Sitting of 29 April 1965

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

    Trade with Norway
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the trade balance between this country and Norway in January, 1964, and in January, 1965, respectively.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Redhead): Figures of our trade with Norway can be obtained from page 283 of the Overseas Trade Accounts for January, 1965.
    Mr. Digby: Whatever the figures are, does not this appear to be an example where the import surcharge has converted a favourable trade balance into an adverse trade balance?
    Mr. Redhead: No, Sir. The whole of the drop in our exports to Norway between January, 1964, and January, 1965, is accounted for by the single item "Ships and Boats" which fell from £3·6 million to £10,000. The value of this item is bound to vary greatly in individual months.

    Imports
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has of an accumulation of imports until after 27th April; and what changes in the level of imports he anticipates in the month of May.
    Mr. Redhead: There is some evidence that shipments have been deferred until after 26th April, but it is too early to judge what these will amount to. It is not the practice to publish estimates of future imports.
    Mr. Digby: Are there not reports of the widest hold-up of goods on this occasion, and will the Government take steps on the next occasion before they reduce the surcharge not to give advance notice so that this does not happen again?
    Mr. Redhead: We are not apprehensive of very serious congestion in the docks. Indeed, we feel that some reports of an anticipatory kind may well be exaggerated.
    Mr. Barber: Surely, the hon. Gentleman is not trying to minimise the consequences of the Government's action. Does he deny the reports which we have all seen in the newspapers that goods have been held back by the Scandinavian countries, Italy, France, Germany and Belgium, and also that vessels have had to be specially chartered in order to deliver the goods which have been delayed?
    Mr. Speaker: That could perhaps be put as, "Does the Minister deny the fact?" because he is not responsible for reports in newspapers.

    Export Incentives
    Mr. Channonasked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for further incentives for exporters.
    Mr. Redhead: My right hon. Friend has at present no addition to make to the new measures which he announced on 8th April, but is keeping the matter under review.
    Mr. Channon: Does not the Minister of State recognise and agree that the concessions which the Government have gained are as nothing compared with the damage that they are inflicting the whole time on our exporting companies by the petty and vindictive measures taken in the Finance Bill?
    Mr. Redhead: On the contrary, I would suggest that the figures of exports in the first three months of this year give tangible evidence of an improvement consequent upon the Government's measures.
    Mr. Peter Emery: Would the hon. Gentleman have words with his right hon. Friend in order to encourage exports and to ensure that this new step of the

    601
    Government today of a very severe further credit squeeze is not applied by the banks to companies which are dealing to a very large extent with exports and export orders?
    Mr. Redhead: These are questions obviously for consideration.
    Mr. Dell: Are not the Government considering the arrangements for cheap export finance irrespective of the period of credit?
    Mr. Redhead: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend included in his last statement on 8th April a number of measures for improving credit facilities. These continue to remain under review.

    Q4 (Interior Design)
    Mr. Sheldonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now satisfied that the interior design of the Q4 will reflect the highest standards of modern industrial Britain; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Benceasked the President of the Board of Trade what official consultations he has now had with Messrs. John Brown Limited and Cunard Limited respecting the interior design of the Q4.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): The discussions between Cunard and the Council of Industrial Design, which I mentioned in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) on 4th March, are continuing. The company is well aware of the Government's concern that the arrangements for supervising the interior design of the new ship shall be such as to ensure that the result will be of the highest possible standard. With this object in view, my right hon. Friend will keep in the closest touch with the company and the Council.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Cunard Company is receiving something over £17 million of public money and that many of the decisions being taken on the interior design are being made by a person with no obvious qualifications other than that she happens to be the wife of the Chairman of the Cunard Company? [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] Will my hon. Friend make
    602
    sure that when such large sums of public money are spent proper value is received?
    Mr. Mason: The Cunard Company knows the importance which I attach to the standard of industrial design in a ship of this kind and of its taking advantage of the wide range of fittings and equipment of modern design now produced in Britain.
    Mr. Bence: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that for nearly a hundred years the Cunard Company has launched ships ahead of any other shipbuilders in the world, and there is no doubt about it that when the new Queen is launched she will be the most modern, up-to-date and best finished ship in the world?
    Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for those comments. As I have informed the House already, a number of meetings have been held with the Council of Industrial Design, and I hope that these will continue quite amicably.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Are not these mean personal attacks against people who cannot hit back in very bad taste, and do they not lower the dignity of the House, and of the so-called hon. Member?
    Mr. Speaker: It cannot be for a junior Minister at the Board of Trade to answer that, which must be a matter of opinion.
    Mr. Shinwell: When the Government provide credit to the extent of £17 million to a shipping company, are we not entitled to exercise some measure of control?
    Mr. Mason: Yes, but I ought to advise the House that under the terms of the loan to Cunard we have no power to insist on any particular interior design or on the employment of any particular designer.

    Exports
    Mr. Dellasked the President of the Board of Trade what conclusions he has come to as a result of his discussions on whether changes are desirable in the existing arrangements for training in the mechanics of export and on whether action is required by Her Majesty's Government to encourage people to make the fullest use of them; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Redhead: The consultations mentioned in my answer of the 18th February are continuing, but I am not able to add to that reply at this stage.
    Mr. Dell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance of keeping facilities for this sort of training under continuous review in relation, particularly, to demand, especially as, unfortunately, the mechanics of export are not becoming any simpler as time goes on?
    Mr. Redhead: My hon. Friend can be sure that we take a serious view of this, and that consultations are covering a very comprehensive review of existing facilities, and what further steps may be necessary.
    Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Will the Minister of State tell the House what are the mechanics of export?
    Mr. Tilney: Will the Minister bear in mind that there are many British companies which have gone into partnership with overseas territories in forming new companies for the servicing of British exports, and that they are hard hit in this way by his right hon. Friend's Finance Bill?
    Mr. Redhead: I am not sure that I see the relevance of that supplementary question to the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Speaker: It depends on the meaning of "mechanics of export", which was not explained.

    European Coal and Steel Community (Import Surcharge)
    Mr. Channonasked the President of the Board of Trade what reply has been made to the request by the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community that, in accordance with the terms of the agreement on commercial relations concluded in 1957 between the Community and the United Kingdom, they should be granted retroactively 30 days' delay in the imposition of the 15 per cent. surcharge.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now replied to the aide mémoire from the European Coal and Steel Community regarding the 15 per cent. Import
    604
    surcharge; and what were the terms of his reply.
    Mr. Redhead: Our reply to the aide mémoire, which was handed to the High Authority's representative in London on 22nd April, explained that Her Majesty's Government had concluded with the utmost reluctance that they were unable to agree to the High Authority's request that imports from the European Coal and Steel Community should be retrospectively exempted from the British import surcharge for a period of 30 days.
    Mr. Channon: Does not this whole miserable story prove once again how incompetently the surcharge was imposed; that it was clearly in breach of the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Coal and Steel Community, and that Her Majesty's Government, by their actions at that time and by their delay in answering the request of the Coal and Steel Community, have now once again shown how little they care for our relations with Europe and how much they have damaged them?
    Mr. Redhead: That is not a conclusion in which I would concur. In any case, the High Authority has been well assured of our desire to maintain close links with the European Coal and Steel Community.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does not the Minister think that in this case some form of compensatory action by Her Majesty's Government is called for, particularly in view of the incredible time it has taken the Government to answer this request? Was not this, even for this Government, a record in international discourtesy?
    Mr. Redhead: Members of the High Authority did not themselves complain of the delay. They accepted the view that it was sensible to await the discussion which took place at a meeting of the High Authority on 5th March before the Government finally gave their answer.
    Mr. Barber: Will the hon. Gentleman press upon his right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Government the necessity, in the interests of good relations with our trade partners abroad, of abandoning altogether, at the earliest possible moment, the surcharge, which has done untold harm?
    Mr. Redhead: Without concurring in the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is already aware that the Government are committed to reducing, and abandoning, the surcharge just as soon as the balance of payments position permits.

    S.S. "Lakonia" (Inquiry)
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his technical and legal representatives were present at the adjourned hearing of the inquiry into the "Lakonia" disaster in Athens on 8th March; and whether their report is yet available.
    Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. Legal and technical experts represented Her Majesty's Government in March as on earlier occasions, and have reported to the Board of Trade on the progress of the inquiry.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he give the House any indication when he expects the report of the inquiry will be made known to this country, in view of the fact that a large number of British passengers were on board this vessel and that the accident took place getting on for a year and a half ago?
    Mr. Mason: Some time in the summer.
    Mr. Shinwell: Arising out of this affair, has not my hon. Friend reached the conclusion that passenger ships engaged on cruises, and picking up British passengers at British ports, should be carefully examined to ascertain whether they are seaworthy?
    Mr. Mason: No doubt a lot of this will be examined during the course of the inquiry.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Does that mean that this report will be published? If not, what other action will the Minister take?
    Mr. Mason: The Board of Trade—and, in particular, myself—is not free to comment on the progress of the inquiries so far, as under Greek law all these inquiries are private, not public. So we have to await publication of the report before I can make any further comment.

    Toilet Requisites (Prices)
    Mr. Hamlingasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set up an inquiry into the prices of toilet requisites, including toothpaste, toilet soaps, shaving soaps, and lavatory cleaners.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): No, Sir. Where there are price increases that appear to the Government to justify investigation these will be referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Mr. Hamling: Is my hon. Friend aware that the price of some of these things has gone up by as much as 20 per cent. in the last couple of months?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir. We have had discussions with the Toilet Preparations Federation and the Society of British Soap Makers about their recent price increases, and we are satisfied that the traders concerned are aware of the need to absorb their cost increases in their prices as far as possible.
    Mr. Lipton: Does that reply include a reference to the grossly excessive price increases in soap powders?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.

    Statistics of Trade
    Mr. Hamlingasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that publication of a detailed breakdown of trade statistics on a quarterly in place of a monthly basis will be adequate to enable action to be taken against sharp and unforeseen increases in specific classes of imported goods; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Redhead: Statistics of our trade continue to be published monthly, in the same detail as hitherto, in the Trade Accounts of the United Kingdom.

    Books and Technical Periodicals (Prices)
    Mr. Peter Walkerasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to keep down the price of books and technical periodicals.
    Mr. Darling: The White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy sets out the considerations which should guide all

    607
    concerned with prices. I see no reason at present for any special action with regard to books and technical periodicals, but the Board of Trade is in touch with the trade associations concerned in order to obtain further information about prices.
    Mr. Walker: Does not the Minister consider that the fact that a number of regular Government publications have increased in price by 50 per cent. and that the postage for sending them has gone up by 33⅓ per cent. is a rather bad example for a prices policy?
    Mr. Darling: These are matters that can be considered also.
    Sir H. Butcher: Will the Minister look at the increase in prices recently made by the Stationery Office, and ask it to set an example?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.

    Industrial Development, Crediton
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why he refused an industrial development certificate to a prospective manufacturer for a factory at Crediton, Devon;
    2) to what extent it is his policy to encourage the establishment of light industry in the Crediton area of Devon.
    Mr. Darling: The first consideration must be to get available industry to the development districts where the need for more employment is greatest, and it was in the light of this that an industrial development certificate was recently refused at Crediton. Subject to this priority, I am prepared to approve suitable projects by firms with ties to the Crediton area.
    Mr. Mills: Why did not the Minister give that Answer earlier in a Written Answer when he refused to give the information? Frankly, all we are asking for is permission to start a small factory without any Government aid or help. I ask the Minister to think again, as local people are seriously disturbed by this refusal, bearing in mind the recent Report on the South-West which showed that industry was not only leaving, but being encouraged to leave.
    Mr. Darling: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is
    608
    " Yes, Sir," and the answer to the second part is that discussions are still going on with the company concerned about the location of its project.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the policy being pursued by the Government is widely welcomed on this side of the House, and that the greatest need is obviously to get factories and industries into the development districts, such as Merseyside, which really need them?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.

    Exports (Market Research)
    Mr. Dellasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make a statement on the study carried out by the British National Export Council and the Board of Trade on the feasibility of establishing a marketing organisation for the purpose of promoting the exports of companies which either do not at present export at all or which export only to a limited extent.
    Mr. Redhead: The market research necessary before decisions can be taken is currently being carried out on the West Coast of the United States of America, in British Columbia and in West Germany.
    Mr. Dell: Can the Minister explain exactly what these tests of feasibility are? Is not the only real way of testing this idea to try it out in a specific market?
    Mr. Redhead: We are engaging eminent consultants in this field as we feel it necessary, for the B.N.E.C. to reach sound conclusions as to a scheme of this character, to do preliminary market research.
    Sir C. Osborne: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that those who have been exporting for many years know that the key to exports is prices and that unless prices come down we cannot increase our exports? How can we get prices down when wages keep going up for the same work?
    Mr. Speaker: We are talking about this feasibility study.
    Sir C. Osborne: With respect, Mr. Speaker. I am the last to challenge your Ruling in this House, but I thought that question perfectly in order.
    Mr. Speaker: I fear that to my regret our views differ, but I will look at it.

    Import Surcharge
    Mr. Alisonasked the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he now has as to the extent to which the 15 per cent. surcharge has reduced imports in the categories affected.
    Mr. Redhead: The import figures for the first quarter of 1965 provide evidence that the temporary import charge has had sortie effect in reducing imports.
    Mr. Alison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the import figures of manufactured goods for the first quarter of 1965 show a 16 per cent. increase over the corresponding period of 1964?
    Mr. Redhead: The hon. Gentleman's conclusions and deductions from printed statistics do not concur with mine.
    Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, agree that the reduction of imports in March was greater in goods which were not subject to the surcharge?
    Mr. Redhead: That is true, but nevertheless manufactured goods have shown a reduction in the import figures.
    Mr. Kelley: Will my hon. Friend take into consideration when any future announcement of a reduction of surcharge is likely to be made that advanced warnings will have a tendency to suppress the enthusiasm of importers to go into business?
    Mr. Redhead: I can only say that all relevant considerations will be taken into consideration.
    Mr. William Clark: In view of the fact that when this import surcharge was introduced it was thought that there would be a saving of £200 million in imports in one year, will the hon. Gentleman say whether the record to date gives any indication that that will be achieved?
    Mr. Redhead: The hon. Member will appreciate that the effects of the charge cannot be separated from other influences affecting imports.

    Gin Traps
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the fact that the use of gin traps is
    610
    prohibited in this country, if he will introduce legislation to make unlawful the manufacture for export, for use overseas, of these articles.
    Mr. Redhead: No, Sir.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does my hon. Friend realise that the reply denotes an extraordinary cynicism of attitude in that the manufacture of these instruments of torture has been prohibited in this country for many years because of their extreme cruelty? Will he agree that it is improper for us to export that which is prohibited in this country?
    Mr. Redhead: The Board of Trade has no general powers to prohibit the manufacture of goods either for sale on the home market or for export. It has power, however, to prohibit the export of goods under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, but as a general rule we do not require goods exported from this country to conform with our own regulations, for example, on health and safety. Conditions abroad are dissimilar to those in this country and it is normally inappropriate for us to seek to legislate for other countries.
    Mr. Jenkins: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Departmental Officers (Visits to Firms)
    Mr. Sheldonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many officers of his Department regularly visit firms; and what work they do.
    Mr. Darling: Some 260 officers regularly visit firms to assist them on exports, export credits and industrial location. A similar number visit firms in the enforcement of legislation for which the Board of Trade is responsible; and a further 500 visit ships, docks and warehouses on matters concerning the safety and welfare of vessels and ships' crews.
    Mr. Sheldon: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of finding out what is happening in industry is to visit firms themselves and that consultations at the Board of Trade are

    611
    not an adequate alternative? Will he agree that as the work in his Department increases he should make sure that his officers spend more of their time seeing what is happening on the spot and making the required recommendations?
    Mr. Darling: I think that the service we have at the Board of Trade from these regular visits is very satisfactory. If any further improvements in this service are needed we shall certainly make arrangements for the improvements to take place.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: In view of the excellent work carried out by these men and the hard day's work they put in, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that they are still given a good lunch by the firms they visit?
    Sir H. Harrison: Will the Minister see that those officers who go to firms and talk about exports are closely linked with our trade attachés in foreign countries so that where they see a need for certain goods this vets circulated back?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.

    Cotton Textile Industry
    Mr. Robert Howarthasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will institute an official investigation of the present situation in the cotton textile industry, with a view to ascertaining what extra assistance might be given by the Government to this industry.
    Mr. Darling: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) on 10th December last.
    Mr. Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that, although the level of activity at the moment in the cotton textile industry is quite high, there is growing apprehension at the prospect of further cotton goods imports arising later this year? Are there any steps which his Department have in mind to control the situation?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir. The Board of Trade is in consultation with the Cotton Board and other interests concerned in this matter.
    Sir C. Osborne: When the 10 per cent. surcharge is reduced will it affect the cotton trade?
    Mr. Barnett: In view of the fact that the Answer which was given to me previously did not tell me very much, could my hon. Friend perhaps look into this matter again?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.

    E.F.T.A. Action Committee (Representations)
    Mr. Martenasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations were made to him by the delegates at the International European Free Trade Association Action Committee in mid-March about the surcharge and the export rebate; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Redhead: None, Sir.
    Mr. Marten: I am much obliged for that reply, but could the hon. Gentleman say whether there is in Europe a great stockpiling of exports waiting to come to this country when the surcharge is reduced? Would it not be better to no away with the whole of the surcharge straight away and let trade flow freely?
    Mr. Redhead: It has been repeatedly made clear that the Government intend to reduce and abandon the surcharge just as soon as the balance of trade position improves.
    Mr. Peter Emery: Will the Minister of State bear in mind that certain exporting firms are having to decrease the price of their exports by their export rebate so as to get business? This is because of the effect of the surcharge. Will the hon. Gentleman bear this in mind particularly as an extra reason for reducing the surcharge immediately?
    Mr. Redhead: We have some evidence of isolated cases of that kind, but they must not be exaggerated in their total effect.
    Mr. Snow: In the meantime, would my hon. Friend draw to the attention of at least one member of E.F.T.A. the fact that over a long period it has had an extremely favourable balance of trade with us and that one of the quickest ways of getting rid of the necessity for the surcharge would be to rectify that imbalance?
    Mr. Redhead: We lose no opportunities of drawing the attention of relevant countries to such factors.

