Government. After all, the ties of the Commonwealth are to-day largely
286
language and communication. These are the most important ties of the Commonwealth. Communication can be expressed in music, in poetry, in dancing and in other forms of art, and therefore my special plea (my general plea is to inject some gaiety into Britain and to brighten it) will be for support for the Commonwealth Arts Festival in 1965 in London, Cardiff, Liverpool and Glasgow. I believe we have got something here. Luckily, art knows no Party politics. Its purpose and work is common to all of us. I do not believe that the injecting of joy into our lives is a matter of Party politics; it is a matter of common sense for all of us. Faint hearts we have not got—faint hearts are ne'er rejoicing. We have not got faint hearts in this country, and let us rejoice!
THE LORD BISHOP On CHICHESTER: My Lords, may I just issue one repudiation of the statement just made that all churches indulge in sweepstakes? That is not true.
6.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I want to refer to the proposal to set up a Lands Commission, a subject that I do not know will inject the joy in your Lordships' House that was so properly desired by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. But, before doing that, I should like to say how very glad I am to hear of the enthusiasm and support which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is going to give to the housing society movement with which I am connected. I do not think he was entirely fair to the late Government. It is true, unfortunately, that the charitable side of this movement has been progressing slowly, but in regard to the type of scheme he was talking about, the schemes now under consideration by the Housing Corporation, after some preliminary hesitation they are, I know, going forward fast and, I hope, will soon make a considerable contribution to the whole housing position.
My Lords, I want to say a word about the Lands Commission, not with any idea of criticising this proposition, because we have been told so little about it that it would be difficult to criticise it even if one wanted to. All I want to point out is that the mere announcement of this proposal is already having some effect on local government operations. Whatever the ultimate effect it may have in facilita-

287
ting this work, at the present moment it has a slowing-down effect on certain operations, particularly those involving the purchase of land.
The argument is a very simple one. If we are going to get land cheaply by waiting, then obviously the thing to do is to wait. That is the attitude which my own county council, a shrewd body, is adopting in regard to the less urgent propositions, and I have no doubt that other local authorities will do the same thing. I am not suggesting there is any harm in waiting and seeing for a period provided always that the period is not too long. But how long shall we be in a state of uncertainty? At the present moment we do not know very much about what the Bill setting up the Lands Commission will contain. All we have been told is that, because of the difficulties of drafting, it will not be introduced before the spring. I can well believe there will be difficulties in drafting this Bill. I can well believe that there would be a number of difficult legal questions. Decisions would have to be taken about the different functions of different Ministries, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Molson.
In the past there have been complaints of a lack of co-ordination, for example, between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who are responsible for land planning, and the Board of Trade, who are responsible for giving industrial certificates. Now, as Lord Molson has pointed out, we have two more Ministries. We have the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources itself, who are entrusted with the preparation of this Bill (although they have been in existence for only three weeks), and we have the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Then we are to have regional planning boards, so we are told. There is going to be a great deal of planning of various descriptions. All one can hope is that all these bodies will be planning in the same direction. I hope that will be the kind of problem that will be faced in this new Bill.
Even supposing all these difficulties were got over, even supposing that drafting and separation of functions and the passage of this Bill through Parliament went very smoothly, the passage of any Bill through Parliament in the present
288
state of affairs is always likely to give rise to interesting speculations. But even if all these things were done, I cannot see that that would be the end of the story. I cannot think that any kind of scheme of the sort sketched out in the Election campaign could really work without a considerable strengthening of the Valuation Department. This department can hardly be described as underemployed at present. In many areas, it is grossly overworked. I think that if a great deal more is to be put on it, it might very well break down altogether. How long would it take to increase the size of that department? Would it be any exaggeration to say that this Land Commission could not become operative for at least a year, probably eighteen months, possibly two years? I think that if uncertainty were to prevail for anything like that time, the consequences would be serious.
Unfortunately, it is not the only uncertainty that is now confronting the local authorities. Last week this edict about the regulation of offices in London went out. I think it is a very good thing that offices in London should be regulated and, like my noble friend Lord Molson, I have said so on various occasions. But the language in which that edict was issued suggested that it was going eventually a long way beyond London. In fact, it has been interpreted by some political commentators in the Sunday Press as meaning that the whole of the South East Study is going to be modified to a very considerable degree and possibly scrapped altogether.
The South East Study was produced after months, if not years, of work in the Ministry. It was presented to Parliament, not as a definite scheme, not even as an ideal solution of our difficulties, but as a compromise between what was desirable and what is politically practicable. It was put forward as a basis for discussion with the local authorities, and consultations have been proceeding and a good deal of work has been done in this direction. I wonder whether the noble Lord who is going to reply can give us any kind of guidance or information on these matters. I wonder whether the South East Study is to be reviewed and, if so, whether the revision is likely to take anything like as long as the original scheme. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us, in regard to both

289
the Bill for setting up the Land Corn-mission and the South East Study, whether the associations of local authorities are going to be given opportunities for consultation, and, if so, when.
I ask these questions, not from any Party point of view, but simply from the point of view of straight administration. In my experience of local government, which is now getting perhaps rather long, I have found that most of the difficulty of getting anything done is not the difficulty arising from Party differences but simply the difficulty arising from the forces of inertia, which are not confined to any one Party. There always seem to be good arguments for deferring a decision, particularly a complicated one, and for putting it off for further consultations and further information. So long as uncertainty prevails, I am afraid that the pressure to wait and see will become almost irresistible.
In conclusion, I should like to make one general observation. I have always felt, and have said so before in this House, that some day there ought to be more accommodation between the Parties on this question of long-term land planning. I cannot see that any real political principles are involved. The position is that the local authorities are supposed to plan for twenty years ahead, within the framework of the national plan. If that national plan is going to be changed every few years to suit the whims of perhaps quite a small number of floating voters, it will not he planning at all, but will degenerate into something which the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, would probably describe as "a dog's dinner". I think that would be a pity.
As has been said before, we are very fortunate in having in this House, looking after our affairs in local government, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, who has a high reputation, as I know, among local authorities, and has a long experience. If it is not impertinent to do so, I should like to ray tribute to his patriotism in taking on this quite difficult job at a. time when other people might perhaps be looking for a more easy life. I hope that he will use his great influence to give us in local authority life, if it is to go on at all—though clearly The Times does not think it has long to go—a fair deal, and to see that
290
there is some consistency in policy and some sanity in our affairs.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount will allow me to say that I have listened carefully to all he has said. I have a great deal of sympathy with it and I am sure that his remarks will be carefully considered. I do not think that one can go beyond that at this stage, but the noble Viscount may take it that it is said with good intention.
6.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, my first impression, on reading through the Home Affairs section of the gracious Speech, was that we are promised more and more affluence through the Welfare State, but Op reading the gracious Speech again I could not find out where all the extra money was to come from for all these schemes. Perhaps the Prime Minister has a fairy godmother somewhere up his sleeve, but I cannot imagine the Prime Minister as a character in Grimm's' Fairy Tales. Our economic policy since the 1930s has been immoral, because we have had a policy to please the voter rather than to secure the value of his money. I do not want to go into a long economic thesis now, but the gracious Speech implied that we are going to maintain an ever and ever higher standard of life. And how are we going to do this? The Government appear to be shying off investing in technological advance, in what they call "prestige projects" such as the Concorde, the Channel Tunnel and nuclear power stations. Therefore, I think the part of the gracious Speech referring to home affairs is, to a great extent, null and void. I could say a lot about this, but I will not pursue it now.
I should like to say something about the proposed Crown Lands Commission. We have had a number of speeches on this already and other noble Lords have rather taken the words out of my mouth. I am sure that, provided this Commission is completely fair to both sides, nobody will object. But can it be fair? I agree that in regard to urban land the area of land cannot increase geographically, and that in odd cases there may have been speculation and the price of