    Local Employment Act
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied with the working of the Local Employment Act, in relation to migration of population in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Darling: The Local Employment Acts are designed to promote employment in places of high and persistent unemployment, not to deal with problems of migration. Nevertheless, the provision of employment in these places helps to lessen outward migration.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Would not the Minister of State agree that areas such as the North-East, the east of Scotland, and the Border suffer tremendously from migration and find it very difficult to maintain existing industry, let alone attract new industry? Would he not consider, in implementing certain promises made during the election, including migration as a criterion for designation as a development district?
    Mr. Darling: That is a proposition which is well worth considering, and we will consider it.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is it not a fact that one of the great defects of the Local Employment Acts was precisely that depopulation was not accepted as a criterion by the then Government, although we on this side tabled Amendments designed to secure this?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Barber: Will the Minister of State also agree with the point made the other day by Mr. George Chetwynd that one consequence of the changes in company taxation will be that investment in development districts is less attractive than it has been hitherto?
    Mr. Darling: There are differences of opinion a bout this and I understand that the matter will be discussed in the House before long.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister of State realise that these Acts are not really effective for the purpose for which
    614
    they were designed? In particular, they are not stopping the drift south of craftsmen from the north-east of Scotland. Will he have a look at it from this point of view, with a view to stopping that drift south?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the Minister of State aware that one of the problems in areas which may suffer from depopulation is that they are unable to attract new and vital labour because of shortage of housing induced by the Government's monetary policy? Will he urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to help in this matter?
    Mr. Darling: Neither the hon. Member nor anyone else has any evidence to support that allegation.

    Bacon (Imports)
    Mr. Bessellasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to encourage home production of pig meat, he will place an embargo on the importation of bacon from Poland and other Communist countries.
    Mr. Redhead: No, Sir.
    Mr. Bessell: Is the Minister of State aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction amongst British producers of pig meat and bacon at the amount of imports from other countries, particularly from Communist countries? Is he aware that this is considerably discouraging home production?
    Mr. Redhead: It was only last year that a sharing understanding was reached, in which Poland and Hungary were partners, and this is, in our view, of considerable value in bringing stability to the bacon market. If we deprived Poland and others of their share, there would be no guarantee that the gap would be filled by home supplies. Other imports—for example, from Denmark—would be more likely to gain.
    Mr. Ennals: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many Members on this side who would deeply resent any attempt to undermine the basis of our expanding trade with Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe? Further, would my hon. Friend kindly explain to the hon.

    615
    Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) something about the principles of free trade, to which I understand the Liberal Party is wedded?
    Mr. Redhead: We are quite convinced that to put an embargo on bacon, as is suggested in the Question, would be contrary not only to the understanding but to our long-term policy of improving trade relations with Poland.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is our balance of trade with Poland and these other Communist countries mentioned favourable or unfavourable?
    Mr. Redhead: At the moment it is unfavourable. Appropriate representations have been made to the Polish authorities.

    Bowhill (Advance Factory)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the imminent closure of Bow-hill Colliery in central West Fife, involving about 1,100 men in loss of employment, he will initiate, as a matter of urgency, the building of an advance factory there.
    Mr. Darling: Advance factories already built, under construction or planned by local authorities and the Board of Trade will make available 350,000 sq. ft. of factory space within a 15–mile radius of Bowhill. The needs of the locality will be fully taken into account in considering any future programme of Government advance factories.
    Mr. Hamilton: How many jobs does that figure represent? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Coal Board itself has stated that it can re-employ not more than about 320 of these 1,100 men and that, if alternative employment is not found for them, the middle-aged men will get no work at all and the young men will probably move out of the country altogether? Can my hon. Friend say whether there will be a future advance factory programme in the ensuing years?
    Mr. Darling: We are aware of the difficulty which will arise when and if the closing of the colliery takes place. I understand that the negotiations now going on between the Coal Board and the union will mean that most of the men will be offered alternative employment by the Board; but, as my hon. Friend
    616
    rightly says, we will be left with the problem of finding employment for the older men. I cannot tell him how many jobs are likely to arise from the expansion in factories that is now going on or is projected——
    Sir C. Osborne: Are there any tenants?
    Mr. Darling: —but there has been considerable success in attracting new industry to Fife and we are hoping that this will continue. In any case, we are keeping the matter under review. On the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the programme of advance factories announced in November is now going on and we do not expect to announce another one for a little while.

    Resale Prices Act
    Mr. Parkasked the President of the Board of Trade how many manufacturers have made applications to the Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreements for the exemption of their products from the provisions of the Resale Prices Act; and for how many categories of products such exemption has been claimed.
    Mr. Darling: I understand from the Registrar that he received some 700 applications from various firms and trade associations and that these relate to over 400 classes of goods.
    Mr. Park: Would not my hon. Friend agree that under existing procedures the hearing of such a large amount of exemption claims may well take several years? Would he not further agree that there is some evidence here of a conspiracy, by some manufacturers at least, to defeat the purposes of the Act? Will he consider methods by which the hearing of claims can be expedited?
    Mr. Darling: I do not know about evidence of conspiracy, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the Registrar is able to group goods for the purpose of references to the Court. In fact, in the 12 references already made about 300 different classes of goods are involved and, if experience under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act is any guide, of every four or five references only one goes to a full hearing.
    Mr. Peter Emery: Has priority been given to those firms which specifically

    617
    requested that their applications for hearing should be dealt with first in order that the matter should be clarified for their own industry?
    Mr. Darling: No. The priority of references was left to the Registrar. The Board of Trade did not give any directions.
    Mr. Peter Emery: The President of the Board of Trade gave me an assurance a few months ago that he would look into this matter to ensure that priority was given to firms which requested it. Will the Minister reconsider this matter immediately?
    Mr. Darling: No, because after the consideration that was given to the matter by my right hon. Friend it was concluded—I, and I am sure most people who are involved in this, think rightly—that it should be left to the Registrar to decide, and he has decided the order of references.
    Mr. William Clark: Would not the Minister of State agree that the reduction in prices—particularly the reduction in the price of whisky—following the Resale Prices Act has been largely offset by the penal taxation of this Government and that the benefits of the Resale Prices Act——
    Mr. Speaker: No such whisky arises out of the Answer.

    Merseyside (Office Development)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the President of the Board of Trade what are his plans to stimulate office development on Merseyside and to endeavour to move both private enterprise and Government offices from London to Merseyside.
    Mr. Darling: In administering the proposed control of office development, the Board of Trade will certainly take account of the employment needs of development districts such as Merseyside.
    Mr. Tilney: Would the hon. Gentleman make it clear to industry that even though their tactical headquarters must be in London it is often more economic and efficient to have their base headquarters in the provinces, including Merseyside?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir, and this was made perfectly clear in Committee on the Bill. The point was raised repeatedly.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that for a long period of time there have been movements of office activity away from Liverpool and that this is a source of great anxiety? Will he take account also of the fact that the latest instance of the choice of Manchester over Liverpool for office development has been offered by the Claims Branch of British Railways? Having regard to the interest of his right hon. Friend's Department in the distribution of enterprise, will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to the anxiety to which that kind of thing gives rise?
    Mr. Darling: There are difficulties involved here, because until the comprehensive studies now being made into the location of office employment and how it might be guided have been completed we cannot take all the action that I am sure hon. Members who represent development districts would like us to take. I will draw my hon. and learned Friend's second point to the notice of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend make it decisively clear that the trend which was taking place under the previous Government will be reversed and that we will get more offices into Merseyside?
    Mr. Darling: That is why we introduced the Control of Office and Industrial Development Bill.

    Merchandise Marks
    Mr. McNair-Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to introduce legislation to deal with merchandise marks.
    Mr. Darling: I cannot at present add to the Reply I gave to the hon. Member on 25th February.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on that occasion he told me that this would be urgently attended to? Is he aware that shoddy goods of all sorts are on sale in our shops and that, particularly with footwear, customers have no way of discovering what materials go into their manufacture?
    Mr. Darling: I am aware of these problems. They have been drawn to

    619
    our attention frequently and new legislation will be introduced as soon as practicable.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: When can we expect some of the dynamic legal reform which was promised before the election?
    Mr. Darling: If the hon. and learned Member will look at the legislative programme of this Government he will see that it is all there.
    Mr. Rose: In considering this matter, will my hon. Friend go into the question of verbal misrepresentation and also into the problems posed by television advertising and ensure that there is a proper method of prosecution embodied in any Act which will be forthcoming?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir. The question of oral misrepresentation is covered and it will be an offence under the terms of the legislation. Enforcement will be done by the local authorities. I think that that covers the other point which my hon. Friend raised.

    Phthalic Anhydride
    Mr. Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade, what is the present rate of duty upon phthalic anhydride entering this country; what is the domestic quantity price in the United Kingdom as compared with the domestic quantity price in Germany; and what percentage of the total demand in the United Kingdom is being met by domestic producers.
    Mr. Redhead: The full rate of duty is 33⅓ per cent. and I estimate that about 90 per cent. of demand is being met by domestic producers: I have no reliable information about prices fixed in private transactions either here or in Germany.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that the price in this country is materially higher than that prevailing on the Continent? As many manufacturers have been taking 10 per cent. of the home-produced goods at a considerable disadvantage, will the hon. Gentleman consider waiving the duty for a temporary period?
    Mr. Redhead: Application has been made for a permanent reduction in the duty. The applicants have been told that we think it best to await the outcome of very difficult negotiations in the chemical field on the Kennedy Round.

    NON-JUDICIAL BODIES (FINES)
    Ql. Mr. Ian Lloydasked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to make it an offence for any body other than Her Majesty's courts to impose fines on anyone under any circumstances.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir.
    Mr. Lloyd: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his terse if unilluminating reply, which suggests that he has been to Moscow rather than to Rome, may I ask if the House is to assume from the reply that trade unions are to have power to impose fines on their members? If so, how is this to be reconciled with an incomes policy and with the statement which the Prime Minister has made on television?
    The Prime Minister: There have been, and there are, a number of professional bodies which have powers—one thinks of doctors, lawyers and others—to impose all kinds of penalties on their members when their members are in default of the rules agreed by the association in question. I remember in this House some very bitter exchanges about the activity of certain trade associations, in fining tyre retailers, defended by right hon. Members opposite. If the hon. Member is con-concerned, as I think he may be, with particular restrictive practices which may be enforced by fines, I think that he will find support in all parts of the House for our efforts to deal with these restrictive practices and to try to get rid of them by agreement wherever that is possible.

    ATLANTIC NUCLEAR FORCE
    Sir T. Beamishasked the Prime Minister to what extent his proposals discussed in Bonn with the Federal German Government for the creation of an Atlantic Nuclear Force are designed to give that Government an indirect say in nuclear policy.
    Mr. Kershawasked the Prime Minister if, following his visits to Bonn and the United States of America, he will have further discussions with the Government of the German Federal Republic on proposals to give the Federal Republic a share in the control and operation of nuclear weapons; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: With permission, I will answer this Question and Question No. 9 together.
    If by "an indirect say in nuclear policy"—the words in the Question—the hon. and gallant Member means any right direct or indirect to initiate nuclear action, the answer, as I explained at length in the foreign affairs debate on the 16th of December last, is that under our proposals no existing non-nuclear power would obtain that right. On the contrary our proposals contain built-in guarantees against dissemination and acquisition of nuclear weapons.
    Sir T. Beamish: Is not the Prime Minister running a serious risk of being accused of speaking with two voices? How does he reconcile his statement rather more than two years ago that he was utterly opposed in all circumstances to Germany having any say in allied nuclear policy with his promise in December that these A.N.F. proposals were to give Germany a direct part to play in the mounting and management of nuclear weapon systems? Surely those two statements are quite irreconcilable.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will find that the phrase I used in the debate on 31st January, 1963, was "No German finger on the trigger directly or indirectly in any circumstances." That is the position which will he safeguarded under the Atlantic Nuclear Force proposals and would apply equally to other non-nuclear members of the alliance.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Can the Prime Minister say how his proposal differs in any way from the position in the N.A.T.O. alliance now?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, simply because, as the right hon. Gentleman was at great pains to point out when he was at this Dispatch Box, Germany is prevented under treaty obligations from making nuclear weapons. There was nothing in these treaties to prevent Germany from acquiring or receiving nuclear weapons, having them supplied or entering into some agreement with the French. Under our proposals it would be a safeguard that Germany could not receive, nor could anyone supply to Germany or to any other non-nuclear Power.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is the Prime Minister saying that his proposal about the A.N.F. does not give Federal Germany any right or say in the control and operational planning of nuclear weapons? Does he seriously say that?
    The Prime Minister: I dealt with this at great length on 16th December and I ask the hon. Member to study the words which I used. I said that in so far as it is in any sense, to use the rather loose phrase, "a finger on the trigger", there is certainly no proposal to give anyone extra power so far as the movement of the trigger is concerned. In other words, Germany and other non-nuclear Powers would have no power to initiate nuclear action. As regards the agreement on targeting and nuclear policy—[Interruption.]—if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) does not understand the difference between having a finger on the trigger to cause a gun to be fired and the right to be consulted about targeting and nuclear policy in general he had better go back and study this all over again.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman knows that, under the present N.A.T.O. alliance arrangements, Germany has full right to be consulted about targeting and to bring anything before the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Committee. In his proposals about this force, is there anything that differs in any respect from the N.A.T.O. alliance arrangements in that connection?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, indeed there is. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the matter was very fully deployed on 16th December. If he was satisfied about the participation of Germany and other non-nuclear Powers in preparations and the targeting situation, I am not quite clear why his Government made proposals to increase those powers.
    Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister tell us what the next step will be over these proposals? Who has agreed to them, and what were the follow-ups?
    The Prime Minister: As I think the whole House well understands, the position is that not much progress is likely to be made with the M.L.F., the A.N.F., or anything else this side of the German elections. It would be quite unrealistic for anyone to suppose that that would

    623
    happen. We realised that all along. But there is in progress the working group in Paris examining the technical proposals and examining what is the new factor in the situation, our A.N.F. proposals as compared with the M.L.F. proposals on which right hon. Gentlemen opposite, over two years, could not agree even in their own Cabinet.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the view has been expressed by the German Government and in the West German Press that the line between the negative control which he envisages and positive participation is a thin one which will be eroded very quickly?
    The Prime Minister: This, of course, was the position as regards the M.L.F. proposal which we found holding the field when we came in, but I think the big difference between that and these proposals is the very clear provision, through safeguards and guarantees which were spelt out to the House, about non-acquisition and non-dissemination of nuclear weapons.

    COMMON MARKET
    Sir R. Nugentasked the Prime Minister whether the public statement of the Foreign Secretary made during an authorised interview with a United States news agency, and published on 20th March, on the subject of relations with the Common Market, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Sir R. Nugent: As the Foreign Secretary's statement on this occasion was a very forthcoming one in terms of joining up with Europe, does this mean that the Prime Minister is now prepared to discuss with the European Economic Community his five conditions about entry?
    The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the position here was quite clear. There is no question whatever of Britain either seeking or being asked to seek entry into the Common Market in the immediately foreseeable future. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition described it at the election as a "dead duck", and this particular
    624
    question is not a reality. As regards the members of the Six, there is no evidence that they have changed their attitude at all to British entry. So far as this Government are concerned, the conditions we laid down still apply. This does not mean that we cannot do something to build a bridge between the E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C., and we have taken initiatives to discuss this at Ministerial level in the E.F.T.A. to see whether the E.F.T.A. can agree on an approach to the Common Market from the E.F.T.A.
    Mr. Grimond: If, as the right hon. Gentleman just said, the five conditions remain, this would, in fact, make it impossible for this country to join the E.E.C. at any time, would it not?
    The Prime Minister: The point here—let us be absolutely clear about it—is that the terms on which the last Government tried to crawl their way in were quite unacceptable to the Commonwealth. While there may not be many difficulties about the Treaty of Rome—one or two obvious points will have to be dealt with—so long as there is the agricultural policy, about which we repeatedly warned the then Government, which would mean a levy of 75 to 80 per cent. on every ton of Australian or Canadian wheat coming into this country, an increase in our import bill of hundreds of millions, and an increase in our industrial costs, then to join on those terms would mean complete disruption of our trade with the Commonwealth, which I hope that no one in the House would be prepared to contemplate.
    Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that building bridges is no substitute for joining the Common Market?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is telling us that the policy of the party opposite is to join the Common Market on conditions which would destroy Commonwealth trade, as I have just said—if that is what we are to read into his speech last night—and a European nuclear deterrent, it is about time the Leader of the Opposition made the position of the party opposite clear to the nation.
    Mr. Orme: I thank my right hon. Friend for his clear answer. Will he

    625
    convey this clear answer to his noble Friend in another place?
    The Prime Minister: The statement of my noble Friend in another place, of which I nave read every word, was completely consistent and in complete agreement with what I have said. What we have made clear—I have said it again in Rome privately, and publicly this morning—is that, while there is no question whatever, as I hope the whole House agrees, of immediately joining the Common Market, and while we should require very different conditions before we could contemplate joining the Common Market, if we can get any easement of tariffs between the two blocs which divide Europe today, it is our duty to do so. That is the purpose of the initiative which we are taking in the E.F.T.A. I hope that we cal get agreement there, and I hope that it will then have the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
    Mr. Heath: As the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) believes that the Prime Minister has made his position absolutely clear in regard to the Common Market, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the initiative is which, so he announced last week, he is poised to take? What consultations and preparations have been made before taking such an important initiative, and what indications has he had from the European Economic Community of its response to it?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is a little premature; my invitation was to the Leader of the Opposition to state the Opposition's position. As regards the details of his question, I should have thought that, with his long experience in the matter, he would expect us to discuss these questions with our colleagues in the E.F.T.A., then, having done so, to make what statement is appropriate—I hope that one will be made to the House immediately afterwards—and then to have discussions with the members of the Six. In answer to previous supplementary questions, I have given some idea of the kind of initiative which could be taken. There are some four or five issues—the right hon. Gentleman will know what they are—which we could pursue with our E.F.T.A. colleagues and see how far there can be E.F.T.A. agreement on them.

    UNITED STATES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the discussions he recently had in the United States of America.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to similar Questions on 27th April.
    Mr. Marten: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in spite of the considerable opposition from the benches behind him, it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to lean very strongly upon the Anglo-American alliance? Second, did he discuss with President Johnson the Atlantic Nuclear Force, and, if so, with what result?
    The Prime Minister: Support of the Atlantic Alliance has always been the policy of this party, and we have had very fruitful discussions on this question. [Interruption.] It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to talk about questions of major disagreement when their own Front Bench is now divided even on the question of European—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have still to hear from the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with the proposal for a European nuclear force put forward yesterday by his right hon. Friend. The question of the A.N.F. was very fully discussed with President Johnson in December. It was then agreed that the matter should be further discussed in Paris, and that is what we are going on with now.