291
land has been too high. If this is the case, and the Crown Lands Commission can cure it fairly, then I am sure that nobody on these Benches will object.
What I am afraid of is that if we get more and more bureaucrats and more and more people dealing with planning permission and the acquisition of land, this will slow up the process. I have had a fair amount of experience in applying for planning permission, but I have never been successful in getting my applications accepted. This is somewhat disheartening. I am surprised how easily some people appear to get planning permission, and this has caused me to wonder why. I am not sure which noble Lord it was, but one noble Lord drew attention to the unsatisfactory part of planning permission where a planning authority, or even a single man, can, by drawing an arbitrary line on a map, put great wealth into the pockets of one man and deny it to another. I yield to no one in my high regard for the Civil Service of this country, but if the Civil Service continues to increase, some day we may get someone who is tempted by this great power and there may possibly be a scandal.
Therefore, I am frightened that with this Crown Land Commission we are going to increase the Civil Service and the control, and, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, slow up the supply of land. I agree with the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that where a man has had a great big road built through his property, and he can apply for planning permission for what was formerly agricultural land, half the price he gets (perhaps not half, but I will say half for the moment) should go to the authorities in payment for Government development of assets. But if he has to pay tax on his half, then that is complete nonsense.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, spoke about rents, and he said that the Rent Act we introduced in 1956 was the most disgraceful Act regarding property that has ever been enacted. But that Act had to be brought in because the whole country was really becoming a slum. The lowness of rents was such that they were inadequate to provide for the repair of houses. I know people who had, I will say, thirty houses in a row who
292
were prepared to pay a purchaser to take them off their hands. I have had cottages let at rents under the old Land Control of £2 a year. The repair of those cottages might well cost £30 or £40 a year. The position for some landowners was quite hopeless. I do not want to labour the point, but if the Government are going to control rents, they must do it while being fair to both sides, because otherwise they will only start slums again. They cannot expect the landowner to repair houses out of his own pocket. He just cannot do it; he would go broke.
If I may say a word or two about the prescription charges, we have heard it said that their abolition is going to cost the nation only £20 million a year. I have spoken to quite a few doctors, and they are of the opinion that it is going to cost about £60 million a year. The trouble is that if you give people something free it is not cherished and will probably be abused. In the present economic position of this country, it might be all right if it could be kept at £20 million, but I do not think this is possible, and it is going to add greatly to the national bill.
I was pleased to see in the gracious Speech that the Government propose to build up the strength and efficiency of the police. I have a high regard, as I am sure all your Lordships have, for the police. They have had some adverse publicity in the Press lately, but if one has in mind the size of the Force it refers to only a minute percentage. In the few court cases I have seen, I have sometimes been rather appalled that when a policeman appears in the witness box giving evidence he appears to be more abused than the criminal. The courts and counsel rather appear to be anti police evidence. We have heard in the gracious Speech that there is to be law reform, and I am sure everyone will agree that it is long overdue. I hope that in this reform more encouragement will be given to the police and that they will not be pilloried in court, as I have seen happen.
The other point about the police is this. I have always been very keen—and a great number of other people have always suggested this—on taking traffic control out of their hands. If only we could have a separate force, such as the traffic wardens or some such people, to do point duty and the simpler traffic

293
control, it would, of course, be far easier for the police to attend to the apprehension of criminals. I suppose that over half the police force are wasted—perhaps I ought not to say "wasted", but engaged on traffic control, which I think is rather unnecessary.
I also heartily congratulate the Government on saying in the gracious Speech that they are going to improve the after-care of prisoners and bring about a general reform of prisons. I have always thought that the prisoner ought to be allowed to earn standard wages, and that out of those wages a certain percentage ought to go to redressing the damage, he has done to his victim: and that when he is doing this work he need not be in the confines of the prison. Of course, he has to be under supervision. It depends on the type of criminal. If he is a dangerous criminal, that is quire different. Another important aspect is the training of prisoners for the time when they come out of prison. If we spend our money on industrial training and other training of prisoners, I am quite sure that it will be well spent.
I have mentioned only a few of the many schemes that have been broached in the gracious Speech hut, of course, the most important section in the gracious Speech (and if the Government cannot do something about this the gracious Speech will really go by the board) is the paragraph which says:
"My Government w 11 call on trade unions and employers' organisations to co-operate in eliminating those restrictive practices, on both sides of industry, which impair our competitive power and the development of the full potential of the economy."
I have often spoken before on this subject. As a very small manufacturer, of course I am interested in it. It is the most important subject in the country. Reference to restrictive practices by unions is always coupled with a reference to the restrictive practices on the employers' side. But I think that is only included to be tactful, because in fact there are very few restrictive practices on the employers' side.
Of course, every man must have the right to withhold his labour—he must have the right to strike. But in the Welfare State it must be a qualified right. After all, we can drive our cars
294
anywhere in the country. We have complete freedom to drive our cars, but we are not allowed to drive on the right-hand side of the road. We have, therefore, a qualified right to drive our cars. When a man takes a job, it is implied when he takes that job that he cannot walk out the next day—there is an implied right of contract. It is not laid down, but there is that implied, understood right. If you are driving a car and you knock somebody down through going too fast, you have serious claims against you. But the unions can ride roughshod over the community. They can drive people to suicide through victimisation, and they can ruin men financially. They can hold up extremely urgent serum or drugs to a hospital, and they can cause death in that way. We cannot go on like that. I am sure the whole country looks on this Government, who perhaps have more control of the unions (there are a great many members and past members of the unions in the Government), to define the right to strike.
In the Industrial Revolution, of course, it was perfectly right that the worker had to be protected from the community. But now the community have to be protected from the worker. The whole process is reversed. He gets his power from the fact that he is the last link in the chain. A handful of men in a power station, for example, can just turn a few knobs, and can throw 100,000 people out of work. They can stop the trains. It is anarchy. They have not built the power stations and have not built the trains. As I say, they are the last link in the chain. They can nullify all the efforts of the architects, planners, the civil servants, men who have contributed more to the economy than the last link in the chain. I do not mean this in any Party spirit, because I realise that your Lordships opposite probably to a great extent agree with me. We have to stop anarchy, and if we cannot get a qualified right to strike, then, of course, we have anarchy.
I am afraid that I have been rather long, but before I end I should like to express my point by quoting something from the People of October 25. As noble Lords will know, we have just had the Olympic Games, and although some of our team did extremely well, our swimmers, I am sorry to say, did extremely