    SPAIN (GIBRALTAR)
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Prime Minister (1) what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to British citizens visiting Spain on holiday or otherwise;
    (2) whether he will introduce legislation to impose a surcharge on all British citizens visiting Spain on holiday or otherwise.
    Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the communication he has now received from the Head of State in Spain about the

    627
    Spanish treatment of Gibraltarians; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ensorasked the Prime Minister whether there has been any change in the policy of the Spanish Government concerning the problem of Gibraltar; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: With permission, I will answer this Question and Questions Nos. Q8, Q9, Q10 and Q11 together.
    I have neither received from nor sent to the Spanish Head of State any communication about the Spanish treatment of Gibraltarians, on which Spanish policy appears as yet unchanged.
    As for the policy of Her Majesty's Government about visits to Spain by British citizens, I would refer the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) to the Answers I gave on 6th April to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards), and on 13th April to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison).
    Sir F. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question of a surcharge in order to help the people of Gibraltar? In view of his known love of retrospective legislation, would he agree to apply such a surcharge to the 40 or more hon. Members opposite who have been the guests of the Spanish Government, with their expenses paid in full?
    The Prime Minister: If such a surcharge were to be as retrospective as that it would have to apply also to a large number of right hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite. But I do not consider that a surcharge is the appropriate way of helping the people of Gibraltar. We stand firmly behind them and a surcharge, retrospective or otherwise, is not the way to help them.
    Mr. Duffy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only crime that the Gibraltarians have committed in the eyes of the Spanish Government is that they want to remain British and that all their genuine attempts at co-operation have been met with provocation, vindictiveness and even persecution? May we have my right hon. Friend's assurance
    628
    that, while the Spanish Government persist in their attitude, there will be no sale of arms to them?
    The Prime Minister: I give that assurance to my hon. Friend. He has put the situation very fairly. It is right to say—and here I hope to have the support of right hon. and hon. Members opposite—that the particular issue which the Spanish Government regard as the cause of this persecution was the late Government's decision, which we fully supported and always will support, to give a measure of qualified self-government to the people of Gibraltar. It was this which upset the Spanish Government and led to threats at the time and the action they have since taken.
    I hope that we all stand by the rightness of that decision to give a measure of self-government to the people of Gibraltar. They were entitled to it and we were right to give it.
    Sir P. Agnew: In considering Anglo-Spanish relations, will the Prime Minister take into account the fact that the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht, under which the territory of Gibraltar was ceded to this country's sovereignty for ever, are now obsolete and quite impossible of complete and literal fufilment? Will he, therefore, take an early opportunity to have conversation with the Spanish Government with a view to more modern conditions for a treaty being brought about under which it will be made clear that the administration of Gibraltar is British and remains absolutely subordinate to this country?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said about the Treaty of Utrecht. It is a little out-dated now. I expressed that view only this morning at a Press conference in Rome when asked a question by a Spanish journalist. Of course, it is true that the last Government took and we ourselves take the view that no action Britain has taken in relation to Gibraltar in any way offends our interpretation of the Treaty. That is quite unthinkable. It would be quite impossible to renegotiate the Treaty. For instance, quite a number of emperors and others are not around to renegotiate it now.

    629
    If it is a question of having bilateral negotiations with the Spanish Government about this, we regard the action taken in April, 1964, as thoroughly justified and within our rights. Secondly, while we are prepared to have talks with the Spanish Government, we will not negotiate with them under duress.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the conditions under which the people of Gibraltar are living today are more or less like a concentration camp and that if this continues for any undue length of time it will have an effect on their morale?
    The Prime Minister: We are doing all we can to improve the living conditions of the people of Gibraltar. Ministers have been out there to see what can be done and the Defence Department has been very active. I would not agree that morale is suffering. Their reaction to what they have had to go through has shown their complete loyalty to their ancient relations with this country and their gratitude for the self-Government given to them a year ago.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the excitement of the moment, the Prime Minister embraced in his Answer to Question No. Q.5 and others Question No. Q.9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). Would we be in order in asking a supplementary question on No. Q.9?
    Mr. Speaker: I have some difficulty here because the Prime Minister also embraced Q.9 when answering Question No. Q.2 and I cannot really accept the double embrasure.
    The Prime Minister: If I did include Q.9 in my Answers to Questions No. Q.5 and others, Mr. Speaker, I was in error. I thought and hope that I said that I would answer with Question No. Q.5, Questions Nos. Q.8, Q.10 and Q.11. If I did include Q.9 in that list as well as in the Answer to Question No. Q.2 it was an error.
    Mr. Speaker: The ground was covered but the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) very courteously did not essay a supplementary question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 3RD MAY—Second Reading of the Race Relations Bill.
Remaining stages of the Criminal Evidence Bill, and of the Dangerous Drugs Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.
Motion on the Immunities and Privileges (Amendment) Order.
TUESDAY, 4TH MAY—Remaining stages of the Gas Bill and of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Airports Authority Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 5TH MAY—Supply [16th Allotted Day]: Committee. Debate on Rates.
Motion on the Import Duties (General) (No. 2) Order.
THURSDAY, 6TH MAY—Debate on the the Iron and Steel White Paper, which will be available tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.
Motions on the Agriculture Ploughing Grants Schemes.
FRIDAY, 7TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 10TH MAY—The proposed business will be: Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Museum of London Bill [Lords].
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: With reference to the proposed business for next Thursday, does not the Leader of the House think it completely unreasonable to announce the date of a debate on one of the most contentious subjects in this Parliament before the White Paper has been produced? This is treating the House very badly. Why is it necessary to have the debate, following the White Paper, as soon as Thursday of next week?
Mr. Bowden: I do not think it at all unreasonable. The White Paper is being produced tomorrow at 3.30 p.m., just half an hour after the Stock Exchange closes. There will be full opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to look at it and discuss it over the weekend. It is not a very long document. There are also three days next week before the debate on Thursday. It is surely in the interests of the House and the country that the White Paper should be debated at the earliest possible moment, consistent with adequate time to look at the proposals.
Mr. Iain Macleod: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not the jobbers on the Stock Exchange he is concerned with, but the voters in Birmingham, Hall Green? Does not he think it ridiculous that, when the Government have had five months in which to prepare this White Paper, he allows the House only five days before having a debate upon it?
Mr. Bowden: I should think that, after that comment, the right hon. Gentleman's own stock will have fallen. It is true that there is a by-election on Thursday next week, but there is no reason to assume that the result of it is absolutely clear now.
Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are relieved to know that the base suggestion that a by-election may have had any influence on the date of the debate is plainly untrue? Is he aware, however, that there is an important meeting in Europe on that day? As we are all now so keen on Europe, what is to happen to that meeting?
Mr. Bowden: I am not quite clear as to how many representatives of the right hon. Gentleman's party from the House of Commons are attending that meeting in Europe.
Mr. Grimond: One.
Mr. Maxwell: Is the Leader of the House aware that because of the action of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite our delegation to Europe is not able to attend? Furthermore, is he aware how grateful the country will be that he is bringing this White Paper to the attention of the House so that we can deal with this matter once and for all in the decisive manner it deserves?
Mr. Sharples: In view of his assurance that the remaining stages of the Firearms Bill would not be started at an unreasonable hour, can the Leader of the House confirm that, if the opposed Private Business today lasts for the full time, it is not the Government's intention to embark on the remaining stages of that Bill?
Mr. Bowden: It is always difficult even to guess how long opposed Private Business will take, but I will give the assurance that if it lasts until ten o'clock, we will not tonight proceed with the Firearms Bill.
Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend answer two questions? First, can he tell us when we might expect a debate on the recommendations in the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure about Questions? Secondly, can he tell the House when the War Damage Bill and the Lords Amendments thereto may come back to this House? Can he give an assurance that there will be plenty of time for that Bill, because I have a lot to say about it?
Mr. Bowden: We have only just received the second interim Report from the Select Committee on Procedure and I think that we ought to wait a little while before debating it.
Hon. Members: What about the White Paper on steel?
Mr. Bowden: I said that we should wait a little while.
On the second question, as far as my memory goes, I do not think that the War Damage Bill has yet had its Report stage in another place, but I can assure my hon. Friend that adequate time will be given for the Lords Amendments.
Sir C. Osborne: On next week's business, as a matter of emergency will the Leader of the House try to find time to discuss two important matters which arose yesterday and today? The first is the announcement on the tape that the banks are being compelled to deposit an extra £90 million of special deposits, which will have a deflationary effect of at least £90 million. The second, coupled with it, is the statement at the E.E.C. Monetary Committee in Brussels yesterday that the Common Market central banks would refuse to renew the

633
3,000 million dollar loan which expires in a few weeks' time.
Those are the most urgent and desperate matters which I have ever known and they should be discussed. May we have time to discuss them next week?
Mr. Bowden: It might be helpful if I were to say a word about the timetable generally. Between now and the period when the Whitsun Recess is normally taken we shall be discussing for almost the whole of those five weeks financial matters in one form or another.
On the specific question, my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will be winding up the debate tonight on home loans and I think that it would not be inappropriate if he wished to say something about special deposits.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Can we have a foreign affairs debate almost in the next few days on the subject of Vietnam? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware, as his hon. Friends must be, that even today the Australian Government have announced that they are sending Australian troops to that area. For the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that between now and Whitsun we shall not even touch on foreign affairs shows a complete dereliction of his duty to the interests of this country. That is more than borne out by the totally frivolous political measure which is to come before the House in three or four days' time, when we have to consider the steel White Paper although the Government have taken five months to prepare it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take a more responsible attitude than is so far seen from his conduct of affairs.
Mr. Bowden: It was not so many days before the Easter Recess that we had a debate on foreign affairs. I cannot promise time out of Government time between now and Whitsun, but if there is general interest on the Opposition side of the House in a further debate on foreign affairs perhaps we can use a Supply day.
Sir D. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have meetings in their constituencies tomorrow evening and that to reach them we shall have to leave Westminster well before half-past three? Will he tell the
634
House what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the White Paper on steel is in the hands of such Members so that they may have the advantage of studying at least over the weekend what the Government have had 13 years and five months to consider?
Mr. Bowden: There is an hour tomorrow during which time the White Paper can be picked up in the Vote Office, but my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip is looking at the possibility of a copy being put in the post to every hon. Member.
Mr. Heath: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), the Leader of the House said that the Chief Secretary might say something about special deposits at the end of today's debate. Is he aware that this is most unsatisfactory? We are to have only half a day's debate today on home loans, and if the Chief Secretary is to wind up we shall have to carry on the debate in complete ignorance of what he is to say and we shall have no opportunity of putting questions to him.
In these circumstances, can the Leader of the House explain why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not told the House this afternoon about the special deposits and explained what has happened since his Budget statement to make him introduce this measure today, or, if nothing has happened, explained why he did not put it in the Budget?
Mr. Bowden: The right hon. Gentleman is very well aware that whatever action had to be taken had to be taken promptly and was taken at noon today. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement today, that would have been three statements before a very short debate on home loans and there would have been criticism in that direction. I have already said that if he thought it appropriate, the Chief Secretary could say something on the subject during his winding-up speech tonight.
Mr. Sandys: Will the Government take an early opportunity to tell the House about the important proposals which they have made to the Governments of India and Pakistan for a cease-fire?
Mr. Bowden: We hope to be able to do so very soon.
Sir H. Harrison: May I take up the issue raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and remind the Leader of the House that even if the White Paper on steel is put in the post at half-past three, those hon. Members who live some way from London will not receive it before Monday morning, because they have no postal delivery on Saturday? As most Members of the House will not see a copy until Monday morning, will he reverse his decision about a debate on Thursday?
Mr. Bowden: I thought that we were doing everything possible to help hon. Members over the White Paper. The House sits tomorrow until 4.30. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides must take some responsibility. If they want the White Paper, it is available in the Vote Office. If not, they will receive it by first post on Monday.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The position about a statement on special deposits is not very satisfactory. Something has happened since the Budget which has made this necessary. Surely the Chancellor could have told the House about it. It does not seem to be much help to the House to have the Chief Secretary speak of the matter in his winding-up speech tonight. Does not the Minister of Housing and Local Government know why this has happened? Could he not say something about it earlier in the debate?
Mr. Bowden: I thought that I was being helpful by making this suggestion, but if the House would prefer a full statement to be made tomorrow morning or on Monday we could arrange that.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Is the Leader of the House aware that next Thursday night there is likely to be a very important Division on the White Paper on steel? Is he further aware that only one by-election is in progress at the moment, that at Birmingham, Hall Green, and that in the country the decision to hold the Division on the White Paper will be regarded as a shabby political trick?
Mr. Bowden: The Division at ten o'clock on Thursday night will be affected by one vote, according to who is returned at the by-election.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am reminded that we have very little time for the ensuing debate. We shall have to stop these questions.

SPECIAL BANK DEPOSITS
Sir C. Osborne: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Would it be in order for me to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 so that we might debate a matter of urgent and immediate national importance, namely, the announcement about the special deposits which has been made only today and which could not have been made without the consent and knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer following the threat yesterday from Brussels that the loan would not be renewed and upon which the very stability of sterling depends?
Mr. Speaker: It is in order for the hon. Gentleman to try to move the Adjournment on any ground that he likes. If he proposes a Motion, it is my duty to consider it.
Mr. Manuel: Is there in the Standing Orders governing our procedure any period of time laid down during which you, Mr. Speaker, must wait for the delivery to you of a Motion under Standing Order No. 9?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know about the time, but I have to receive it in writing in my hand. Time is probably governed by locomotion. I will rule on the point raised by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), but there is other business with which we must deal before I can receive his Motion.
Later—
Mr. Speaker: This is the opportunity for which the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is waiting.
Sir C. Osborne: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"having regard to the immediate danger to sterling implied by today's statement on special bank deposits, which deflates the economy by a further £90 million, following the refusal of the E.E.C. banks yesterday to renew the 3,000 million dollar loan which expires in a few weeks' time."
To support this proposal, Mr. Speaker, may I say that only a few seconds ago

637
I saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer behind your Chair.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"having regard to the immediate danger to sterling implied by today's statement on special bank deposits, which deflates the economy by a further £90 million, following the refusal of the E.E.C. banks yesterday to renew the 3,000 million dollar loan which expires in a few weeks' time."
I regret that I cannot accede to the hon. Member's application. The Motion does not fall within the Standing Order.

RHODESIA
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
The Rhodesia Government have issued a White Paper setting out their views on the economic effects of a unilateral declaration of independence.
Her Majesty's Government have no desire to try to influence the voters of Rhodesia in the General Election due to take place on 7th May, and for this reason have not hitherto commented on what is being said by spokesmen of either the Rhodesian Government or Opposition parties during their respective campaigns.
They obviously cannot, however, re-ma in silent in the face of official utterances in Salisbury about the probable content of decisions which would be taken in London. The Rhodesian Government did not consult Her Majesty's Government about their decision to issue such a White Paper, still less about its contents, which completely misrepresent the likely economic effect on Rhodesia of a unilateral declaration.
The Rhodesia Government White Paper, after referring to the statement issued from No. 10 Downing Street on 27th October says:
"it has been assumed, in some quarters, that the proposals referred to in the statement would be applied by the British Government with a degree of severity designed to collapse the economy of Rhodesia within a relatively short period".
It then purports to "evaluate" whether, in fact, Britain could or would imple?
638
ment in full what it calls the "sanctions" suggested after a unilateral declaration.
By this means the Rhodesia Government are seeking to convey the impression that they and not Her Majesty's Government are the best judges of what action Her Majesty's Government would take in the event of a unilateral declaration.
Her Majesty's Government adhere to the Statement issued on 27th October, 1964. It expressed the view that the economic effects of a unilateral declaration would be disastrous to the prosperity and prospects of the people of Rhodesia and that Rhodesia's external trade would be disrupted. Nothing that has happened in the last six months has afforded reasons for modifying this judgment in any way.
The White Paper states that a great proportion of Rhodesia's exports could be marketed in countries other than Britain with whom Rhodesia has trading relations, and it discusses in particular tobacco which is Rhodesia's chief export. Britain is by far the biggest buyer of Rhodesian tobacco, and if Britain were to stop buying it the effect upon the tobacco growers and upon the whole economy of Rhodesia would be particularly severe. The Rhodesian Tobacco Association is itself reported to have reached the conclusion that the imposition of embargoes would be disastrous to the industry. There would be no difficulty in procuring British tobacco requirements from other countries.
The White Paper seeks to reassure Rhodesians that after a unilateral declaration money will be forthcoming for investment in Rhodesia from what it terms "countries not unfriendly" towards her. Britain has hitherto been the chief external source of capital for Rhodesia's economic development. A unilateral declaration would put a stop to this flow. The statement of 27th October made it clear that all financial as well as trade relations between Britain and Rhodesia would be jeopardised, that aid would cease, and that, with one or two exceptions, other Governments would be likely to refuse to recognise Rhodesia's independence or to enter into relations with her. The establishment of an illegal régime in Rhodesia is least calculated to produce stable government there which the

639
Rhodesian Government themselves recognise to be a prerequisite for attracting investment from abroad.
Other Governments inside and outside the Commonwealth will no doubt make known their own views on the White Paper. Commonwealth Prime Ministers, in their communiqué of 15th July, 1964, noted with approval the statement of the British Government that they would not recognise any unilateral declaration of independence, and the other Prime Ministers made it clear that they would be unable to recognise any such declaration. Moreover, the entire Commonwealth expressed its approval of the declaration of 27th October. There can be no justification for the Rhodesia Government or people to nurse the delusion that they would receive widespread international support.
The Rhodesian view of events elsewhere in Africa and their effect on thinking in the West is profoundly mistaken and it would be an error to assume that this view could affect Her Majesty's Government's policy towards an act of rebellion in Rhodesia.
The White Paper argues that the adverse consequences of a unilateral declaration would be the responsibility of Britain alone. It is not Britain, however, which is contemplating unconstitutional action. If such action were to be taken responsibility for the consequence would lie squarely on the shoulders of those who took it. The White Paper appears to assume that it would be improper for Britain to react in any way if Rhodesia chose to put herself in the position of a colony in rebellion, whereas Rhodesia would be entitled to take whatever measures she chose against Malawi, Zambia or any other country in retaliation against the inevitable consequences of her own action. No Government outside Rhodesia is likely to share this view.
Her Majesty's Government remain firmly convinced that the only route by which Rhodesia can achieve independence without grave consequences to herself is by the process of constitutional negotiation. She cannot hope to defy Britain, the whole of the Commonwealth, nearly the whole of Africa and the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, profoundly hope that Rhodesia will not be misled into thinking that she
640
could escape disaster if she were to fly in the face of world opinion.
As I have indicated earlier this afternoon, the answer lies in an agreed solution and Her Majesty's Government stand ready to carry forward their not entirely unhopeful negotiations with the Government of Rhodesia after the election in order to achieve this objective.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I intend not to comment on the substance of this rather unhappy exchange of Government declarations, but really to express the hope that the Government of Rhodesia will respond to the last sentence of the Prime Minister's statement and that negotiations will be resumed after the General Election has taken place in Rhodesia.
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for what he has said. The position which we have taken has been entirely consistent and a continuation of the very firm and statesmanlike line taken by the previous Government on the question in the negotiations last September. We have kept that on.
I believe that the one hope—as I say, the situation is not entirely unhopeful—lies in the negotiations which we hope to resume more actively after the election. A dialogue of a kind is continuing now, but, obviously, in the election situation, it will be difficult to carry the negotiations to any fruitful conclusion.
Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that everyone will hope for a peaceful and friendly result from these negotiations? But is he also aware that most people will certainly support this declaration, which makes it crystal clear that no one in this country could simply ignore a unilateral declaration of independence by Rhodesia, and the Rhodesian people should be doubly well aware of the position of this country?
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. Frankly, we did not want to have to make any statement on this issue, particularly while an election was on in a Commonwealth country. But, in view of the terms of the White Paper which was issued which seemed to put interpretations on our own words and on the intentions of the Government quite contrary to what

641
was meant by the Government and what was clearly understood to be meant by the Government, we had no alternative but to make a statement this afternoon.
I apologise to the House that it was somewhat long and has interfered with the ensuing debate, but I felt that a statement of this degree of constitutional importance had to be made in the House. It had to be made today and that was why it could not be done in the form of issuing a statement from 10, Downing Street, or by putting it in written form in HANSARD.
Mr. Turton: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that his correspondence with the Rhodesian Prime Minister is forming a background issue in the Rhodesian election? Will he go so far as to tell the Rhodesian electors and the British people whether, in his correspondence, he made an offer of negotiation, because by his silence he is aiding the extremists in Rhodesia and handicapping those who wish to arrive at a negotiated solution to this very unhappy problem?
The Prime Minister: The correspondence has been confidential. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor had discussions, which for the most part, I am afraid, were not very encouraging, about the possibility of an agreed solution. But one ray of light emerged. There was one possibility which, I think, I have today described fairly as being not entirely unhopeful; I would not put it higher than that.
We and, I hope, everyone in Rhodesia will feel that it is right to concentrate on that ray of hope, such as it is, rather than to take any extreme positions, even in the temptations of the heat of an election, because no one. I hope, would imperil the chance of a peaceful settlement. I hope that my statement this afternoon quite clearly said what would be the results of unconstitutional action.
Dr. David Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on this side of the House the forthright and courageous terms in which he has made his statement are very welcome? I suspect, too, that he will probably know that it is not only on this side of the House that his statement will be welcomed.
642
Is my right hon. Friend in a position today to tell the House of any hope that might be forthcoming to Zambia and Malawi in the event of a unilateral declaration of independence in Rhodesia being implemented in the terms of the Rhodesian White Paper?
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. As I made clear, I did not want to have to make this statement today. As to its forthright terms, it is only fair to say—the Leader of the Opposition will not mind my saying this—that it is consistent with and in continuation of the clear statements made privately by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the earlier stages of the discussions.
As to the possible effects on Malawi and Zambia, I hope that we can regard this as entirely hypothetical, because these are, perhaps, veiled suggestions of what might happen if a certain thing occurred as a result of a unilateral declaration of independence which we know to be unconstitutional.
Therefore, while, naturally, the Government are watching closely any possible consequences of unconstitutional action, I hope that I will not be asked this afternoon to say what would be done if unconstitutional action took place, which we all hope will not be the situation.
Mr. Sandys: Since the situation is somewhat explosive, will the Prime Minister, perhaps as soon as possible after the election in Rhodesia, take the initiative in proposing negotiations?
The Prime Minister: As I have said, a kind of dialogue is at present continuing. In the circumstances, it can inevitably be confined to no more than basic principles. As, however, I have made clear, and I am sure that Mr. Smith would very much agree with this, as soon as the election is over we would propose to enter into discussions with the Rhodesian Government as to the basis of constitutional advance which would make possible an agreed move towards independence.
Sir G. Nicholson: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he expected each Commonwealth country to express its opinion separately. Is there no hope of some collective expression of opinion?
The Prime Minister: I quoted the collective expression of opinion by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at the conference last July, and that statement was in the clearest and most unequivocal terms. We have kept in close touch with all the Commonwealth Governments. The hon. Member will be aware that our statement of 27th October was publicly supported by, I think, every Commonwealth Government. That being so, one can, I think, take it that the interpretation of that statement which I have given today would have the support of the entire Commonwealth.
Mr. Iain Macleod: The Prime Minister has on a number of occasions referred to the period after the election, and that, of course, I understand. He will, however, realise that on, I think, Friday of this week, long before the election, the Security Council proposes to embark upon a motion on Rhodesia which can do nothing but exascerbate the position there. Would the Prime Minister like to indicate the views of Her Majesty's Government towards that motion?
The Prime Minister: Of course, we have not yet seen the terms that will be debated—
Mr. Macleod: I have them.
The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a number of motions are being proposed. We do not know what will be finally debated. We are, of course, in close touch with Lord Caradon on this question. Perhaps if we buy a copy of tomorrow's Spectator we shall get the answer.
As to the more serious aspects of the right hon. Gentleman's question—until we got his intervention—it is vitally important that discussions on this subject
644
in the United Nations should not reach a situation that would exascerbate feeling on any side in Rhodesia, or, indeed, in any part of Africa. My noble Friend Lord Caradon has been in the closest touch with Commonwealth missions to the United Nations and a great deal has been done by, the general good will of everyone concerned to keep the atmosphere as cool as possible during these difficult months when provocative action of any kind might have led to an explosion.
Until we know the exact terms of the motion which is finally moved, we cannot decide our attitude to it. We understand the apprehensions and anxieties of all the Afro-Asian countries, but it would be unfortunate if we were to get a Security Council decision that in any way prejudiced these difficult negotiations.

BILL PRESENTED
  HOUSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND)
  Bill to increase the limit of the aggregate amount of advances which may be made to the Scottish Special Housing Association under proviso (i) to section 18(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962, presented by Mr. Ross; supported by Dr. J. Dickson Mabon and Mr. Niall MacDermot; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [15TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1965–66

CLASS VI

  VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £16,482,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government; grants and expenses in connection with water supply, sewerage, coast protection, storm damage relief, abating the pollution of the air, planning and redevelopment, new towns, areas of outstanding natural beauty, rating relief and sundry other services; a subscription to an international organisation and a grant in aid. [£7,616,000 has been voted on account.]

  HOUSING (HOME LOANS)
  4.10 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Heath: At the conclusion of this debate we shall move a reduction in the Vote of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I do not do so now, so as not to limit the scope of the debate.
  I will tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly why we propose to move a reduction in his Vote. It is because the people of the country, the young married couples and the older families with children, under his administration and the policies being pursued by himself and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are being denied homes which otherwise they would have. They are being denied them because, as a result of Government policies, the stream of finance for housing is drying up. They are being denied them because the mortgage rates of many local authorities, among them the great local authorities, are higher than at any time since 1945.
  All this blatantly contradicts every General Election promise which the right
  646
  hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made. They were promises with which they gained tens of thousands of votes which helped to give them their present narrow majority. Above all, we are condemning the indifference of the right hon. Gentleman who has seen this situation developing, and has done nothing whatever to remedy it.
  The Government have constantly been warned of the consequences of their policy. They have shown that they do not understand the workings of the building industry. What is more, they have shown that they do not care about those who want to buy and own their own homes. During the last year of the last Government, 373,676 houses and flats were completed. That was 25,000 above the target, and they were all part of nearly 4 million houses which were built during 13 years of Conservative Government. That was the achievement of those 13 years. We all know that the demand is still very great, and we know the reasons. It is due primarily to the immense improvements which took place in the standard of life of our people over those 13 years.
  At the end of 1964, there were 433,922 houses and flats under construction. That was just over 60,000 more than were completed in 1964. All those starts were the result of Conservative administration. That was the legacy of 13 years which we have bequeathed to the Government. There were more than 430,000 houses and flats in the pipeline, and there is no doubt whatever that the target of 400,000 houses for 1965 would have been achieved, and greatly exceeded, under a Conservative Administration.
  The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends have stultified, and are stultifying, this legacy from their predecessors. We all know that the builders of houses are extremely worried about the present situation, and, indeed, are cutting back their housing programmes. Everybody has read the statements by the great construction firms. The chairman of Wimpeys said that his firm had cut back 30 per cent. of its target figure. The MacManus group said that it was cutting back production by about 15 per cent. Wates has cut back the number of houses it is actually releasing on to the market by 20 per cent. and it has laid off 10 per cent. of its labour force.

  647
  Richard Costain has decided to call a halt on work on 250 semi-finished houses for which no buyers had been found.
  That is what is going on at the moment in the building industry, and it can be summed up in the declaration of the meeting of the Federation of Registered Housebuilders, last weekend:
  "It was calculated that in the absence of immediate action"—
  by the Minister—
  "there was little chance of the target of 400,000 houses in 1965 being reached. The shortfall might well approach 50,000."
  In other words, only 350,000 houses will be completed in 1965, as against 433,000 houses and flats which were left in the pipeline to the right hon. Gentleman.
  It seems that 80,000, or certainly 70,000 fewer houses are likely to be completed this year. Is that the policy which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues put before the electorate at the General Election, that they should be returned to power to produce 70,000 fewer houses than the number of starts, or 50,000 houses fewer than the target? It means that nearly 300,000 people who would otherwise have got new modern houses in 1965 will not be able to get them, and that is the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman. Is that what he and his colleagues told the electorate at the General Election? Not on your life.
  Week after week in the year preceding the election the advertisements in the newspapers were quite clear. They said:
  "The new Labour Government plans to provide many many more homes …"
  That is what they told the electorate week after week, and each advertisement was signed "Harold Wilson". The right hon. Gentleman's supporters may say, "But did not our clever and greatly beloved leader leave us some way out of this? Did not that wizard of the weasel word leave us a little outlet?" Of course he did. He did not say more than what! Did he mean many more than they built during their last year of power in 1950–185,000? But that will not wash. The public did not get that impression, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know full well that their pledges have not been carried out.
  648
  This is having a great effect on the builders. What has brought about this cutback? There is today an acute shortage of mortgage funds, particularly at the building societies. Normally, these finance about 75 per cent of private building, and this situation will probably he made worse by the announcement today about the special deposits.
  The Times, reporting on building societies on 24th April, said:
  "All are feeling the effects of the squeeze, described by many as the worst since the war."
  This is having a double effect on builders. First, many large builders have annual quotas for loans with which to carry on their development. They get these from the building societies, and the evidence is that most of these quotas have been halved.
  The second effect is that individual buyers cannot get mortgages, so the escalator of buying and home ownership is grinding to a halt. Those who want to buy expensive houses cannot sell the ones they are in at the moment, because those who want to buy less expensive houses cannot get mortgages. That is what is slowing down the whole process of increasing home ownership. Those who want to buy the cheaper houses usually have less security and lower incomes, and less available for deposit. This is the fundamental reason why this process is now slowing down, and, as the houses cannot be sold, the builders are having to cut back heavily on their programmes.
  There are still a favoured few who get their mortgages. Another advertisement was shown to me yesterday from Ideal Home for May, 1965, which is just out. It has a drawing of a charming house, with a splendid bubble coming from the top saying, "How can you afford a house like this on your salary?" with the answer, in another bubble, saying, "I arranged the mortgage through the Harold Wilson Organisation". Before anybody jumps up to ask whether I notified the Prime Minister that I was going to attack him in this way I would add that any organisation helping people to get mortgages or houses could not be associated with the Prime Minister.
  Let us look in detail at the position of the building societies today. It is true that March quarter lending was considerable; it was £10 million up on

  649
  the March quarter a year ago. The Chancellor knows the explanation, but in any case I will tell him what it is. First, it is due to the earlier commitments which were undertaken by the building societies before that quarter; secondly, to the money they took in in the preceding months; and, thirdly—and very important—to the running-down of their liquid resources, which was very considerable. In March, 1964, the liquid resources were 16·8 per cent. and in March, 1965 they were 13·1 per cent., or a quarter run down.
  That is not very slight, and the building societies do not believe that it is very slight. They believe that it is of great importance, and they may wish to use future deposits to build up their liquid resources again, which means that money will not be available for mortgages for houses. Therefore, the promises which the building societies can give for the next quarter are well down. That is why the escalator of home ownership is slowly grinding down.
  What about deposits? Broadly speaking, small depositors are continuing to deposit with building societies. The figure for the first quarter of 1965 was only £1 million down on that of 1964. The problem is caused by the larger deposits being removed. This is a very serious factor in the situation. In the first quarter of 1965. £224 million were withdrawn, compared with the first quarter of 1964, when £158 million were withdrawn. In other words, increased withdrawals amounted to £66 million in that quarter, which is almost a half—certainly two-fifths—of the 1964 figure. That is why there is now an acute shortage of mortgage finance. This is the first time that this situation has arisen since 1945. When, previously, there have been economic difficulties no comparable situation has arisen.
  What are the reasons for this? First, it is because of overseas deposits leaving London before Christmas. This has meant that other depositors with the building societies have had to withdraw their deposits to replace those overseas withdrawals. The Chancellor will agree that despite the strength of sterling there is as yet no indication that these deposits are pouring back. I say this because it means that this is not just a temporary situation which will exist for a week or two, but one of which we must take account.
  650
  Secondly, the 7 per cent. Bank Rate, the credit squeeze and the depressed stock market, have meant that those who want liquid resources cannot get them easily by selling securities. They cannot get them from the banks, and today's measure will make it more difficult. The easiest thing to do is to withdraw liquid resources from the building societies. This means that the amount of money available for mortgages has decreased. Thirdly, other institutions are offering much higher rates, especially local authorities.
  I was interested to see that on 13th April the City editor of the Daily Mirror—which, on the whole, is not considered to be unduly subservient to the Tory Party—said:
  "I never thought I would see the day when a town hall treasurer in Britain would have to borrow cash at 9 per cent. interest to pay the council's bills."
  Neither did we—and neither did the electorate.
  So the conclusions to be drawn are: first, that this is not a temporary situation; and, secondly—and I put this particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the building societies must use their commercial judgment in setting rates to attract deposits. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider exactly how wrong, and indeed, foolish he was in trying to denigrate and condemn the building societies for the change they made in the middle of January in increasing their rates, and how much worse the situation would have been today if they had done what the Chancellor tried to make them do.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Housing and Local Government may say, "If the building societies have not got it, let people go to the local authorities." That is a doctrinaire answer, in general keeping with his outlook. But let us consider the position of the local authorities. On 23rd March, the right hon. Gentleman said that his Department had no information about the number of housing schemes suspended or stopped, nor did he have any information about the rates of interest at which they are being operated. He said exactly that, if he cares to look it up. He could not give the House the information.
  Although that situation had developed, he had not even bothered to discover the information. He had all the resources of

  651
  his Department, but he could not find out. The information that he gave to the House came from the Press.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman)The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman) rose—
  Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman should wait until he has been given the answer by his P.P.S.
  Mr. Crossman: What I said in my reply was that the information was not officially collected by my Department, but that from our Press cuttings we estimated that at least 37 local authorities had suspended their schemes. It is true that up to now our Department, after 13 years of Toryism, does not have this information available, but I have now arranged for the information to be obtained and in future we shall not rely an Press cuttings, as our Tory predecessors did during their 13 years of office.
  Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman's Tory predecessors did not have to deal with this situation. We have made it our business, as the right hon. Gentleman could not, to get the best information possible. I will give it to the right hon. Gentleman now.
  We obtained it in respect of county and non-county boroughs, which are the major organisations concerned, and of which there are 358 altogether. We have managed to get information concerning 283 of them—more than three-quarters of them—of which 242 had home loan schemes. That shows how many such schemes have developed during the 13 years of Tory rule. We discovered that, in the North, 14 major authorities had stopped schemes altogether; in the Midlands and East Anglia, 16 authorities had stopped; in the South, 13 had stopped; and in Wales, three had stopped. This excludes entirely the urban and rural district councils, which were included in the right hon. Gentleman's figures, which he gained from the Press.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that there were 1,200 local authorities altogether, and then gave figures from the Press. Many have reduced the percentage of the mortgage. Interest rates have been increased by 165 of those major authorities. On the average, the rates being charged range between 6¾ per cent. and 7¼ per cent., with a few at 7½ per
  652
  cent. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the audacity to rebuke the building societies for increasing their rate.
  Let us look particularly at the two largest authorities—London and Birmingham, which are both Labour controlled. In mid-January, London put its rate up from 6½ per cent. to 7¼ per cent. One London borough put it up to 7½ per cent. In Birmingham, a very interesting situation arises. In a party political broadcast on 8th May, 1963, the Prime Minister said:
  "We shall also encourage popular schemes such as that in Birmingham, where the Labour Council are building houses for sale, and are giving 100 per cent. mortgages with low interest rates."
  What is the position now? Since the Government of the right hon. Gentleman came to power, Birmingham's Labour Council has restricted all mortgages to a ceiling of 85 per cent. and has put interest rates up from 6 per cent. to a new peak of 6¾ per cent. That is what has happened in Birmingham. It had to happen because of the present situation. Yet this was cited by the Prime Minister as the one he wanted to copy.
  Look at the building materials industry as the third part of the picture. The industry is anxious. It depends to a very large extent on "starts", and these are now diminishing. The Minister of Public Building and Works—I do not see the right hon. Gentleman here today—has urged the brickmaking industry to increase its output of bricks in 1965 by 600 million to 8,400 million, an increase of 8 per cent. He has constantly urged the industry to increase investment in plant and has constantly given the impression that it would be an ever-expanding industry. On 18th February, at a contractors' luncheon club, the right hon. Gentleman said—I thought slightly peevishly—
  "I keep listening to or reading public statements of the leaders of the industry expressing fears about the future and seeking reassurances from the Government. Frankly, I am getting a little bit tired of this."
  Since then the right hon. Gentleman has not said a word. He now realises the position.
  All this is due to the policies of the Government, not to the 15 per cent. surcharge—though we know that has added an increased cost to houses—but to the two Budgets, the Bank Rate and the credit

  653
  squeeze. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State said in a White Paper that the surcharge was to deal with the balance of payments problem and that no further action was required. All the rest of this position flowed from the crisis of confidence for which the Prime Minister said his own Government was responsible. There was a crisis of confidence; the Bank Rate and the credit squeeze followed. Yet still confusion reigns.
  On 20th January the Minister of Housing and Local Government said:
  "It should be a matter of weeks and not months before we can hope that the 7 per cent. Bank Rate is over."
  That was over three months ago. Does not his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell him what is going on, and the facts of economic life?
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: He does not know, either.
  Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister and the First Secretary of State discussed the question of inflation, and the First Secretary said on 9th December, to the American Chamber of Commerce—we tried to question him afterwards—
  "This is not a new credit squeeze, or a return to stop-go. This is not a reduction in the credit available."
  Yet a fortnight ago, in New York, the Prime Minister was boasting of every-Ming his Government had done to deal with inflation through the credit squeeze, and the Chancellor has extended this by another £90 million on special deposits. So confusion reigns in the Government about whether they are following an expansionist or a deflationary policy.
  Can one wonder that the housing industry, the housing materials industry, let alone the building societies, are completely confused by the policies of the Government? Now we can see the whole horrible picture, the building industry being cut back; half finished houses being left; sites empty and idle; the building materials industry anxious about the future; housing targets unlikely to be reached and those who want Louses unable to get mortgages let alone houses; local authorities abandoning their house ownership schemes; interest rates, in many cases,
  654
  the highest since 1945. The whole industry is being undermined by uncertainty and the Minister has sat there, doing absolutely nothing.
  Just look at their pledges. Look at the Labour election manifesto—
  "Labour will introduce a policy of lower interest rates for housing. … This policy of specially favourable rates will apply both to intending owner-occupiers and to local authorities building houses to let."
  That was repeated time and time again. It was repeated in every election address. It was repeated by the Prime Minister. There are too many examples to quote. Well, take the Secretary of State for Education and Science. He said:
  "We simply must build more houses."
  The word "must" is in capital letters, just to add a touch of earnestness to his words. Later, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Labour is pledged to lower"—
  the word "lower" is in capital letters"—
  "interest rates for houses."
  None of these right hon. Gentlemen or hon. Members said, of course, that, first, all the rates would go up to the highest level and the number of houses would come down, that people would not be able to get mortgages for homes and that they would cost more if they could be obtained. There were just these specious promises, repeated time and again.
  On the question of the Bank Rate, the Prime Minister gave comparisons with the last Labour Administration and referred to 4 per cent.—there was of course no commitment, just an implication to the electorate to carry it along in the belief that the figure might be 4 per cent. Then the First Secretary came jumping in, making his famous statement about 3 per cent. That has now been carefully documented in the book, "The Making of the Prime Minister"—or the undoing of the First Secretary.
  What about this new scheme? Will it apply only to new house purchases? Will those already with mortgages have to subsidise the others when the right hon. Gentleman does bring in his scheme? What about consultation? The First Secretary, in his famous statement, said that there would be immediate discussions with the building societies, local authorities and other interested bodies.