295
badly, but through no fault of their own. There are two swimming baths in this country where an Olympic swimming team can train; one is at Cardiff and the other at Blackpool. Owing to the fact that the shop steward in charge of the swimming baths attendants at the Cardiff pool had a slight difference of opinion with one of the team, the baths were closed to overtime. The team, therefore, did not have all the practice they might have had. Bod O'Brien, as the man is called, defied the Lord Mayor of Cardiff, the Chairman of the Corporation Committee and, in fact, defied everybody because of what he thought was a personal slight. He says in the article that the young man Patterson (a member of the team)
"tried to make out I was a nobody. He seems to forget that the workers are the bosses".
He then goes on to say:
You see, when you have got a union behind you it is possible to run the world".
There, my Lords, you have my point. We have that one man—I presume probably a fairly ignorant man—who can nullify the whole effort put into building this great swimming bath, which cost a million pounds when it was built specially for the Empire Games six years ago. I have pointed that out to show that if this is allowed to go on, we shall end up not as a second, a third or even a fourth rate economy, but will go down and down. It is by far the most important thing in the Queen's Speech, that we have to control unofficial strikes and that we must have the right to strike qualified.
6.56 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, the gracious Speech has two features about it: first, it is ambitious, and, secondly, it would appear to be costly. But before I develop my own theme on this subject I should like to join in the congratulations which have been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, who made a most engaging maiden speech. I often used to read the speeches which he made in another place and I also know the very delightful part of the country which he used to represent there, having driven along the A.6 on a number of occasions. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Weir on a most informative and interesting speech on a vital topic.
296
I would also say how delighted I am personally to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to the Government Front Bench, because, while we disagree on certain matters, he always speaks with great sincerity and has worked very hard on Home Office matters. Only the other day he made a most interesting and useful speech at the Annual General Meeting of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. As Joint Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Home Safety Committee, I and my colleagues will no doubt find the noble Lord's advice and work very valuable, and from time to time I may put down various Questions to him.
I should like initially to put one point to him: that is, on the question of accidents caused by fireworks. I have not given him notice of this point and, naturally, I do not expect a reply to-day. Newspapers have carried some disturbing accounts of terrible accidents this year, in spite of all the propaganda that had gone forward in the Press and elsewhere. One child has been blinded for three weeks, owing to a firework explosion, and in another case two thatched cottages were razed owing to fireworks being thrown. I would ask the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack whether it is not time for a review of the penalties for these hooligans who throw fireworks about indiscriminately. I put a question down in this House on this point two years ago. I wonder whether the present penalties for this particularly dangerous type of hooliganism are adequate, and I think it is something which, even in the long term, needs consideration in relation to present-day values.
My Lords, I wish to deal with the question of hospitals and the Health Service. I disagree very much with the complete removal of prescription charges. I consider that old age pensioners should be able to have these prescriptions without recourse to the National Assistance Board; in other words, without having to produce or obtain the usual green form. Whether this is administratively possible I do not know, but it is something which I feel the Government should look into. That applies also for prescriptions for children, say under the age of five or six. I know from my own case—having three small children, all ill at the same time, all wanting different forms of medicine—that in a family where there

297
are three or four children and this happens it undoubtedly imposes a very big burden on the parents, if they have to pay for several different medicines on several different prescriptions.
But I wonder whether the wage earner, who to-day basically is well off, could not well afford to pay prescription charges. The reason why I disagree with the proposal in the gracious Speech to abolish these charges is that physiotherapists, radiographers and others are still, even with the latest review award, very much underpaid. I will not develop that point to-day, because I have a Question down for next Tuesday and also a Motion on the "No Day Named" list, drawing attention to the hospitals and the Health Services generally. But I will not move that yet, because it is only fair that the new Government should have an opportunity of making their own investigations into the details of this matter. The fact is, however, that there is a grave shortage of physiotherapists; in fact the establishment throughout the country is down by about 1,000 on what it should be, and I have here correspondence from the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists. I made no bones about criticising my own side when we were in power and when the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, moved the debate on the pay and conditions of these people, and I make no apologies for this. I hope that the new Government will pay serious attention to this matter.
I could not help feeling, when reading the Labour Party Manifesto—I do not want to make a violently Party political speech here—that their references to the hospital plans generally were all rather vague. Party manifestos are always necessarily a little vague, because naturally they cannot run to 300 or 400 pages. But I wonder where some of the money is going to come from, even in advance of what may emanate from to-morrow's Budget, which of course none of us can anticipate. When in Opposition the Party opposite criticised very severely the Ten-Year Hospital Plan—as, of course, they were quite entitled to do—but I would point out that currently £66 million is being spent on new hospital buildings, while 110 major schemes have been completed since the inception of the Plan. Certainly, on paper, the construction of only five new hospitals in thirteen years
298
seems small; but as anybody who has anything to do with hospitals will say, the planning of a new hospital needs a good deal more thought and expense than the mere planning of a new house.
During one Election speech that I made I was confronted with the Labour candidate, who has now been elected for that division, who claimed that 400 new hospitals could be built. She did not give any time limit and she did not say how this was going to be done. I am sure we all hope the Government can build 400 new hospitals, and if they can, all credit to them. But we have been told that there is a shortage of bricks and a shortage of building operatives, among other things, and probably a shortage of equipment. And the 15 per cent. import duty which is one of the Government's measures—and it is not one that I unreservedly criticise, because there may well be good reasons for it—may possibly have some bad effect on importing hospital equipment. I do not know whether that is so, but perhaps that is something we shall learn. I think we ought to know soon what the Government's plans are for what they describe as "remodelling" the Ten-Year Hospital Plan, because this is vital, particularly for the maternity services. I am not claiming that the Ten-Year Plan has gone perfectly so far but in the introductory note to the plan it does stress that this is a plan and not necessarily a fait accompli. A great many things must obviously be borne in mind, such as building costs, availability of equipment and so on.
We all know that there is a shortage of nurses, and this is particularly true in mental nursing. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has himself done a great deal of good work in the mental hospital field. There is one large mental hospital in Epsom, which I know well, that has a grave shortage of nurses, particularly male nurses, because of the accommodation problem. I should hope that, if office building in London and elsewhere is to be curtailed—and again there are good reasons for this curtailment, provided that consideration is given and discrimination is given to the case—materials which would normally have gone on office building will go, at least in part, to building new nurses' homes, because there is a most desperate need for this. I know