  655
  Have those discussions taken place? Not to my knowledge, nor to the knowledge of anybody that I can find. The First Secretary said, "Immediate discussions". They have not been carried out.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government has himself referred to this. He said this will require legislation; that there will not be time for it in this Session. Later, he had to issue a statement, after his speech in Coventry on 23rd January, saying that he hoped that it might be implemented in the next Session. Who knows how long this Session is going on if the Government are to complete their business? It may not be even in the next Session—the right hon. Gentleman only hopes that it is to be in the next Session.
  We are promised that the Land Commission Bill is to come at any moment now. The First Secretary said—actually in my constituency on 28th September, a short distance from my party headquarters—
  "At the same time as we are setting up the Land Commission we shall introduce a policy of lower interest rates for housing."
  Where is this organisation getting to so far as housing is concerned? Where is the right hon. Gentleman's scheme? Does this scheme exist at all? If so, why have not there been consultations? Or did right hon. Gentlemen opposite enter into office without a scheme, after 13 years in opposition in which to prepare it—13 wasted years of opposition? There they are. All the promises which we have heard about many many houses and lower interest rates for the householders—all of them are just paper promises. There they flutter down, lying like twisted autumn leaves over the empty building sites and half-finished houses.
  What now should be done? Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement today? We do not know. I was rather interested to note that the Labour Party candidate at Birmingham, Hall Green said last night that the right hon. Gentleman is visiting him on Friday and hopes to make a statement about his scheme and his programme. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with his customary courtesy, will tell us about it here today, in the House of Commons, before he tells Hall Green tomorrow.
  656
  I should like to make three suggestions. If we can bring about some action by this indifferent Minister as a result of this debate we shall have done some good. The first is that the Government must pursue policies—this particularly affects the Chancellor of the Exchequer—which will encourage savings, because their present policies—the result of their own folly before Christmas—of higher prices and taxation are bound to militate against savings, particularly against savings in the building societies.
  Secondly, I would say that the Minister should consider reintroducing the scheme enacted by the previous Government. Under the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959, we used £98 million out of £100 million for loans on pre–1919 houses. Of course, he could use it in another form for dealing with any particular type of house he wished to choose.
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: When was it suspended?
  Mr. Heath: We suspended it in the autumn of 1961, on a rising market of house building, not a market which is being cut back as it is today by the Minister.
  It is a fact that the 1919 houses, these older and cheaper ones are the most difficult in respect of which to get a mortgage today. It would also help to get the escalator moving.
  My third suggestion is that consideration should be given to a number of suggestions which have been made from outside the House, many of them, no doubt, to the Minister and the Chancellor, as to whether there ought to be a lender of last resort for the building societies in the same way as the Public Works Loans Board is for the local authorities and the Bank of England for other monetary institutions. Any scheme of this kind can take a variety of forms. I do not propose to go into them in detail. It basically means that there should be some form of refinancing of mortgages comparable to the refinancing for exports. I doubt whether this would require legislation, but it is not for me to say.
  It is absolutely right that the necessary financial discipline of the building societies and these organisations should be maintained. I agree with that entirely. I believe that these schemes ought to be carefully examined. They may be

  657
  able to even out the strains through which the building societies are now passing. Of course, all the schemes for helping and financing home ownership must be accompanied by an increase in building. Otherwise, we shall only get an increase in the prices of houses. This is absolutely fundamental to all the plans put forward for helping greater house ownership.
  The final point is that, whatever the Minister and the Chancellor do now, a great deal of harm has already been done and today's measures will probably make things more difficult. It is not for me to enter into this in detail. It may be that the Chancellor wants the special deposits so as to try later to reduce the Bank Rate. This will not greatly help the building societies or those who already have mortgages, nor will it provide more money for those who want to get them. It will take time for the building societies and the building industry to regain their momentum. That is why we are today condemning the Minister and his colleagues for the harm which is already being done. They are keeping families out of new homes. They must take the responsibility both for doing this and for having thoroughly misled the country at the election.
  4.42 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): I should like to start with an apology to back benchers on both sides of the House. I am extremely sorry that, in a short half-day debate, I am taking part in a four-man bout of Front Bench speeches. This was no procedure of our willing. I should have preferred to leave the rôle of the opening speech to one of my colleagues behind me and to have waited until the end in order to reply to the debate, but the Opposition decided to put up two Front Bench spokesmen. They have relegated the shadow Housing Minister the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) to winding up, presumably so that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), can give us another example of that poetic, lyrical knock-about which is his peculiar contribution to Conservative leadership. As I listened to him, I was tempted to reply in kind. If I do not, that is because there are a number of serious things, which, as Minis?
  658
  ter of Housing, I must say at this Box in order to help the building societies to overcome the crisis of confidence in them which the Tory Press and Opposition spokesmen, whether they mean it or not, have been causing by their attitude during the last three weeks.
  If anybody took their allegations seriously, the housing programme would indeed be placed in jeopardy. We have heard allegations this afternoon that 300,000 people will be denied houses in the coming year by the failure of the programme. We have heard about sales of homes grinding to a halt, and last night, though I did not see him on the television, we had the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition making one of his classic simplifications: "Under Socialism you cannot even get a mortgage"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They say, "Hear, hear". At a time when the building societies have massive mortgage policies, those who say that people cannot even get a mortgage are undermining confidence in the building societies and not in this Government.
  I shall try to state the facts which will enable the public to realise what the situation really is behind the propaganda and that what the building societies are facing are temporary difficulties which they can and will overcome in a matter of months. First of all, I shall give the House as sober an account as I can of the precise character of these difficulties. I shall then show how they arose, and, thirdly, I shall show how we intend to meet them. In doing so, I think that I shall be able to answer all the questions which the right hon. Gentleman put to me so truculently this afternoon and to which he obviously expected no reply. I shall be able to satisfy him with those replies. These will be my three main themes.
  Before I come to them, there is one topic apparently rated by him of the greatest political importance, largely irrelevant to the debate with which I must deal. Throughout his speech he spent a great deal of time demonstrating that the high mortage rates which owner-occupiers are now paying and the increasing difficulty over the last weeks of obtaining a mortgage provide final proof that we as a Government have broken all our pledges to the owner-occupiers in our election manifesto. I want to be perfectly clear on this question of pledges.

  659
  It is true that the policy of specially favourable interest rates for the whole housing programme was one of the most prominent planks in the Labour election programme. It is true that it has been a vital element in Government policy ever since we have taken office. I am not in the least disconcerted by the lavish care with which the right hon. Member for Bexley has demonstrated how irrevocably we are committed, and I am committed, to the policy of lower interest rates for home loans.
  In this part of his speech, there was no exaggeration. It is the precise truth that we are committed to it. Our reputation would be ruined if we did not do it. This is all true, and it is true that we proclaimed the policy in opposition. It is true that we won a great many votes by showing that we believed in it. It is true that, as a Government, we are deeply committed to it. After describing the difficulties through which we are passing today, I shall say something as to how we shall carry it out, not only for home loans but for interest rates for local authority building as well.
  There is one proviso which I want to add about home loans. There will always be a very large number of families who cannot afford to buy a house and for whom the right home will be a rented house or a rented flat. That is why a responsible Housing Minister must never give—as my Tory predecessors always gave—almost exclusive priority to the owner-occupier. A reponsible Minister will allocate money and resources fairly between three claimants—first, private enterprise building houses primarily for sale and owner-occupation; secondly, public enterprise building houses primarily to let and primarily for the lower-paid people in the community; and thirdly the combination of private and public enterprise for renovating, improving and modernising the vast stock of old houses which will otherwise degenerate into slums. These are the three jobs which one has to do, and in our election manifesto we promised a balanced policy of this kind.
  I am determined to see that the balance is properly observed. We have to keep our pledge to the young couple who want their instalment burdens eased by lower interest rates, and who are sadly
  660
  distressed today. We must not do so at the cost of the young couple who want their council rents steadied by interest rates or the old couple who do not want a new house but who passionately want their old home improved by the addition of a bath, a sky-light or an indoor w.c., and who, anyway, are far more interested in the increase of the old-age pension and the abolition of prescription charges than in housing. Our first job was to decide in what order our social commitments should be carried out. We made the decision that the old and the sick must come first, that before we did anything else we must raise the old-age pension and abolish the prescription charges.
  I am sure that we were right to do this, even if a number of things which I, as Minister of Housing, naturally wanted had to take second place to these responsibilities. But if old-age pensions and prescription charges are the priority No. 1 of a Socialist Government, housing certainly comes second.
  When I surveyed the situation I had inherited from my predecessor, I decided, long before the Milner Holland Report produced the final confirmation, that the most desperate crisis we faced was the shortage of cheap rented accommodation and that this could only be met by a rapid increase in council house building.
  I have told the councils to get on with the job of making good the shameful neglect of public sector housing, particularly in our great conurbations, which characterised Tory policy right up to election year. Already this is having its effect. Council house starts were sagging when we took over, and in the first quarter of this year we were still, with 32,000 starts, well behind the three months January—March 1964 figure, with its 37,000. But last month there was a slight but encouraging spurt forward—the first sign of our new drive—11,800 starts in March 1965, compared with 10,600 starts in March 1964—an 11 per cent. increase in public sector building. And I am glad to add that industrialised building has lately been accounting for something like a quarter of all the council housing tenders approved, which is higher than ever before.
  We have, therefore, kept our pledge to the old and to the sick. We have begun to keep our pledge to the people

  661
  in the queue for council houses at the kind of moderate rents they can afford. And simultaneously I have launched a new campaign designed to wake up hundreds of thousands of tenants, landlords and owner-occupiers to the hard cash the Government are prepared to give them for house improvements, because house improvements are a major part of our housing policy.
  Mr. Donald Box: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the increase of 12s. 6d. in old-age pensions, council house rents in the constituency of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are going up by anything between 10s. and 19s. 5d. a week? How does he explain that away?
  Mr. Crossman: I will not be diverted into discussing increased rents in individual constituencies. I have been dealing so far with the charge made by the right hon. Member for Bexley that this party has welched on its election pledges. I have shown that we have kept our promise to the old, that we are keeping it to council house tenants and to those who want improvements. I now turn to the question of the owner-occupier.
  Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish (Lewes) rose—
  Mr. Crossman: I am now going to speak about the owner-occupier.
  Sir T. Beamish Sir T. Beamish rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Crossman: If hon. Members look at the figures, they will see that in the first quarter of this year, when public housing was only just beginning to pick up, the building societies made more advances for home loans than in the first quarter of any previous year. The right hon. Member for Bexley not only said that but took credit for it. Under this Government hon. Gentlemen opposite take credit for whatever is good and everything else they blame on us. It is art old trick, but let us look at the facts. In the first quarter of this year the building societies, under a Labour Government, advanced more in home loans than in the first quarter of any previous year. And the figures for private housing starts in the first quarter are almost as impress-
  662
  sive—54,000 compared with 52,000 in 1964.
  True enough, before this latest trouble started, the house purchaser, like everyone else, was sharing the burden of high interest rates, and I had to tell the young married couple who had been looking forward to our new reduced interest rates for their home loans that they would have to wait some months, probably until this Session is over, before we can pass the necessary legislation—[Interruption.] We are discussing housing policy—
  Sir T. Beamish: What about the Steel Bill?
  Mr. Crossman: Now we have steel brought into it.
  High interest rates are regarded by most young people as very burdensome, but not as a total deterrent to wanting to buy a house. If they have the choice between paying high interest rates and not having a house, a very large number of people are prepared to pay more. One of the most striking facts of the last few months is that high interest rates have acted as no deterrent; that the claimants' demands for houses to own has been as strong in this period as ever before. If the choice is between temporarily paying a bit more on the instalments or permanently giving up the idea of a new house, thousands of people are prepared to take on the extra burden—and I admit that it is a burden—of paying something more.
  The trouble the building societies are up against is not a shortage of clients to borrow capital but a shortage of capital due, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman here, to a transfer of the capital to more profitable spheres. On that point I think we can agree where the difficulty lies. As I say, it lies in the transfer of capital from the building societies to other temporarily profitable spheres of investment, local government loans and so on. [Interruption.] That is a perfectly good example of where investors have been investing.
  A number of sensational newspaper stories have created the impression that there is something organically wrong with the building societies. In fact, there is nothing organically wrong with them and nothing could be further from the truth. I am glad to see the right hon.

  663
  Member for Bexley shaking his head, I hope in agreement. Their advances for the first quarter of 1965 reached a new record. Indeed, part of their trouble is that the demand for home loans has increased faster than their resources. Yet even this shortage of resources is only relative. In the first three months of 1965, for example, new savings invested in the building societies were only £1 million less than in the first quarter of 1964. The bother is not the falling off of new savings but an increase of withdrawals, because depositors have suddenly whiffed more profitable spheres of investment.
  Why has this happened and how can it be remedied? After all, very few of those who put their savings into building societies do so out of an altruistic desire to help house building. What attracts them is the sense of safety, the prospect of a good return on their money free of tax and the advantage of a quick withdrawal if they need it. In recent months the big investor, who put the maximum £5,000 into 10 building societies, has realised that there are quite a number of other places, including local government loans, where his money can be just as safe, and can earn more.
  The building societies tell me that their difficulties were increased not only by the counter attraction of the local authorities loans but by the direct competition of certain local authorities in the mortgage market. What we have been watching, therefore, is a double process; on the one side a rapid increase of assets and advances resulting in a record number of home loans and new housing starts and, on the other side, a withdrawal of deposits with a corresponding reduction of cash in hand.
  It was the interaction of these two forces which persuaded the building societies, beginning last January, to start warning the builders that they would have to be more tight-fisted with their home loans and which forced one or two societies in the last week or two to issue warnings that builders must no longer count on money being available to cover their building programmes after the summer. These warnings caused a sensation, caused the crisis and, no doubt, this censure Motion today.
  664
  This picture of the trouble, gathered from my discussions with the building societies, I found to be completely confirmed in my talks with the builders. They told me quite simply that now that they are no longer assured that mortgages will automatically be available, as they have been for the last few years, their programmes must automatically be cut back. Estimates of the cutbacks vary a good deal from builder to builder, partly according to their sense of drama and partly according to political prejudice [Interruption.] The trouble, they all agree, is not the shortage of clients willing to pay high interest rates, but a shortage of capital.
  To complete an objective picture, before I come to what we are going to do about the situation, I must say a word about local authority home loans, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It is important to get these in perspective. The right hon. Gentleman gave the picture of the number of withdrawals. What I heard more about from the building societies was the serious competition of those still in the market.
  It is true that nearly one-third of the total is lent by the Greater London Council, which has allocated £80 million, or nearly half of its capital investment, this year for home loans; but local authorities, with frequent 100 per cent. advances, are a vital adjunct to the work of the building society movement. In my view they complement and do not seriously compete with it. How could they, when they form in total under 15 per cent. of the total mortgage loans? It is rather silly to pretend that local authority competition is the main cause of the building societies' difficulties, though there are those outside this House and in the Press who' have.
  Well, there is my analysis. This week I have had talks with representatives of the builders, of the building societies and of the Greater London Council—as the biggest local authority in the home loan business. I think I can claim that they would all agree with the general lines of my diagnosis, although on details there are naturally differences of emphasis between different parties.
  Let us turn, then, from diagnosis to consideration of what we should do for the complaint—
  Mr. John M. Temple: Did the building societies mention in those talks that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Capital Gains Tax would make serious inroads into their reserves?
  Mr. Crossman: The conversations were strictly private, but I do not think I am committing an indiscretion when I say that this subject was not mentioned in any way.
  What do we need to prevent this setback—because that is what it is—developing into a crisis that would retard this year's housing completions and seriously affect those of next year? I will start by dealing with two unacceptable ideas—one of them coming from the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, the introduction of lower interest rates for home purchasers would not help the building societies out of this position. Their problem, as I have said, is not shortage of clients caused by high interest rates but a crowd of clamouring clients denied mortgages owing to a shortage of capital. In these circumstances, to make mortgages even more popular might actually aggravate the problem in the present circumstances.
  What about the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman that I should reactivate the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959. This, of course, was an idea which, as Minister of Housing, I very seriously considered, but, quite apart from any disadvantage there may be from a Treasury point of view—and I leave that aspect to my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary—I have turned it down on strictly housing grounds. In the first place, my discussions with the building societies have led me to the conclusion that they are still in an extremely strong position, able to continue financing home loans on a massive scale; and that their difficulties, though awkward enough, do not justify drastic stop-gap medicine of this kind.
  Moreover, though many proponents of the scheme seem to be unaware of it, the £100 million allocated to the building societies under that Act were provided solely in order to persuade them to give mortgages on pre–1919 houses, and less than £8 million of the £100 million available under that Act is still in the kitty. So fresh aid of this kind would require new legislation to be rushed through the House. It is my considered view that to
  666
  do this in a panic mood might well aggravate the disease it is intended to cure.
  But this does not mean that the Government reject altogether the idea the right hon. Gentleman spoke of—that home loans via building societies, as well as local authority building, should in certain circumstances receive Exchequer support. The right hon. Gentleman asked about that, and I will answer him in a considered way, because he has obviously been thinking about it a very great deal. It is one thing, of course, to rush a Bill through in an attempt to get the building societies out of temporary difficulty, but it is quite another thing to use Exchequer finance in order to regulate and sustain a carefully-planned overall building policy in which the Government, the building societies, the local authorities and the construction industry are all working together within an agreed annual programme and according to a well-understood common strategy. Such a notion was available during the last 13 years but was never even attempted. It is towards a national housing policy of this kind that I am convinced the country must now move, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are now actively considering the rôle of Exchequer finance within this new framework.
  I have already said that it is essential to achieve a programme with a proper balance between houses to let, houses for sale, and improvements. It is clear that this balance of housing priorities is quite impossible as long as our housing programme is split into two parts—a public sector, 40 per cent. of the total, publicly financed and adequately controlled and, on the other hand, a private sector, 60 per cent. of the total, regulated only by the interaction of consumer demand, the whim of the investor and the availability of capital.
  As long as this division is maintained it will be impossible either to plan the priorities fairly within the housing programme—as between houses to let and houses for sale—or to protect the building societies from the kind of set-back that has hit them this spring, or finally to give the construction industry the confidence it requires for the steady expansion we all desire. Let hon. Members ask any builder, big or small. Let