299
that in Epsom some of the nurses have had to rent accommodation, often at prices they can ill-afford; and here again is something which the new Government, which has always expressed its great concern for our nursing services, and I am sure sincerely, should look into very carefully.
I should like, in conclusion, to echo some words which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye said concerning the arts. As your Lordships know, I have moved two Motions in this House on the Arts Council. The Party opposite have always had a great deal of enthusiasm for increased public money for the arts, and I do not quarrel with that. I would only say, since we have been criticised over our meanness towards the arts, that the Arts Council now receive from the Government nearly £3 million a year, as opposed to about £450,000 in 1946. I hope that, so far as they can, the Government will bring pressure to bear on the local authorities to utilise, again so far as they can, their permitted 6d. rate on the arts, because I think that in this country our arts can be a valuable export in the form of culture and in projecting our cultural way of life.
My Lords, I said earlier that this gracious Speech envisages the spending of a great deal of money. I hope that, in the spending of it, our physiotherapists. radiographers and ancillary medical professions will be given a high priority.
7.12 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with other Members of your Lordships' House in congratulations, and I should like to add to them my good wishes in regard to the heavy tasks ahead. I must admit that I am an opportunist, and as such I am both heartened and thrilled in the vision of work to be undertaken and the problems to be tackled which I envisage and foresee in the gracious Speech.
I rise to keep your Lordships for only two or three minutes in order to beg Her Majesty's Government that work in regard to the welfare and the helping of persons sentenced to prison and coming out of prison may be put in the forefront of the active list of undertakings. The time for this work is now here and it can, I fear, no longer be delayed. It is
300
over a year since the ACTO Report was considered, and still to-day probation officers, welfare officers, voluntary organisations, probation committees and all other people interested in these problems are still terribly uncertain of what the policy is to be, what practical steps lie ahead and what preliminary preparations should be put in hand. I believe that the reason for urgency is that the good will of the public and of thoughtful people who are anxious to help is evaporating because they feel that they are being given no lead and no information on the subject; and, whilst this interest is evaporating, the anxiety of professionals as to what is likely to happen to them is mounting.
As a nation, the question of economy is one that we must quite obviously adopt. But I believe that hundreds of thousands of pounds could be saved by the prevention of recidivism, which can and should be tackled now. If we can effect this economy it would be a worthwhile effort. But even such an economy is not worth the mentioning when taken into consideration and compared with the reestablishment of men and women in life, instead of allowing them to drift back into prison. My knowledge of the readiness to co-operate on a voluntary basis throughout the whole of this country is gained from some considerable experience, and I am absolutely convinced that we must act now or we shall have lost an opportunity which will not easily recur.
7.15 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I, too, start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, on two maiden speeches in one day—his maiden speech in your Lordships' House, and the same speech as a Minister in your Lordships' House. I am not going to use to him the conventional words, that I hope we shall hear him often again in this House, because I know that we are going to hear him often again in this House. But I can promise him the one thing he particularly asks your Lordships for in future, although he did not get it to-day—that is, plenty of interruptions. May I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Weir, on his maiden speech. Your Lordships are always glad to hear an expert on his own subject. I think my noble friend has other matters in which

301
he is an expert. I feel that he has been too long in making his maiden speech, and i hope that we shall hear him soon, and often, on his other subjects as well.
During the last twelve months I have spent quite a bit of time arguing with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I am glad to think that this exercise is to go on, but I warn him that he will find me much more difficult in Opposition than I ever was in office. I am somewhat entertained by the fact that when I was at the Home Office I spent a short time each week answering letters from Lord Stonham. The noble Lord tells me that since he has been at the Home Office he spends a large part of each day answering letters from himself. I think that perhaps he has not yet had time to get the knack of answering the Stonham correspondence.
I want to deal this evening with what, quite briefly, I might call Home Office affairs, which occupy a certain small part of the gracious Speech. I am in some difficulty, because Home Office matters are dealt with in the most extraordinarily vague terms. There are no details. I got the impression that they must have been drafted by somebody who was not greatly interested in the subject matter—perhaps by a surplus Government economist. For, as a rule, economists seem to find it difficult to believe that there are other things besides money which affect our daily lives. Therefore, I am afraid that my speech is going to be largely a series of questions asking for enlightenment. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will no doubt be able to answer some of them to-day. There are probably other matters that he has not yet been long enough in office to answer, but I shall pursue them wring the coming week. And I am now giving him notice of what those questions are.
Perhaps it would be easiest to deal with them in the order in which they appear in the gracious Speech. The first matter is the police. The rather bald statement appears in the gracious Speech that:
"My Government will he actively concerned to build up the strength and the efficiency of the police."
If I were a policeman, a bald statement like that, not saying what it means, would produce in me the reaction—and
302
I am quite certain that it is the reaction among some sections of the police force—why are we mentioned at all in the gracious Speech? Are we going to he messed about? A bald statement like that, without any explanation, may well produce such a reaction.
I would remind your Lordships that my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary introduced in the last Parliament a most important Bill, now the Police Act. It was a most important measure, and had a general welcome from all parts in both Houses. As soon as it became an Act, before the Recess, we began to implement it. Of course, it will take a considerable time for full implementation; and it seems to me, therefore, that when I ask the noble Lord what this phrase in the gracious Speech means, or is likely to mean, probably one of three answers will emerge.
It may, of course, be just an expression of good will towards the police. If that is all it is, it seems to be quite unnecessary. One does not imagine that even this Government want to antagonise the police. After all, they are not foreigners. If it is just that, perhaps the noble Lord will say so, and I think it need not have appeared at all. On the other hand, it may be that they are announcing their intention to continue to implement the Police Act. If that is what this means, why did not the Government say so and do away with all this? Or is there some underlying hidden meaning to this phrase? What I am asking for is a little enlightenment. I think we are entitled to it after a statement as bald as this, and I am quite certain the police are entitled to it.
The next matter I want to refer to is the statement
"My Government will be actively concerned … to improve the penal system…."
I do not want to debate the whole penal system this evening. The noble Lord and I have often crossed swords on this and, as often as not, we find ourselves in great agreement, but I should like to know whether this is an announcement of the Government's intention to implement the Longford Committee Report, or are the Government going to follow the example set by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in a

303
debate he initiated last Session and wash their hands of it? I should really like to know what lines they are going to work on.
There is one definite question I should like to ask and perhaps the noble Lord can answer it. He will remember that on July 23 last, in answer to a Written Question, I told the House that we, the then Government, intended to do away with preventive detention, and I said at the same time what we intended to put in its place. Probably the noble Lord will be able to answer my question as to precisely what lines the Government intend to go on. I am quite certain they will do away with preventive detention. I want to know whether they are going to alter the lines on which we made our announcement. This matter will, of course, I quite realise, need legislation, but I should have thought legislation of a fairly simple kind.
I would give one word of warning about after-care, which the noble Baroness has just mentioned. I am not sure whether I am agreeing with the noble Baroness or not, but your Lordships are aware that a new probation and after-care service has been started. It is going to take a considerable time to develop fully. I quite appreciate that, with experience, alterations will have to be made when we see how it is working, and I would ask Her Majesty's Government not to rush into making alterations until we have a little more experience in this matter. It may be possible to speed up, but that is largely a question of recruitment. I would ask the Government not to embark on changes just for the sake of changes. This is a service which needs time to settle down, and I do not think any of us have quite the right answer yet.
I should like to say a few words about capital punishment, which is a subject mentioned in the gracious Speech. I do not want to argue the pros and cons of capital punishment, but I understand that this matter will be dealt with by Private Member's Bill. That does not mean, of course, that Her Majesty's Government will not have a good deal to say as regards its drafting and what it contains. That, of course, is quite clear to everyone. I would ask Her Majesty's Government, and I should like
304
the noble Lord to ask the Home Secretary, to think very seriously at this moment—I mean now, before the Bill is actually produced—about the position of the police and prison officers. Assuming capital punishment is done away with—and I am not arguing that one at the moment—presumably, again, almost certainly, there will have to be alterations of some kind concerning the alternative penalty for murder. Under the present capital punishment arrangement Parliament recognised that the police and prison officers, from the very nature of their job, really needed special protection against crimes of murder. That applies particularly to the police. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to think very carefully about this, because it would be quite disastrous if, owing to some mistake we made now, in five or ten years' time we had to arm our police. In my submission, these two classes of people still need certain protection against this particular crime.
We then come to what I may term the immigration problem. This is a very complicated subject which is not suitable to be debated to-night, particularly the control of immigration. I feel certain that we shall have an early opportunity of debating the whole subject in detail and, I hope, in a calm atmosphere, because this is an urgent and immediate problem to which I think we should all give careful attention. I cannot see that there is any necessity for Party politics on this important issue as such. There are two mentions of the immigration problem in the gracious Speech. The first is that the Government
"will take action against racial discrimination …".
I should like to know just what this means. It sounds to me like another one in the series of what one might call the "Fenner Brockway Bills". I think I am right in saying that your Lordships have never debated one of these Bills because the other place, in my view quite rightly, did not send the Bills forward, on the ground that one could turn these Bills into law and, once they became law, they were unenforceable. If I am right in saying that this is another in the series of "Fenner Brockway Bills", I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider that they have done their duty by their fringe by mentioning it in the gracious

305
Speech, and will now forget all about it. On the other hand, they may have something else in mind.
The gracious Speech also says that the Government will take action to
"promote full integration into the community of immigrants who have come here from the Commonwealth."
I have read that again and again. I do not quite know what it means. It rather sounds as if you are passing a law to say "Thou shalt love thy neighbour". I really do not understand it, if this means bringing in legislation to say that integration has got to take place. I always thought that integration was really a question of persuading people that they wanted to mix. Whether this means there is going to be a Bill to say "Thou shalt mix", I do not know. Perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten us on that. I suspect that it is a bit of padding; that it sounds good but does not mean anything.
I am not going to say anything about Ombudsmen. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is the expert on the matter, perhaps almost as great an expert as my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who perhaps has dealt with the matter as far as he possibly can to-day. Any matter dealing with the law as such I shall leave to my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne to deal with to-morrow, if he wishes to say anything on it. Perhaps it would be unwise for me to say anything now, with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sitting on the Woolsack at the moment and with my noble and learned friend intending to speak tomorrow. I am not going to keep your Lordships any longer as it is getting late, but those are a few questions, quite definite questions, on which we should like enlightenment. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer some of them to-day, and then I shall pursue the others in due course.
7.30 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I would join with almost every noble Lord who has spoken in congratulating my noble friend Lord Mitchison on his maiden speech, and I agree with those who think he is a remarkable maiden. I am looking forward with keen anticipation to the days when Lord Mitchison performs in Committee, because I do not
306
know anyone who equals him when it comes to Committee points. I would also add my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, on his maiden speech. I did not know much about the subject of distillation of fresh water from sea water, although I know it is extremely important. I am glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that the noble Viscount talks on other subjects as well, and I look forward to more water over the weir.
My Lords, as so often happens in these debates when we have 16 speakers and when I am at the end of the day—it used to be on the other side—I feel a bit like the boy who stood on the burning deck whence all but he had fled. Something of the same kind has happened. Since so many noble Lords were kind enough to say that they did not expect an answer, and since I am also able to say that everything that has been said in this debate will be referred to the Minister concerned and most carefully studied, and where necessary letters will be sent, I propose to reply only briefly—at least, briefly at first—to my noble friend Lady Summerskill and to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who seem, alone of my questioners, apart from my noble friend Lady Reading and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to have stayed on. Fortunately, both Lord Auckland and my noble friend Lady Summerskill, devoted most of their remarks to health matters, and I can therefore deal with that as one subject. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, for his most kind congratulations and his good wishes, and for the kind words he spoke about my interest in home safety.
May I just answer the noble Lord's point about accidents due to fireworks? This is certainly a matter of very considerable concern to my right honourable friend, who has been discussing the matter closely and carefully, as might have been imagined, because this is the season. The noble Lord may be aware that these fireworks accidents have been the subject of careful review and study over the last two years. Statistics have been produced and conversations have been going on with the manufacturers, who have, indeed, taken action which has been in part effective. What other action may be taken subsequently will