  667
  them ask the suppliers of components and materials. They all give the same answer: if they are to expand their output we must at all costs avoid violent ups and downs in the rate of building. We must have a firm programme and keep firmly to it.
  Mr. A. P. Costain Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe) rose—
  Mr. Crossman: In a moment.
  Let me say just a word about the construction industry. There has been a lot of wild talk—which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has not indulged in—about the danger of mass unemployment as a result of the present difficulties. Two figures will put this issue in proportion. In the first place, even the most pessimistic prediction by the most pessimistic builder in his talks with me last week only suggested a reduction of the very big targets for 1965 which the builders were bandying about last January to a little below the level of last year's total completions. That is the worst threat they could possibly foresee—
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I do not understand that.
  Mr. Crossman: Then I repeat it. The most pessimistic prediction which even the most violently pessimistic builder dare make was that there would be a reduction from what I thought at the time was the fantastic total being predicted last January to something rather below the total completion of houses last year. The worst they predicted was a slight reduction in the housing programme. That is not my view, nor is it that of any responsible person, but that is the worst anyone has dared to predict.
  Further, right through this spring the construction industry has been overextended—
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: A figure of 50,000 has been mentioned.
  Mr. Crossman: I have not found any builder who could seriously support that when cross-examined about what he meant by it.
  All through this spring the building industry has been suffering—at least in
  668
  the Midlands and the South—from an acute shortage of skilled labour, and complaining of chronic shortages of some raw materials; most recently, plaster board as well as bricks. In these circumstances, to talk about the present set-back as a major threat to employment in the building industry is absurd. What the construction industry needs just as much as the building societies, and just as much as the hundreds of thousands of people who want to buy homes, is a housing programme fairly agreed by all the interests concerned, with some assurance from the Government that there is a floor below which production shall not fall as well as a ceiling above which new construction must not go. A programme like this would not prevent any recession or setback, but it could enormously reduce its severity, as well as make it possible for the industry to plan its capital programme well ahead.
  The Opposition have, quite fairly, seized upon these temporary difficulties of the building societies as an opportunity for a rip-roaring propaganda campaign. Speaking as an old hand at propaganda, I congratulate them on the Press, radio and television build-up to the culmination we have witnessed in this censure debate. It has been a first-class professional job, and that is their right. But I do not view this set-back as an opportunity for clever propaganda. I view it as a warning—and a warning not only to the politicians but to everyone concerned in the building industry—that we cannot permit a completely uncontrolled acceleration of building society advances and we cannot run the construction industry absolutely all out without meeting trouble when the engine overheats. That is a fact, and every sensible person knows that that is the warning and the lesson of the difficulties we are now facing. I am using the opportunity of these difficulties to start talks with the interested parties, and we have started hearing and agreeing the problem. I have explained to them the broad outline of the plan by which I believe the problem can be mastered.
  I am glad to say that, although the talks have only just begun, I have found that a welcome readiness to see the great advantage to all concerned of a national housing plan, in the formulation of which all partners must have a say. If this set

  669
  back highlights the dangers of the unregulated past, it also warns us that the remedies cannot be long delayed. Neither the building societies, nor the builders, nor yet the local authorities, can be expected to carry on for many months without knowing where they are going. I am therefore glad to tell the House that before this summer is out we shall have our plans ready for discussion with the interests concerned. After this discussion they will be published, and we are determined to introduce whatever legislation is necessary in the next Session. I think that answers all the questions which the right hon. Gentleman asked.
  That is my reply to the Amendment which the right hon. Member tells us will be moved.
  Mr. Costain: I waited to interrupt until the right hon. Gentleman came to the end of the point he was making. His reply to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) does not meet the point at all. He said that the building industry does not want to have starts and stops. I agree, but this is one of the biggest stops. It is no good saying that by the end of the summer there will be something, for the building season is between now and the end of the summer.
  Mr. Crossman: I appreciate the point, and this is one of the things we have been discussing with the hon. Member's colleagues. We have to use this set back as a starting point for a new advance towards a national housing plan, with which I gathered he agreed on the basic principle but which got such derisory attention from other Members of the Opposition.
  I reject their censure. The Opposition had 13 years in charge of housing. We witnessed the advantages and the disadvantages of decontrol and the refusal to plan. Certainly a large number of houses were built, but the "liberation of the people from Socialist controls" and the global housing totals announced each year were won at a very heavy cost. A doctrinaire Rent Act destroyed security of tenure for hundreds of thousands. That was something which the right hon. Member did not mention this afternoon. Those were the people least able to protect themselves. The right hon. Member did not mention how private developers were
  670
  encouraged to make the shortage of rented accommodation still worse by pulling down huge areas of working class accommodation and replacing them with offices and luxury flats. Meanwhile, local councils which could have relieved the shortage by a pool of cheap rented accommodation were pushed aside by a completely unregulated drive for home ownership. That is the legacy we inherited last October. We have started to deal with it.
  The miseries of decontrol will soon be removed by our new Rent Bill. The massive campaign for improving old buildings has been intensified. The frustration of council house building will soon be ended. What remains is the most difficult task of all—the linking together of the private and the public sectors so that both can go forward together in a single coherent national plan [Laughter]. That, as is emphasised by the laughter of hon. Members opposite, was never even attempted by them. It was laughed to scorn by Members opposite, not because many of them are really decontrollers on principle like the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—him I respect—but because they funked a really difficult job. Most of them knew that it was necessary but did not have the courage to tackle it.
  I believe the people of this country are ready to see a housing plan of this sort agreed between the Government and their partners in the industry. I believe the building industry and the building societies are also ready. I am encouraged by the beginning of talks to find it is so. All we need is a Government which has the courage to take decisions but who also believe in acting in genuine partnership with all those concerned. It is in this spirit that I ask the House to reject the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  5.15 p.m.
  Sir Herbert Butcher: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister resumed his seat to a round of cheers from his hon. Friends. He put the best possible gloss on an extremely poor case.
  Before proceeding further, in accordance with the custom of the House, I declare my interest as a director of a building society and also a director of a company engaged in building houses for

  671
  sale, although I believe that that is already fairly common knowledge.
  I return to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I particularly draw the attention of the House to two remarks he made. One was, "This week I have started talking to the building societies" and a little later he said, "Talks have only just begun." What an approach there must have been in October, November, December and January, when the financial crisis was upon us and the Government did not talk to the building societies and the building industry at that time! Surely the hon. Gentleman should have some forecast, some sense of events to come, and be able to deal with them. Building societies were well aware that there was trouble lying ahead because, as he said, it was in January, despite the rebukes from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they indicated they would not be able to loan so much money.
  Twice in his speech today the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the fact that the loans by the building societies during the first quarter of this year were higher than in previous years. He ought to know the reason, but apparently he does not, and I feel it my duty to explain it to him. It is the practice that when a developing builder wishes to erect houses for sale he goes to a reputable building society, shows the plan, indicates the price and interests the building society in supporting it. That is done over a period of two or three years, in many cases, and between well-established builders and reputable building societies these arrangements are honoured to the full. It is because of these arrangements that the amount of money loaned by the building societies during the first quarter of the year was so substantial.
  A further thing which the right hon. Gentleman ought to know is that there is a period of delay between the issue of an offer by a building society and the completion of the purchase by the solicitors acting on behalf of the purchaser. What does that mean for the period in which we are now engaged, when the money is very short for building societies? Much of their income from the public is already hypothecated. Some promises have been made to old-established connections for building new houses and
  672
  offers to finance existing houses have been agreed between the society and the respective borrower which will be implemented in the near future.
  I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman, despite all his skill, the advantages of a great public school and a great university, had nothing with which to cheer the young couple, the young couple who voted for him in October and who are now married. Soon there will be a baby and soon they will be wanting a bigger house than they will be able to think about if the Government go on at the present rate of progress. The Government have fully disrupted the building industry. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but perhaps he will examine the case by putting these points to builders whom, I understand, he is to meet in the next few months.
  The position is this. Building developments move forward stage by stage. The usual thing is that the roads and the sewers are put in and then a gang of men start building foundations. On to these foundations the bricklayer puts his bricks. As the house goes up, other trades come in. Due to the difficulty which purchasers are experiencing in securing finance, builders are stopping this orderly progression and are diverting all the labour to finishing off completed houses, because they believe that there are two places in which a building site can be left—first, at the foundation level, where the risks of vandalism are very slight; and, secondly, at the completed stage where the houses can be properly looked after, a show-house be available, and of which, when the money is available, the purchaser can secure immediate possession. Thus, all the various trades are now getting completely out of step. Despite the Minister's speech and despite the promises, nothing has been done. All the fine talk we heard this afternoon will not help one girl or one fellow to move into the home they want.
  Where is the 3 per cent. interest rate which was talked about in Boston and in Spalding by the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs? It is more than double that now.
  Let us examine what should be done. It is not a question of the building societies enduring a temporary difficulty.

  673
  The fact is that the people of this country do not believe that the Government intended to keep the promises they made. The Government were out for vote-catching and, as the Minister said, this promise attracted thousands of votes. That is on the record. Thousands of people will curse themselves for believing the promises which were made then.
  The Minister talked about orderly planning. The orderly planning we have seen since the Minister took office in October has had these results. It is more difficult for the people to whom he promised a loan at a low rate of interest to get any loan at all, even at a high rate of interest. Despite the promises and the pledges of increased house building, fewer houses will be built. The right hon. Gentleman told us that no one builder whom he asked could give him a figure. Of course no one builder could. Let him ask the officials in his box under the Gallery for advice as to the number they expect. I believe that they will certainly accept a figure of 50,000 to 60,000.
  What is needed is this. It is necessary to insert and bring to the help of the people about the same amount of money for about the same number of houses as was available last year. The flood gates should not be opened so that there is any amount of money coming forward, because that would increase prices all the way round. On the other hand, money should not be limited without proper attention being given to the number of advances on which it should be made.
  I believe that there are four steps which ought to be considered, and at least one of which it is essential that the Government should take. The first is the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), a restarting of the House Purchase and Housing Act. That would help people living in the older houses, on the one hand, to sell their houses and move into something better, if they so desire. It would also help others who have not previously been house owners to start in a modest way with a rate of repayment which they can well afford.
  However, if because it was a jolly good Act introduced by the Tories the
  674
  Minister has political prejudices against revising it, let him bring in one of his own. The doctrine is already instituted as to how it can be worked. Recovery from the Treasury worked perfectly well. Let the Minister bring in a House Purchase (Young Persons) Act, and suggest that it is to be available only on similar terms for young people who have been married since the date of the election. That might help a bit. Why not do it?
  If the Minister says that it would mean legislation, I ask him to appreciate that, as a White Paper to be issued tomorrow is to be debated next Thursday, it is possible for business to be arranged with remarkable dispatch. If that can be done by one side of the House of Commons, what can be done by both sides?
  Thirdly, if the Minister does not like that, he might introduce a Bill assisting people who have never purchased houses of their own before. I think that this would probably be the least satisfactory of the schemes.
  I think that the right thing to do would be to enable the building societies to go to the bank as a bank of last resort and borrow from the bank a sufficient sum of money to enable them to advance the same amount of sterling in 1965 as they advanced in 1964. It would be right, I think, to couple with that a requirement that at least the same number of houses should be financed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley suggested that legislation might be required. He may be right. My own feeling is that the building societies are entitled to borrow from the banks.
  Mr. Heath: I said that I doubted whether legislation was required.
  Sir H. Butcher: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. He and I, as always, are in accord. The answer is that legislation is not required. Therefore, this scheme can be started tomorrow if the legal advisers of the Government accord. If it can be started tomorrow, why is it not being started tomorrow? Why has there been this long delay?
  The Minister spoke of the bright and beautiful plans he has for the future. That is not what the Government won their thousands of votes on in October of

  675
  last year. It was on the specific pledges in which they are in default. When the Prime Minister was in New York, he told the Americans that we were going to kick the hell out of them. It is this Government who have kicked the hell out of the building industry. It is this Government who have kicked the hell out of the building societies. It is this Government who have kicked the hell out of the young people whom they deluded. Judging by the faces behind them, they have kicked the hell out of their own supporters, too.
  The Chairman (Dr. Horace King): I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) in the midst of his eloquent speech, but I must remind him and the Committee that it is not in order to call attention to the presence of strangers, unless there is some deliberate motive for doing so.
  Sir H. Butcher: I apologise to the Chair.
  5.27 p.m.
  Mrs. Lena Jeger: This side of the Committee should be greatly indebted to the Opposition for having given my right hon. Friend the Minister the opportunity of putting before the House of Commons and the country his comprehensive and thorough approach to the housing problem. What has bedevilled the housing situation for generations is the way in which the needs of the people of this country for homes of their own have been approached in an attitude of splinter—of differentiation—between one set of people and another, between the owner-occupier, the council tenant and the tenant of a private landlord.
  I believe that this problem is much simpler and much less serious than is often supposed. We are still spending not much more than 3 per cent. of our national income on housing. It is absolutely absurd for a talented and prosperous nation like ours to be unable to provide for the simplest and most basic human need, which is a home to live in. We have run into unnecessary difficulties in the past because of the separateness of these approaches. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be very radical in preparing his long-term plans. For
  676
  instance, I do not see the logic of allowing Income Tax relief on mortgage repayments, which helps the millionaire buying a mansion, whereas the postman who is buying a semi-detached house and who has three or four children and who is, therefore, not in the Income Tax bracket at all is not assisted in any way. I hope that the Government will give attention to this aspect.
  If we are to make money at low interest rates available for housing, it is very important that my right hon. Friend should turn his able and agile mind to the possibility of some control of the prices of houses. It would be absolutely useless and would defeat the purpose which we have in mind if we made available to a young married couple or a middle-aged couple a sum of money at a reduced rate of interest and reduced cost of assistance from public funds if the only result was that the price of the house which last year would have been £4,000 went up to £6,000. How is their budget helped if the interest is reduced but the capital sum is increased? It is worth reminding the House that the price of new houses has gone up since 1956 by 55 per cent. I thought that this was an impossibly high figure, but as I am quoting from the Bulletin of the Building Societies' Association I must be correct in passing this figure on to the House.
  I know the opinion of many hon. Member opposite that it is scarcity of houses which has led to the increase in their cost, but I do not think that we can let the needs of so many of our people fall a victim to the jungle of supply and demand without any regulation. Nor do I think that this is necessarily true, because I find from the same impeccable source that in 1964 the cost of new housing went up by 8 per cent. compared with 7 per cent. in 1963, although more houses were built in 1964 than were built in 1963. I believe that the people's need for housing is so infinite that it will be generations before any equation between supply and demand could make a real impact on this difficult problem.
  I was specially interested in reading in the Evening News last night about some houses in Brighton the price of which has been reduced by £1,250. The