307
naturally largely depend on the reports which my right honourable friend receives. But I can say that the matter is being closely watched, and the dangers are realised.
The noble Lord disagreed with the abolition of prescription charges because he thought that many workers were able to pay; but he immediately followed that up by saying that he had several young children and it amounted to quite a lot of money when they were all ill at once. That, of course, also happens to the workers who, as he suggests, are able to pay. But the fundamental reason why we shall abolish all prescription charges is that we want to revert as soon as possible to the original concept of this Service; that the means of health should be free at the time of use. These prescription charges have been a very heavy burden to the elderly, to the sick, indeed, to all classes of persons, at the very time when they were ill and when they were most vulnerable.
Of course, it is going to cost money—indeed, it will cost more than the actual £25 million which sick people pay for prescriptions and appliances—because it will mean that doctors will prescribe things that cost less than two shillings. They will also in future not be inhibited from prescribing necessary medicines, as they were in the past, because they thought their patients could not pay even the two shillings. In so far as the cost rises for that reason, then the Government will gladly welcome that cost.
The noble Lord mentioned the shortage of physiotherapists. I hope he will add to that the shortage of almost all the workers in the important ancillary professions. I am quite sure that this is a matter which my right honourable friend will be very carefully considering. The noble Lord asked that we should be told as soon as possible what the Government's plans are for reshaping the Ten-Year Plan. I am quite sure that my right honourable friend the Minister will be most anxious to make a statement on this matter as soon as he possibly can. My noble friend Lady Summerskill used words, as I understood them, to the effect that a halt had been called to the Ten-Year Plan, but the position is that my right honourable friend the Minister is having a complete review of the position,
308
that immediate schemes are of course going forward, and it is rather a matter of the horizon which he wants to look at before being too completely committed. Again, of course, he will be making a statement as soon as possible.
My noble friend very movingly referred to the great difficulties and the sufferings of mothers because of the acute shortage of maternity beds in hospitals. As I think she must be aware, I was acutely conscious three weeks ago, as chairman of a London group of five hospitals, of all the matters to which she referred. Naturally, I cannot anticipate what my right honourable friend is eventally going to say and do about these matters, but I know that he is also well aware of the position, well aware of the yawning gaps to which my noble friend referred; the shortage of doctors; the very large numbers of Commonwealth doctors on whom we are at the moment depending; the need, to which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred, for more medical schools; and the fact that you cannot make a doctor in five years. All these matters are very much in the mind of my right honourable friend, and he is, of course, aware of the difficulties facing the general practitioners.
There is one point which my noble friend Lady Summerskill mentioned and which I would just answer briefly. She made reference to the fact that the productivity of women workers outstrips their earnings, and I think she quoted somebody else as saying that for every ten shillings they get they earn a pound. She made reference to Convention No. 100 of the International Labour Office, and to the fact that there was a unanimous resolution at the recent Conference of our Party, on the right to equal pay for equal work. I am not in a position to-night—and I know my noble friend will appreciate this—to give any precise details, but we are considering how best we can make progress in this particular field. It raises great difficulties And very complicated issues, but my noble friend can be assured that the Government fully recognise the importance of this matter and will pursue it in all possible ways which appear likely to produce the best results.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I do not want to hurt my noble friend's feelings, but that is precisely the answer we have had from every Con-

309
servative Government during the last thirteen years.
LORD STONHAM: We have had only three weeks, and I myself have not had even as long as that, to produce an answer. I can only hope that if we work together on this matter we shall produce much better answers—and not merely better answers but better conditions, which will bring us nearer to the objective which I think we both have at heart.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and my noble friend Lady Reading raised a number of questions with regard to Home Office matters. The noble Lord appeared to think that some of the matters were put in as a bit of padding; that they sounded good but do not mean anything. I wondered, when he said that, whether that was the way the gracious Speech was prepared when his Party were in power. I rather gathered it was so, judging from the eventual results. But he is quite wrong if he thinks that is the way the gracious Speech is prepared under a Labour Government. I am going to answer his questions, but he will appreciate that it is utterly impossible to give precisely detailed answers on all of them.
The noble Lord asked about out immigration policy. During the three weeks the Government have been in office, no changes have been made, administrative or otherwise, in the control of immigration; but, as he well knows, there will be full opportunity to discuss this subject when we come to consider the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. There will then be a full statement of Government policy. On the question of racial discrimination, it is our intention to legislate on this question, but I cannot, of course, anticipate the terms of the Bill which will be laid before the House. Again, however, there will be ample opportunity to discuss any details when the Bill comes before us.
The noble Lord then asked me about our intentions with regard to the police force and building up its strength and efficiency. The Home Secretary is convinced that the greatest deterrent to the criminal is not the possibility of a long sentence but the certainty of detection. To this end he is determined to do everything in his power to build up the strength and efficiency of the police force, because we are confronted with a very
310
grave crime situation, which we inherited, and we have a great deal to do if we are to deal with it successfully. My right honourable friend takes the view that the immediate task is to build up our police strength, at present manifestly inadequate in numbers. The pay rates recommended by the Royal Commission, which began to take effect in 1961, have greatly helped, and the male strength of the police force in England and Wales has gone up by just under 7,500. But this still leaves us more than 8,500 short of an establishment which, in some of the most important areas of the country, is dangerously low. Although recruiting has been, and still is, fairly satisfactory over the country as a whole, excluding certain vital areas such as the Metropolitan area, the net increase in the strength of the police this year has been much smaller than at any time since the new rates came into operation. In 1961, the net increase was 2,844 officers: in the first nine months of this year it was only 382. This decline has been mainly due to an increase in wastage, and there has been a significant increase in the wastage of probationers and others who have not completed their full service for pension. We must overcome this difficulty. Pay is important, and the new pay agreement, which provides increased salaries of 7½ per cent., will help, particularly because it provides for an increase for probationers; and in future recruits will get £700 a year on entrance and, for the first time, they will have an increase at the end of their first year. There is also the very important provision under which mature entrants of 22 and upwards will come in at £800 a year. We are very hopeful that this will assist in bringing in some valuable, mature recruits.
It is a matter of major concern that the strength of the Metropolitan Police, whose needs are probably greatest, has actually decreased by some eleven officers this year. At a time when the additional needs of the force have been estimated at being at least 5,000, this is a situation which needs careful thought; and on this I should have thought the noble Lord would agree. The Home Secretary is determined to act and to stop another kind of waste—namely, the employment of police officers on work which does not need their special training and experi-

311
ence. We are proposing further to examine the possibility of using traffic wardens in connection with the control of traffic. We must also ensure that the police officer's conditions are as good as they can be. The Police Council have already agreed in principle on a reduction in hours from 44 to 42, and it is our intention that this reduction should be achieved as quickly as posible, even though we recognise that this may be difficult in some of the major forces, such as the Metropolitan Police, until strength has been radically improved.
In the same way, the present excessive rates of overtime worked by detectives in some parts of the country (some detectives have worked as much as 100 hours a week, as the noble Lord is aware) must be reduced. A good detective is not a clock watcher, but he cannot do his job properly if, week after week, he has to work excessive hours. Detectives, of course, like other people, can be helped materially to make the best use of their time if they have adequate transport and office equipment. We want to bring all forces up to the level of the best in that respect. There is also a very considerable programme of capital investment, both for operational and for housing purposes, now running at some £11½ million a year, and the Home Secretary attaches the greatest importance to this as a means of enabling the police to do their job efficiently and in good heart. We mean to put into operation as soon as possible schemes for the further development of regional crime squads. They are already in existence on a small scale, and they will play a major part in enabling the police to take the initiative in the war against crime.
The new police research and planning branch of the Home Office has produced some valuable, but necessarily confidential, recommendations regarding the security of cash in transit. Other studies include the joint use of computers for fingerprints, modus operandi searching, and criminal indexes. The police also have a special need for an efficient personal radio set—a sort of pocket edition of the rather cumbersome "walkie-talkie"—and field trials of sets which have been prepared by several manufacturers are due to start in a few weeks' time. The noble Lord
312
asked for this information, and we shall, of course, have other opportunities to discuss our plans for making the police force a stronger defence against crime; but I hope that what I have said will indicate the resolute determination of the Home Secretary to discharge in full the duty laid on him by the Police Act, to which the noble Lord also referred, to
"exercise his powers under this Act in such manner and to such extent as appears to him to be best calculated to promote the efficiency of the police."
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am delighted to hear what the noble Lord is saying: he is carrying on the policy which we started, and is evidently carrying it on energetically. There is just one question. So far as he knows at the moment—I can put it only in that form to him—is there any intention to amend the Police Act in any way?
LORD STONHAM: I really cannot anticipate any decisions that my right honourable friend will make with regard to the Act, but I think I have given enough indication to show that the Act is being implemented.
The noble Lord asked a specific question about what would happen if, as I hope and believe, capital punishment for murder is abolished.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but I do not want an answer to this. I was merely putting a point of view about capital punishment which I hoped would be considered.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Lord does not wish an answer and the House does not wish to be detained while I am giving it, that is quite all right, and I will go on to the next point about which the noble Lord inquired and to which I believe he does want an answer. He asked what we mean by sustaining the family, and the preventive treatment of delinquency. Although my noble friend is very much seized of the vital importance of catching criminals, he is also convinced that one of the most important contributions he can make to the well-being of society and, incidentally, to helping the police, is to prevent the making of criminals. And the right point to start is to provide the right machinery for dealing with children who have committed offences.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I did not ask that question.
LORD STONHAM: On this subject I can convey what would be the somewhat different attitude on the part of the present Government to that of their predecessors. Our juvenile courts devote a great deal of time and care in dealing with young offenders and their problem is always how to deal with the child. We at the Home Office are now asking ourselves whether a court, however informal and enlightened, is really the best instrument for undertaking all the consultations with parents, probation officers and others, which must precede the decision about the best way of dealing with the child. The Kilbrandon Committee has made very interesting proposals. They envisage the separation of the function of determining guilt or innocence from that of deciding on treatment. These proposals were made in the light of existing Scottish arrangements. We want to consider how far the underlying principles, if accepted, may have a wider application. The Committee of my noble Leader, Lord Longford, whose report, Crime, a Challenge to us All, was signed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and by other Ministers, canvassed the possibility of family courts relying on a strengthened family service; and certainly a unified family service seems both necessary and, in the long run, inevitable.
My right honourable friend has reached no firm conclusion, but he is convinced that our aim must be to avoid putting the stamp of criminality on delinquent children. For this we must provide for the maximum consultation with the social and remedial services before making decisions about how to deal with the child. I have referred so far to children who have to be taken away from home. But it is far better to leave the child with his family and ensure, through the social services, that adequate support is provided. For many years now the emphasis has been increasingly on preventive case work and this was given statutory recognition in Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963. Local authorities were required under that Act to report to the Home Office the arrangements they had made. These reports have now been received from all but a few of the authorities. They are
314
being studied as a basis for further consultation with the local authorities and with the other Government Departments. But I can say at once that they show in general a great improvement in the arrangements for co-ordination and a focusing of preventive work on the children's departments and enlargement of their staffs. The whole picture is very much more encouraging, because a number of authorities have established advice centres, staffed in most cases by the children's department, while a number have also made schemes for the provision of material assistance in kind and, in exceptional cases, in cash.
But there are two main problems the Government have now to consider. First, nearly all the reports from local authorities refer to the difficulty of building up the necessary increased staffs of skilled social workers. The number of students in training will be about 240, compared with 68 three years ago. Arrangements have been made to raise the output to 300 students in 1966, and the process will be further accelerated. But the second problem is that of organisation. Here again the reports from local authorities about their various methods of discharging the new statutory duties will help the Home Secretary in considering the further steps, as well as the proposals made by Lord Longford's Committee for the better co-ordination of family services and for ensuring a single point of reference in each area to which problems can be taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, asked other questions about preventive detention. I should like to explain what our views are on the treatment of offenders in general. It is difficult enough to catch a criminal, but it is almost as difficult, when you have caught him, to know what to do with him. Our aim is to do what is best in the interests both of society and of the offender, and to give him the best opportunity of rehabilitating himself as a useful citizen. The Government can now look forward to considering the views of the Royal Commission on Penal Reform; but vitally necessary improvements cannot be held up pending the Commission's Report. My right honourable friend has been Home Secretary for only three weeks, but he has given considerable thought to a number of penal problems, and I am able to