  677
  reason for it is a dearth of money available for mortgage. The Evening News said:
  "Ways must be found to make more money available to the young, would-be buyer to enable the housing drive to continue full pelt."
  To turn slightly aside from my main argument, I do not suppose that the builder who cut his price by £1,250 has come to great harm or suffered serious loss. I should like to know what profit was left to him after that cut.
  We distort the whole problem as long as we allow completely uncontrolled profiteering to go on in this important sector. I serve notice on my right hon. Friend that I should be rather grieved if we made public money available without accompanying it by some system of control, otherwise the increased availability of mortgages would force up prices and nobody except the builder would be any better off in the long run.
  This question of interest rates which we have to consider, particularly today in relation to the owner-occupier, is tremendously relevant to local authority building and to the private sector because reduction in one sector obviously affects the demand elsewhere. I have found that there are great advantages in using local authorities for making mortgage arrangements. The local authority which I know best is able to put the services of a surveyor, a valuer and solicitors in the town clerk's department to help people to carry out what can be the very expensive process of house-purchase more economically than when they make ordinary arrangements. I would hope that my right hon. Friend would be looking at the whole subject of housing finance in its widest aspect. Obviously the housing subsidies play a part in this and it would be only fair for people who want to buy their own homes to be helped similarly.
  I am sure that it would be more helpful to local authorities, as well as to private builders and those who wanted to buy their houses privately, if cheap money were made available even if subsidies as well as Income Tax reliefs on mortgages were abolished. At the moment in the borough which I know best subsidies are working out at less than the interest which the council has to pay to moneylenders. I see from
  678
  the Report of the Municipal Treasurers that this is the pattern for the whole country. This seems to me to be a piece of most absurd book-keeping which I hope will be reviewed.
  I am haunted by a remark made at the 1963 annual conference of the Royal Institute of British Architects by the city architect of Sheffield who set out the economics of a modest three-bedroomed house bought for £2,500 at 6 per cent. interest over 60 years. The result was 53 per cent. for interest payments, 17 per cent. for cost of building, 3 per cent. for land—it must be cheap in Sheffield—15 per cent. for rates and 12 per cent. for maintenance. The Sheffield city architect's comment was:
  "This poor little house is itself answerable for only 17 per cent. of its cost."
  I submit to my right hon. Friend that while we are basing our housing programme in any centre on this sort of arithmetic we shall not get any sense into the housing drive.
  It is very easy to exaggerate the difficulties, but I believe that we can deal with them. I want to see the local authorities used much more fully. It has to be said that if we believe that housing is a social service which has to be supplied to our people over its widest range then obviously separate arrangements must he made for housing finance. Much of the comment in the Press which has referred to the possibility of a reduction in the Bank Rate as a major way of helping is irrelevant. I am not the only one to think this. I come back to the invaluable document from the Building Societies' Association. In February the Association's chairman said:
  "To lead borrowers to expect a reduction in mortgage rates should there be a reduction in Bank rate is both dangerous and false, because there is not the slightest hope that their rates could be reduced on such a change, unless, by chance, it coincided in time with a considerable upsurge in the flow of savings …"
  This is of no comfort to those who are seeking a home of their own. This is why I am confident that my right hon. Friend, by making these special and different arrangements which will take housing finance out of the generality of the money market, will make a fundamental and lasting contribution towards solving what is in itself a simple, basic and elementary question.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Bessell: The right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) drew attention to part of the Labour Party's 1964 election manifesto. I make no apology for returning to the section which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. It would not be possible to debate this subject seriously today without reminding the Government of the pledges which they made to the electorate and from which they obtained so many additional votes. In the manifesto, the Labour Party declared unequivocally as follows:
  "Labour will:
  (i) Introduce a policy of lower interest rates for housing. … This policy of special favourable rates will apply both to intending owner occupiers and to local authorities building houses to let."
  There is no division between the three parties represented in the House or, I suspect, between Members as individuals, on the desirability of achieving such a worth-while objective. The country at large desires a system which will enable people to obtain new homes easily and at favourable rates. We know that slum clearance is proceeding too slowly. Far too many people are still living in conditions which would have been archaic even at the beginning of the century and which today are a disgrace in a modern civilisation.
  Lack of good housing has created a situation in which many bad landlords have been able to flourish, and this has caused grave concern to everyone inside and outside the House. It should not be forgotten that bad housing not only creates bad landlords but creates bad tenants. It is not entirely their fault.
  Bad housing and squalid conditions, through their psychological effect, are a ready source of crime and moral decline generally. How can any young couple setting out in life with the problems of bringing up a young family hope to succeed in their marriage if they are asked to live in conditions which are often quite intolerable.
  It is not, therefore, untypical of a radical party seeking to form the Government that it should give such priority in its election campaign to the need for building new houses rapidly, enabling local authorities to provide additional homes at reasonable rents and giving the
  680
  opportunity to young people and others to buy their homes at fair and low rates of mortgage interest.
  This policy of Her Majesty's Government, as it was expressed in the election campaign, had for some of us the added merit that it was not doctrinaire Socialism. On the contrary, one of its aims was to encourage the spread of ownership and wealth among individuals. If some of us were a little surprised at this advance, we were none the less pleased to see it.
  The election speeches of leaders of the Labour Party, the present Government, led the electorate to believe that, whatever else might take second place in a Labour Government's programme, there could be no danger of housing being put at the bottom of the list. For this reason, perhaps, more than any other, I was bitterly disappointed in the speech of the Minister this afternoon. He did not present us with a dynamic programme which had been carefully evolved, not necessarily in the 13 years while the Government were in Opposition, but in the last six months. There has been ample time to anticipate the present situation and ample time to produce a programme of correction.
  I am not suggesting—it would be unreasonable to do so—that the Minister could possibly have solved the problems of financing local authorities or giving assistance to building societies in the short time in which the Government have been in office, but I do suggest that there has been an opportunity for taking precautionary measures to prevent the development of a situation the danger of which has been clear to many people for a long time. My noble Friend Lord Wade, in his maiden speech in another place, pointed out that, for more than nine months, the building societies had been warning both the past Administration and the present Government of the danger of the situation. Clearly, there has been an opportunity to do something, but the opportunity has been lost.
  I recognise the sincere and genuine disappointment which must be felt by members of Her Majesty's Government that they have been unable to fulfil their election pledge in this matter and have been unable, so far at least, to indicate when they will be able to do so. I shall

  681
  not rehash the arguments about responsibility, whether it is because they inherited a financial crisis that they did not expect, because they are no longer relevant. The, financial crisis was known to Her Majesty's Government at least six, if not seven, months ago. Therefore, they have had opportunity to plan within the framework of the conditions which they inherited.
  It is disturbing that, far from having improved, the housing situation, in spite of the intentions of the Government as expressed at the time of the election, has deteriorated. This is something which must be answered, and it must be faced fairly and honestly by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. To take one of the existing problems, the building societies are having great difficulty at present in attracting investment. I shall not labour a point which has been made already more than adequately by previous speakers.
  It may well be that this is only a temporary state of affairs. I have no lack of confidence in the ability of the building societies to overcome their problems. They form one of the most important financial institutions of this country, and I have complete confidence in them, as I am sure every hon. Member has. But the fact remains that they have a problem which prevents them from making advances at favourable rates to people who wish to become home owners.
  It has been suggested, not in this debate but outside the House, that building societies retain far too much money as reserve. I do not accept this. On the contrary, I believe that one of the great pillars of strength of the building societies is that they know that they can always meet a call, however large or however sudden, and one of the reasons why they have been so successful in attracting investment, in spite of the comparatively low rate of interest which is frequently offered, is that people know that it is a good, sound and safe investment. If any inroads were to be made into their reserves, some of that confidence would be lost, and the consequences would be disastrous not only for the building societies themselves but for the economy of the country as a whole.
  682
  The Government could, and I believe should, give immediate assistance to the building societies. One or two suggestions have been put forward from this side of the Committee. One that the Minister should at least consider is whether it would not be possible for the Public Works Loans Board to allow access to funds by the building societies, even as a temporary measure to assist them over the present situation.
  I think it is also very important that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should look again at the Corporation Tax and the Capital Gains Tax as they affect the building societies because, quite clearly, there is an important issue at stake and one which will affect the house building programme to which the Government are so clearly pledged and action upon which is expected throughout the country.
  The Government could do worse than initiate discussions between the building societies and some of the major insurance houses to see whether sums could not be made available to them from that source. It might well be that, if a temporary tax incentive were granted to insurance houses, some of the very considerable capital reserves for which investment is sought by many of the insurance companies could be made available to building societies to assist them over the present situation.
  Another matter to which the Minister should draw the Chancellor's attention is the question of what will be the effect of the new 5 per cent. Post Office savings account programme on investment in building societies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) put that question specifically to the Chancellor but received no satisfactory answer.
  I believe that a far more serious situation exists for the local authorities. Many have been compelled to cease making loans for house purchase because of the rate which they have had to pay to borrow the money. One model borough in my constituency, Saltash, has just resumed making loans for private house purchase and is charging at the rate of 7¼ per cent. for a 25–year loan and 7⅛ per cent. for a 30–year loan.
  Saltash makes no secret of the fact that it is not anxious to encourage young

  683
  people to tie this kind of millstone around their necks, but I believe that Saltash and other local authorities making these loans are abundantly right to take this line. Yet, what a disappointment it is, what a bitter blow it represents, to the young couples who after the last election genuinely believed that the Government would be in a position to offer them homes at lower rates of interest. Whatever the Minister may say, the fact is that today those young couples are compelled to pay a very much higher rate than previously.
  I am not out of sympathy with the Government in this situation. I do not attempt to disguise that I recognise their problem, but they must have a programme to meet it, and it is that which we demand should be presented to the Committee. I believe that the problem facing the Government is threefold.
  First, they must provide money for the continuation of the present rate of house building and purchase. Secondly, they must provide money for the necessary expansion. Finally, they have to provide the money to maintain their election pledge to reduce mortgage rates to local authority and private purchasers. It is not sufficient to blame the last Administration for shortsightedness or absence of planning. A properly phased programme without extravagant promises must be offered now. We have a national plan for education and a national plan for roads. Why cannot we have a national plan for house building, which is what we expected from a Government who have always maintained their faith in planning?
  If money is the main factor the Government should face up to one question squarely. If the Government are to spend a sum which might be as large as £600 million in compensating the shareholders in the steel industry in order to nationalise that industry, that will bring small comfort to those who are living together in houses in overcrowded conditions. Moreover, if after taking office again after a break of 13 years they decide that instead of giving priority to their pledge to produce more homes at better rates of interest, they give priority to the nationalisation of steel, then I say that, like the Bourbon kings of France after their restoration, they will be found to
  684
  have learnt nothing and to have forgotten nothing and they will go to the country unforgiven.
  5.56 p.m.
  Mr. W. T. Williams: Save for some of his digressions, I do not really disagree with very much that was said by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), nor do I think that we should consider only the long-term answers. But the hon. Gentleman did not, of course, tell us what is of some interest—whether or not he is for us or against us on this Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is against the Government."] The hon. Gentleman has many hon. Friends answering for him, but no doubt when the Division comes he will answer for himself.
  Mr. Bessell: I thought that I had made the position of my party and of myself quite clear. If I did not, let me assure the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) that we shall vote against the Government tonight.
  Mr. Williams: It is good to know where the Liberals stand on at least one occasion. There can be little real dispute that the present situation of housing and housing loans is one that must demand and obtain from the Government an attempt at long-term radical solution. But, since the Opposition wished to raise the debate in this form, I am puzzled because the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) did little more than pose again the problems with which the Government are faced. He did not attempt to make any real answer.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Government had stultified the Conservative legacy of 43,000 houses in the pipeline which, he said, the Government were now cutting back. This is an example of the lack of clarity and of the woolliness with which the Conservatives approach every problem and certainly of the way in which they have approached every attack that they have made on the Government. What is important at this stage, when considering a long-term solution, is that the reality of the situation with which we are immediately faced should be seen. I agree that the problem is not fundamentally difficult. It is difficult of solution, but the problem itself is clear.

  685
  We are faced with two quite separate difficulties demanding different answers, and they must be kept separate. There is the difficulty of what one might call the capital failure, of which the building societies in particular are complaining and the result of which, we have been told unceasingly in the newspapers of late, is that building is to be substantially cut back. Figures amounting to 50,000 and even 75,000 fewer houses to be built have been mentioned. There is also the quite separate and distinct difficulty of high interest rates.
  The hon. Member for Bodmin and the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) spoke of their unwillingness at this stage to attempt any longer to excuse the Government for high interest rates on the basis that they knew when they came to power that they were faced with a d difficult economic situation.
  Mr. Bassell: I did not say that. What I said was that I could not forgive the Government for failing to produce a plan to overcome this.
  Mr. Williams: I do not think that there is any real difference between us. What the hon. Gentleman is now saying is that, faced with the difficulty of the present interest situation, the Government should have dealt with that in order to meet the housing mortgage crisis.
  This is a grossly unfair charge to make against the Government. My object is not so much to convert the Opposition, for that is impossible, but to allow the country to see the problem through my spectacles. It is a grossly unfair accusation to make against the Government, for the fact is that no Government coming into power in the economic situation with which the Government were faced would have been able to solve all the differing claimant demands from people who for many years had had their rightful dues denied them by an indifferent Government. Since we have been in power, we have been faced with the problem of trying to put right things like pensions and the Health Service, all making unceasing demands on us and forcing us to face a system of priorities which would not necessarily have been of our own choosing.
  In that situation, this is not a problem which can be solved in isolation, and the country ought readily to recognise that, even though the problem cannot immedi-
  686
  ately be solved, a party which has kept its other promises is not to be condemned for failing to keep this promise and is to be believed when it says that it is its intention in the near future to keep this promise also.
  Even this is not the most serious aspect of the problem now facing the Government, for although it is true that interest rates are high, and although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) that the Government at some time must be prepared to offer some kind of solution if high interest rates continue, even in the near future, a solution along the lines suggested by Professor Merrett and Alan Sykes—that people who do not pay Income Tax should still be allowed a rebate as though they paid Income Tax, for even if the interest figure were 7 per cent. the effective rate for those paying Income Tax would be about 4–3 per cent.—there is a much more urgent and difficult problem about which there appears to be a great deal of misunderstanding, and that is the so-called capital failure.
  It is appalling that the building industry should lend itself, as it has, to the suggestion that the cut-back as a result of the capital failure might mean a reduction of about 50,000 to 75,000 houses. This is not true and since the building industry has been meeting the Minister it has admitted that it is not true. In these circumstances, it is utterly false to make use of this kind of propaganda and to create the sort of panic against which even the building societies themselves are now registering their protests.
  I was puzzled by the speech of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston. Although he did not tell us—perhaps he should have done—he is a director of a building society.
  Sir H. Butcher: I opened my speech by at once indicating that I was a director of a building society and also of a company engaged in houses for sale.
  Mr. Williams: I apologise. My attention must have been drawn away. I was not making any serious criticism of the hon. Member, but I apologise. He is the director of a building society. I have not had the opportunity of knowing

  687
  what the building societies have told the Minister, but what building societies other than the hon. Gentleman's have said publicly is that the last thing they want in the present situation is to have a momentary and temporary difficulty of theirs elevated into a panic.
  The building societies themselves are not beyond criticism for the way in which they have been led into their present situation. I think that it was The Economist which in January said that what the building societies were suffering from was not a shortage of finance but a shortage of nerve. What they have failed to do is to attempt to create for themselve a situation in which they cease to be as vulnerable as they have continued to be against every change in the monetary climate. The problem of the building societies is that for all their experience they have not yet learned whether to borrow short or long term. Every adjustment in the Bank Rate, certainly since I have been a Member of Parliament—and in that time there have been many—has always caught the building societies short, and invariably, certainly in recent years, they have altered their terms to meet changes in the Bank Rate.
  Sir Erie Errington: I follow what the hon. Gentleman is arguing and what he is saying about the building societies, but surely the real issue is the Government's promise at the election that they would lower interest rates and put them on an entirely lower basis. It is possible for the hon. Gentleman to criticise the building societies, although I do not agree with that, but during the election campaign the Labour Party said that it would reduce interest rates and give specially favourable terms to borrowers.
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Member has not sat throughout the debate.
  Sir E. Errington: I have.
  Mr. Williams: What I began by saying was that I thought that there were two quite separate problems and that the Government's undertaking was to be accepted and that in the long-term they would yet fulfil this promise as they had fulfilled others. The hon. Gentleman may dispute it, but that was my original thesis.
  688
  There is certainly a need for the building societies to put their own house in order in relation to their short-term and long-term borrowing and lending. They need to reorganise their borrowing procedures so that they may achieve greater harmony between their borrowing and lending. I was going to suggest many ways in which it might have been done. They are not unknown to the building societies because nothing that I am saying is original. There are other sources from which they can get their information. If that had been done, this problem would not have arisen.
  The fact is that the building societies financially are still enormously strong. But they are in a difficult situation because they have too much liquidity. If, faced with difficulties, they had maintained the situation and continued lending they would have been in a better position to come to the Government and ask for help. [Interruption.] Faced with a temporary difficult situation, one must meet it with extraordinary measures. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but laughter is never a substitute for argument. What I am seeking to do is to put forward what I believe is a possible solution to an immediate difficulty.
  Mr. Bessell Mr. Bessell rose—
  Mr. Williams: I cannot give way again.
  Although I have not said half of what I wanted to say, I must be content with this. This situation has long-term consequences of very great significance about which my right hon. Friend has spoken and of which I believe the Government will take notice and look, as I hope, not to the building societies for as much assistance as they have provided in the past but rather to local authorities. Whatever the long-term solutions may be, the main gravamen of the thesis on this other aspect of the two matters with which I have attempted to deal is this. Bearing in mind the difficulties and problems in many respects with which the Government have been faced, it is, in my view, a gross abuse of the duties of Parliament at this stage to make an attack, remembering that during this debate a good deal of the attack has been blunted. Many admissions have been made that the situation is not what it has been cracked up to be.

  689
  The case which the Government have put forward has been amply justified, and the Opposition's censure on the Government is utterly unjustified.
  6.14 p.m.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) saw fit to indulge in an attack on the building societies, which I thought was unfair. I was the more sorry because, in many ways, I preferred his speech to that of the Minister. The hon. and learned Gentleman at least recognised that there was an urgent and difficult situation. In all honesty, I do not think that the Minister did.
  In the last week or two I have been wondering how a situation which it was plain to those of us with no official responsibilities was developing and of which my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) gave warning a week or two ago, had been allowed to develop without any action being taken by the Government or by the responsible Minister. When I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, the matter became only too plain. The smug satisfaction in which he indulged and his complete refusal to recognise awkward and embarrassing facts gave the clue to how what is undoubtedly a serious situation had been allowed to develop in complete breach, as the Committee has been reminded more than once, of the Government's pledges and without a finger being raised to check it. The whole attitude of the right hon. Gentleman made that only too plain.
  What is the remedy which the Minister offers us? We are faced with a situation of real seriousness. I hope that no one denies that. The hon. and learned Member did not deny it. If anyone denies it, I invite his attention to the Pre3s statement formally put out by the Federation of Registered House Builders, after its meeting in London on the 23rd of this month. It referred to a survey which the Federation had undertaken through its widely spread membership and said:
  "This information, although not covering the whole country, clearly shows that even at this stage at least one prospective purchaser out of four will not be able to get a house this year and that the situation is bound to get worse unless immediate steps are taken to make it easier for purchasers to borrow the money they need".
  690
  In comments afterwards, the President of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers said:
  "Bearing in mind that private builders put up and sell nearly 225,000 houses a year, if this process continues the effect on the nation's housing programme could well be disastrous. The question is: does the Government really want to deny home ownership to people and thereby force them into rented accommodation which is already severely limited?"
  I think that hon. Members will repeat that question with more pointedness after hearing the Minister's speech.
  Faced by a situation described not by political opponents of his but by the responsible business body concerned, what does the Minister offer us? He said that he was glad to tell hon. Members that by the summer he would have some plans which he would be able to discuss with the outside bodies concerned with a view to introducing legislation next Session. Then he added that he is to have—he has not, apparently, had—talks with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the rôle which Exchequer finance could play in a national housing plan. That is all we had. In view of the situation about which evidence has been given by people completely independent of political allegiance, it is clear that the housing programme is faced with a most serious situation this year.
  That was a very remarkable attitude for the responsible Minister to adopt. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I do not know that we need complain about his absence. His presence made no contribution to the debate. However, the right hon. Gentleman—and I am sorry that he is not present, for this reason—made some extraordinary statements about the building societies He referred with complete detachment to a setback to the building societies. There was no suggestion that this was a setback to the Government's housing programme or to the Labour Party's pledges. Then he made a most remarkable observation which reduced even his own hon. Friends to expressions of surprise. He said that he had to help the building societies to overcome the lack of confidence in them caused by Tory speeches.
  It is not Tories who have criticised the building societies. It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who attacked them when they took a step which, as my right