315
indicate the directions in which he wishes to move and the possible changes which are to be examined.
One of our first aims will be to keep young people out of prison. To this end, we shall continue to provide remand centres so that persons under the age of 21 do not have to go to prison on remand. We shall also increase the number of places in detention centres until courts in all parts of the country are adequately served. When that objective has been achieved it is hoped to avoid short sentences of imprisonment for offenders under 21 and to imprison only those for whom a sentence of three years or more is necessary. With adults, it is the long-sentence prisoner who presents the most difficult problems. The longer a prisoner is removed from the world, the more difficult it becomes to reintegrate him into society. He develops habits of mind inseparable from life in a closed community. Social and family ties, if not completely severed, are severely stretched because normal social contacts are few and far between.
One of the existing sentences for persistent offenders which has caused much concern, as noble Lords are aware, is preventive detention, which we feel does not serve any useful purpose. But before abolishing it we want to be sure that the right provisions are put in its place. These are now being carefully considered, including the right method of dealing with prisoners of inadequate personality—the "passive, inadequate, deviants" who form a substantial proportion of the prison population. It means that, though we shall abolish preventive detention, we shall not necessarily put in its place what was advocated by the noble Lord in an Answer to a Question on July 23. I cannot go further than that in answering the noble Lord's question.
We also accept the unfortunate fact that there are some prisoners—though fewer than some may think—who are likely to remain confirmed enemies of society for many years, no matter how they are treated. At the same time we are convinced that there has been an over-readiness to attach the label of recidivist and that the majority of prisoners are reclaimable. Our present system does not allow enough scope to
316
those concerned with the treatment and training of prisoners to do what is needed.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question on a subject which is giving increasing concern in Devon? Will he add to the security precautions in prisons? The number of escapes from Dartmoor and other high-security prisons is causing us very real concern.
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords, this question also is receiving the close attention of the Home Secretary. While it is obviously impossible in public to mention details, certain methods are being adopted, and particular attention is being paid to night security.
To help those concerned with the treatment and training of prisoners, plans are being worked out for the establishment of an allocation centre for long-term prisoners. At this centre individual prisoners would be observed and examined, and those who are suitable would undergo an early and intensive training for rehabilitation. They could proceed by varying stages to earn their freedom through release on extended parole before they are finally discharged. The prisoner would be selected for the appropriate training, and the length of his detention during this training period, under conditions of security, would depend upon his own response and co-operation—it may be short or long. If he proved himself suitable he would move through semi-secure to complete parole conditions and then to the enjoyment of full liberty. This is the system towards which the Home Secretary hopes to progress steadily.
One aspect of prison administration which we wish to change is the attitude towards the family link. The maintenance of strong family ties, we are confident, is of the utmost importance in planning for the rehabilitation of offenders. We should like to see a considerable extension of the present practice of allowing men serving the longer sentences who are suitable for parole to go home for a week-end or longer to see their families. The benefits to those prisoners who have succeeded in winning and keeping the affection of a wife and family would be incalculable.
One of the biggest problems facing a prisoner on discharge is to get a job and

317
keep it. This problem will still be with us under the new arrangements, but men will emerge from prison much better prepared to face life in the community, especially as we shall provide them with experience and training in the sort of work they may get on discharge. There is considerable room for improvement in the provision of work for prisoners. We are beginning to make progress on the right lines, but much more remains to be done. There are, it is true, a few prison workshops which are beginning to approach outside industry in equipment and general efficiency, but we have a long way to go before we have anything approaching the fine modern industries which are to be found in some foreign prisons. I am glad to say that an expert in management and production is now being appointed to supervise developments on these lines.
The Home Secretary is particularly concerned with the working hours in local prisons. Many prisoners are still working no more than 20 hours a week, and we cannot expect a prisoner to settle down readily to a full day's work on discharge when, over a period of months or years, he had spent the greater part of his time in fruitless idleness.
Another matter which we shall consider is prisoners' pay. At present, except for the few selected for the hostel scheme, they get only pocket-money. We wish to extend the hostel scheme still further and to examine the possibility, as the output of prison industries improves, of paying prisoners wages more in keeping with the work they do. We are also very concerned to improve the prison regime, including standards of food, clothing and equipment. There are still over 5,000 prisoners sleeping three to a cell. This overcrowding is a major cause of short working hours, but that is only one of the evils resulting from overcrowding, which prejudices every kind of effort made to train prisoners.
We need more prisons quickly if we are to begin to provide reasonably decent living accommodation. We also need modern buildings to replace the grim old prisons, built a hundred years or more ago, that were never designed for modern penal methods. But in pressing ahead with the building of new prisons we shall have regard to the need to provide establishments which combine economy and
318
fitness for the progressive regime we propose to introduce.
Finally, I want to deal with the question of after-care, which the noble Baroness, Lady Reading, and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, mentioned. The noble Lord said that the new services had already started, but that is not my understanding. The real start will be within a few months' time, when the Probation Service will have taken the decisive steps in its development into a Probation and After-Care Service. It has already been expanded to 2,200 officers and will increase to 2,750 by 1966. We are not really satisfied with this rate of expansion and hope substantially to increase it. Facilities for training are being extended. The capacity of Home Office training courses for older students is to he trebled for the course beginning in January. It is hoped to raise the total output of students to near 300 next year.
There has already been much local and regional consultation with probation committees and the probation service and considerable agreement in principle. Details of the necessary arrangements, including the absorption into the Probation and After-Care Service of suitable welfare workers at present employed by voluntary bodies, are now being worked out. I do not think there is any real reason for the fears which I understand have been expressed in some quarters. We expect that by next April these arrangements will have been completed in much of Southern and Eastern England so that the new Probation and After-Care service may then be functioning in that area with full responsibility for the provision of after-care. But if after-care is to be successful, the preparatory work in correctional institutions must be carried out by skilled social workers capable of working in close liaison and in parity of esteem with officers of the new Service. We are urgently considering how to secure for prison welfare officers the enhanced status recommended by the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders.
The Advisory Council called for
"a greatly increased understanding of the part to be played by members of the community in the rehabilitation of offenders"
and went on to recognise that the help of voluntary workers acting as auxiliaries

319
to probation and after-care officers would be necessary. The Home Secretary agrees on both counts. First, no after-care programme can succeed without public sympathy and support. Second, the sheer volume of work will make it necessary for the Probation and After-Care Service to receive lay support. I am confident that the necessary volunteers will be found, and that probation officers will welcome their help.
One particularly welcome development in the field of voluntary service in recent years have been the provision by voluntary bodies of hostels for discharged prisoners and borstal boys—here, of course, great work has been done by my noble friend Lady Reading and the W.V.S. This fulfils a deep need. Your Lordships will doubtless be glad to know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is considering proposals for a scheme of assistance towards the cost of running such houses. Details of the proposals have yet to be worked out but we have in mind that, subject to annual review, grants of up to £100 per annum per head may be be made towards running costs, though not towards capital expenditure, to augment the payment made by residents themselves and the voluntary donations of those generous people who have supported, and are still supporting, this imaginative venture.
I read somewhere in a newspaper that for the last three weeks a gale Force
320
9 had been blowing through the corridors of Whitehall. We do not expect the gale to blow quite so strongly at the Home Office and have quite the same effect, but I am certainly confident that in the months and years that lie ahead we shall see the "wind of change" having its effect there, too. I also read that President Johnson, the day after he was elected, said that in his great society there would be no poverty, no unemployment, no slums, no delinquency and few Republicans. Under the Labour Government, we do not expect to accomplish all those things in this Parliament, but we do expect and are confident that we shall in all departments go a long way towards their accomplishment.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Chesham, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
Message from the Commons, That they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on Thursday last relating to Consolidation Bills, as desired by this House.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eight o'clock.