  691
  hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) reminded us, if they had not taken would have caused an even greater shortage of funds than there is now. Let the Chief Secretary to the Treasury speak for his right hon. Friend the Chancellor if he needs to protect the building societies.
  The right hon. Gentleman made another observation—I do not know whether the Chief Secretary will be able to explain it, even with his considerable powers of exposition; he has a good deal to explain as it is—that there could not be permitted a completely uncontrolled increase in building society advances. What does that mean? In the circumstances in which they are being cut back, it has a certain brutal irony about it.
  Does that mean that if, as a result of their efforts—because they will not get any help, apparently, from the Government for a long time—the building societies can restore the situation, the Government will interfere with their advances? If it does not mean that, why did the Minister say it? What was the purpose of that? The Minister gave an indication that in his great building plan for the future, private enterprise building would not go unchecked. Was that a threat of building licensing? Was it a hint of that? If not, again, why was it said?
  I am glad that the Minister has returned in time to answer perhaps one of my questions. He made a virtue of the fact that he had seen the building societies. It was this week, was it not, after this debate had been announced? Would he have seen them at all if my right hon. and hon. Friends had not given notice that we would raise this subject? When the Minister saw them, did he put before them a plan for assisting on the rates of interest? If the right hon. Gentleman does not answer this, the Committee will draw its own conclusions. The right hon. Gentleman summoned them because of this debate and he put no considered proposals before them, even though he has been six months in office, with all the pledges of his party behind him.
  The situation is one for which the Government are responsible. Indeed, they have achieved—I must pay tribute to them—what had previously been
  692
  thought by all economists to be impossible: a shortage of funds for building and very high rates of interest. They have succeeded in achieving them both at the same time. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley said, it is the result of their policies—high taxation, high rates of interest, the shortage and drawing off and diversion of funds in other directions, grinding taxation and adverse effects on savings. The Committee knows this. People outside know it.
  It is not for the right hon. Gentleman—as I have said this in his absence, I say it now to his face—to refer with an air of airy detachment to this setback to the building societies when what is happening is that, as a direct result of Government policy, matters to which he and his hon. Friends are pledged are going by default. It is their fault.
  Had the Minister seen the faces of his hon. Friends behind him as he was speaking this afternoon, he would have noted it. It is a sad and sorry and, I would say, dishonourable thing that after six months in office, faced by this situation, all that the right hon. Gentleman can offer is plans to be discussed with the outside bodies in the summer and legislation next Session. Why next Session?
  The right hon. Gentleman himself, in an earlier Parliamentary Answer, said that there was not time for the legislation. Is that really true? Is such legislation ready? If it is not ready, the right hon. Gentleman's remark about parliamentary time was irrelevant and misleading. If it is ready, it is a rather curious example of the Government's priorities that they can find room for the Steel Bill, a Measure which is hardly likely to pass "on the nod". They can find time for a Measure to permit trade union officials with impunity to victimise individuals and drive them out of their jobs, but they cannot find time for a Measure designed to carry out their own election pledges.
  On the rate of interest, which is one of those pledges, I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that it can be argued that it is unreasonable to expect a Government, even a Government poised for resolute action, full of the new thinking and all that, to carry out all their election pledges at once. What

  693
  we can criticise the Government for is, having promised and pledged themselves up to the hilt to secure lower interest rates, not doing something about it when, under their rule, those interest rates actually rise, and rise to the highest level since the war. The pledges are absolutely clear: implicitly that funds shall be available; explicitly that they shall be available at cheap rates.
  We know the facts. We know, as I have said, that building society rates are the highest since the war, and the building societies are criticised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for doing that in a situation which he has created. We know what the local authority rates are when local authorities are able to lend at all. We know that many of them have given up lending. Among those who are lending, as compared with the 6¾ per cent. of the building societies we have the Greater London Council at 7¼ or 7⅛ per cent. according to the length of loan and a great many others over 7 per cent., imposing a heavy burden on just those young married couples to whom the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made those emotional appeals at the General Election.
  What is so extraordinary is that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have not seen this coming. Warned again and again in the Press, warned by the Federation of Registered House Builders, warned of the consequences, they did absolutely nothing. The most startling thing of all was the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, when he was rebuking the building societies for raising their rates of interest. On 19th January, he said in the House:
  "I believe that many of the building societies are being unduly pessimistic about their capacity to raise money in present circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1965 Vol. 705, c. 23.]
  It is, indeed, fortunate for those who want to buy a home that the building societies had wiser financial judgment than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His record in this is astonishing. On 23rd November—this is quoted at the head of a leading article in The Times today—the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "We are urgently considering whether some means can be found of mitigating the severity of the increase in Bank Rate on the housing programme."
  Six months ago, the Chancellor said that he was "urgently considering" it.
  694
  If he had been only actively considering it, I suppose it would have been a year. What is so startling is the way that the Government have ignored all these warnings on something which a sense of honour, if nothing else, should have caused them to take action.
  We have the Minister of Housing and Local Government pointing out, with naïve surprise, that there are still plenty of people actually wishing to borrow. Of course there are. But what, despite the high rate of interest, they cannot do, is to get the funds. It is a little brutal of the right hon. Gentleman to make a virtue of the fact that many people are seeking the possibility of getting a home when his Government have denied it them.
  Let us be clear what the Government are pledged to do. Take their election manifesto. Page 15 states:
  "At the same time, we shall go ahead with a sustained programme to provide more homes at prices that ordinary people can afford.
  Labour will:
  (i) Introduce a policy of lower interest rates for housing."
  Then there is another document entitled "When Labour Wins". This document is adorned with a picture of the Prime Minister, which was probably taken some years ago. It is a picture, in every sense of the term, of a promising young man, but when Labour wins this is what happens. The promise was to bring down interest rates for both intending owner-occupiers and local authorities building houses to let.
  The election address of the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary of State, decorated again with Brown and Belper, said:
  "Special low interest rates for house purchase by intending owner-occupiers—or local authorities—will halt the soaring cost of homes."
  We had pledge after pledge from the party opposite. The Prime Minister's election address said:
  "100 per cent. mortgages, lower interest rates and cheaper legal charges will help those who wish to buy."
  That sort of pledge was made speech after speech, and in broadcast after broadcast. Indeed, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in one of those bursts of frankness which are so attractive on his part, said with truth that this pledge had won for the party opposite the

  695
  votes of thousands of young married couples, and, I would add, of thousands more young people who want to be young married couples, but cannot be until they get a home in which to live. This is the result. The right hon. Gentleman says, "There will be discussions, producing a plan which I can show to the outside bodies in the summer, with a view to legislation next summer".
  Does the right hon. Gentleman think for a moment that if those who voted for him, as he said on the strength of this pledge, had known that after six months of Labour Government the building societies' lending rate would be 6¾ per cent., and that the local authority loan rate would be 7¼ per cent., and that even at those rates many people would be turned away, he would be sitting there at all today? The Treasury Bench is so littered with pledges on this subject that it looks like a pawn shop. All that we are offered is no action at all, an attack on building societies, and an attack on those who provide housing by private enterprise. We are given a vague promise of a national housing plan some time next year. That is all that the people outside are offered.
  I sometimes wonder, and I am wondering even more now, whether the Government really care about home ownership. We do. Under the Conservative Government, the percentage of homes owned by the people who lived in them rose from 29 per cent. in 1951 to 44 per cent. last year, a tremendous social development. We care about this. Do right hon. Gentlemen opposite care? I though that I detected in the right hon. Gentleman's speech a preference for the council estate, for its arbitrary bureaucracy, with every door and window painted the colour which the borough surveyor likes. I thought that I detected a desire to cut back private building.
  Mr. Crossman: Nonsense.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense", but that has been the policy of his party in the past. Let me remind him what was said by a greater figure in the Labour Party than himself. Mr. Aneurin Bevan said:
  "Inside the Labour Party, there has always been argument as to whether we ought to have allowed any private building for sale at all."
  696
  —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 2256.]
  He also made an attack on building societies, and here, perhaps, he was a forerunner of the right hon. Gentleman, when he said that building societies were little if anything better than moneylenders, and that to describe them as building societies was a complete misnomer. What we want to know, and what I am certain people outside want to know, is not only whether the Government can devise means to help those who want to buy a home, but whether they want to do so, and whether they are prepared to make the effort to do so.
  The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall the article that he wrote in the New Statesman some years ago, entitled "The Stimulus of Defeat". He will probably have to write another under that title before long. I often wonder whether he feels that home ownership means that people living in their own homes perhaps become Tories, I do not know, but he must realise that our people have an enormous urge to own a home of their own, and not to be dependent on any landlord, however amiable, or any local authority, however benevolent.
  That is not particularly a craving of the very rich. On the whole, they live in rented flats and villas. It is a characteristic of some of the best, most effective and active of our people. We in the Conservative Party have sought to serve this during the last 13 years, with the result that there has been this massive increase in home ownership, with the immense contribution that that has made to human happiness. It has meant the security of a home of one's own, with which no local authority and no landlord can interfere, as a basis for family life for bringing up children decently. Security in a home of one's own is a powerful urge. That is why people are prepared to make great sacrifices. That is why they are prepared to pay even the present rates, if they can get an advance at all, to have a home of their own and to live self-respectfully in their own homes.
  This is a deep urge in our people. It is an urge which the right hon. Gentleman frustrates at his peril. The pledges which have been made are clear and explicit, and I cannot see how any Minister could fail to take some steps now to implement them, or resign, because they

  697
  are so clear and explicit. Far more important than the transient pledges of a transient party is the real social issue which underlies this, that of the Englishman owning and living in his own home.
  This is the issue which the Government thwart at their peril. Unless they redeem their pledges, unless they take effective action to help, either in the way suggested by my right hon. Friend, or in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), they will lose a great deal more in the estimation of the British people than the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends realise. After this performance, and after his speech, I cannot see how any sensible elector can ever trust a Labour Party pledge again.
  I beg to move that Class VI, Vote 1 (Ministry of Housing and Local Government) be reduced by £1,000.
  6.39 p.m.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): It is because I share many of the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) about the desirability of home ownership, a sentiment which is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall not get very far if I cannot make a statement like that.
  It is because I share the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member that I wanted to say how glad I was to hear him repeat those phrases, and how sorry I was that in the course of a 25-minute speech he did not suggest one thing which would help. There was not even the suspicion of a policy, no idea at all of what he would do, or what we should do, beyond requesting the resignation of my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I am happy to know that apart from one sugge3tion made by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher), right hon. and hon. Members opposite have made exactly the same proposals for dealing with this problem as they made during their 13 years of office—none.
  What is it that we are supposed to be dealing with? In every speech by an hon. Member opposite the problem that has been put before us has been represented as the crisis facing the building societies and the lack of finance for mortgages.
  698
  The right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) said, "There is an acute shortage of mortgage funds. The process of changing houses is grinding to a halt." The hon. Member for Holland with Boston, referring to the present situation, said, "It has completely disrupted the building industry. It has kicked hell out of the building industry." The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) said, "There is a financial crisis facing the building societies."
  All those statements are grossly inaccurate, grossly exaggerated, and grossly damaging to the building societies. The building societies would be most grateful if right hon. and hon. Members opposite would stop creating a lack of confidence in the societies in this way.
  Mr. Bessell Mr. Bessell rose—
  Mr. Diamond: I will give way in a moment. I will not follow the example of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who took more time than he has left me.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman knows that it was arranged that I should sit down at twenty minutes to seven—and I sat down at twenty-two minutes to seven.
  Mr. Diamond: That is quite right. The fact remains that the right hon. Gentleman failed to give way once, although he had more time at his disposal.
  My first point is that the real facts, not only with regard to building but with regard to building finance, both in terms of local authority loans and building society loans, are that we have just had published for the last quarter the highest ever figures of lending and of building. That is putting the matter in its proper context. As for wrecking the building industry, and knocking hell out of it, and completely disrupting it, as was said by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston, who is a director of a building company and also of a building society, in every single category of trade of building employee there are more jobs looking for men than men looking for jobs. There is no evidence, therefore, that if a single additional loan were granted there would be an additional man laying an additional brick.

  699
  What we are not concerned with is the crisis which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to create. We are concerned with the regular flow of finance for providing homes. We are concerned with an increase in the provision of homes, and we are anxious that there should be an increase in the number of home owners. We are anxious that houses should be built for people to live in, both for rent and to own. But we must find out whether there is a real crisis or a "phoney" crisis.
  Every quotation that I have given from speeches made today—quite apart from the propaganda write-up to which my right hon. Friend referred, which has taken place previously—shows that what the Opposition are trying to do is to build up a "phoney" crisis, which, the building societies tell me, is damaging them and will continue to damage them.
  Mr. Bessell: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that in quoting part of my speech he failed to give it its proper meaning. He should have quoted the rest of it, in which I expressed complete, and absolute confidence in the future and stability of the building societies.
  Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Member did that he had no reason grossly to exaggerate the present situation in order to make party political capital out of it. If he is so confident, he should not be so ambivalent. That is the trouble with some Liberals; one never knows where one is with them.
  Dr. Wyndham Davies Dr. Wyndham Davies (Birmingham, Perry Barr) rose—
  The Chairman: Order. If the Minister does not give way the hon. Member must not persist in rising.
  Mr. Diamond: We now have to face three questions, which the Opposition have put to us. First, why are the rates high when we promised they would be lower; secondly, why is there not sufficient finance available; and, thirdly, have we any plans for the future? As for the lack of finance, I have indicated the present position. We have reached an all-time high, both in lending and in building.
  700
  If we start out in a year with what I can only call an enormous spring flush, and intend—as has been suggested by the hon. Member who is a director both of a building society and a building company—to lend the same amount and to build the same amount during the course of that year as was lent and built in the previous year, it follows that the graph, which has been going up, must level out and, indeed, come down for the rest of the year. [Laughter.] That is a simple matter of arithmetic to which hon. Members opposite have not turned their minds.
  If the figures for the first quarter are well above the newly-posed target—and the hon. Member for Holland with Boston was the only one to pose a target; nobody on the Opposition Front Bench did—if we start with the first quarter above that target it follows inevitably that during the remaining three quarters, if the target is kept to, we shall go at a slower rate than we went in the first quarter.
  The situation with which we have to deal is not the anxiety that exists at the moment, but the possible anxiety for the future. What we must ask ourselves, therefore, is what has caused the present situation, in terms both of the falling off in funds and of high rates. The same answer applies to both. It is the lack of confidence in building societies. It is not the lack of deposits made with the building societies. The societies have continued to receive a very full share of their normal deposits.
  What has happened is that withdrawals have increased out of all proportion.[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am coming to that. Withdrawals have increased because the very large depositors with building societies have withdrawn their deposits, in search of higher rates which they can get elsewhere, particularly from the local authorities [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They are getting higher rates from the local authorities because funds which were previously available from abroad to lend to local authorities have gone back. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The reason for that, as every hon. Member—and particularly the Leader of the Opposition—knows, is that there was a crisis last year, caused, in particular, by the

  701
  Government of the day, who allowed this country to overspend £750 million.
  When our total reserves are of the order of £900 million, those irresponsible Members sitting on the Front Bench opposite, knowing full well what was going on—I refer particularly to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—and determined to see, as he himself said, that what came first was winning the election and not the welfare of the country, caring nought for the £, for our balance of payments or anything else, went overspending at the rate of £3 million a day until, last year, our balance of payments suffered to the extent of £750 million, a sum which would have been greater had we not intervened.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I thought that I had better wait a moment for the hon. Gentleman to calm down a little. Is not my memory correct that when our side of the Committee put forward, at the General Election, programmes for roads, hospitals, education and all the rest of it, the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends put forward a programme which was far higher? If so, how can they accuse us of over-spending?
  Mr. Diamond: The right hon. Gentleman's recollection is not all that good. What the right hon. Gentleman should recollect is that he told the whole of the Conservative Party that as from October or November, 1963, the only thing that mattered was winning the next election. What did not matter was protecting the £. What did not matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw"]—was protecting the £ and our credit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] When a country is overspending to the extent of £750 million, with reserves of about £900 million, it is not surprising, is it, that when foreign countries find out the facts they have doubts about the stability of the economy of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—they have doubts about its ability to pay its debts? As everybody knows, it was that situation—[Interruption.]
  The Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Members will not shout across the Floor at each other, but will let the debate continue in a reasonably orderly manner.
  Mr. Diamond: We on this side of the Committee have listened with care and consideration to every speech made throughout the debate, but, of course, right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not expect to get a reply and did not want the Committee to be reminded of the facts.
  The facts are that as a result of the situation which we inherited, and which hon. Members opposite cannot laugh off, and about which no one in the country is in any doubt; the result of that and the consequences arising—the Bank Rate and the consequent increase in the level of rates—local authorities which found themselves short of funds borrowed in the market and borrowed at increasing rates; and people prepared to take advantage of those increased rates withdrew their funds from the building societies in order to do so——
  Sir Godfrey Nicholson Sir Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham) rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Diamond: That is a temporary situation, because we are taking all the necessary steps to restore the strength of the £—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members may laugh, but they will be glad to know that the £ is standing at the highest it has been for over a year—they can laugh that one off.
  It is only when we restore the situation that it will then be possible for rates to become more normalised. It will then be possible for funds which have been withdrawn to find their way back to the building societies. That process has already started in the sense that local authorities are no longer offering anything like the rates they were offering a short time ago to further clients. They are offering about 1½ to 2 per cent. per annum less than they were a short time ago. This is an indication—we hope it is a sound indication—that funds are beginning to flow the other way. If that is so, there will no longer be the level of withdrawals from the building societies and the temporary difficulty we are all anxious about and wish to avoid.
  In particular I wish to refer, because the right hon. Gentleman asked me to refer to it, to the further statement made by the Bank of England today. As the Committee knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech that he would take

  703
  further measures to reinforce control over bank lending if it were proved necessary. The London Clearing Banks' monthly statement, published today, discloses a big increase in advances and my right hon. Friend has decided that a further measure of control is needed. The Government are determined that the expansion of the economy, which is evidenced in all the economic indicators, should proceed in a controlled manner.
  The call for special deposits takes its place among the other measures which the Government are promoting and, in particular, will assist to realise the Government's prices and incomes policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Stop."] Hon. Members opposite shout "Stop". Let me tell them what I believe "stop" really means. It really means stopping people going to work. That is what it really means, that is the essence of the thing—men at work. Men at work is substance, and all the economic arguments, by and large, are shadow. Men create when they are working and the present position of the unemployment rate in this country is about 1½ per cent. That is the answer to any hon. Gentleman who is alleging questions of stop.
  We are concerned at this situation. We are anxious that it should not con-
  tinue. The first thing, therefore, that we want to do is to repeat an appeal to right hon. and hon. Members opposite not to decry the building societies and exaggerate the situation and talk about a crisis when there is no crisis——
  Mr. Heath: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman right at the end of his speech, but both the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have been trying this afternoon to create a bogy and a myth of lack of confidence in the building societies which has never existed on this side of the Committee.
  Mr. Diamond: Of course it does not exist; of course it is "phoney". That is my whole point. It is a pure "phoney" in order to make political capital and to discredit the building societies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I took down word for word what the right hon. Gentleman said and I do not detract from it. I am quoting him and his hon. Friends word for word. There is nothing wrong with what I have said, and I hope that he will co-operate with me in this endeavour.
  Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £16,481,000 be granted for the said Service:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 284, Noes 296.

  Division No. 97.]

  AYES

  [7.0 p.m.

  Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

  Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

  Dance, James

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bryan, Paul

  Dean, Paul

  Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Astor, John

  Buck, Antony

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Awdry, Daniel

  Burden, F. A.

  Doughty, Charles

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Balniel, Lord

  Buxton, R. C.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Campbell, Gordon

  Eden, Sir John

  Barlow, Sir John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Batsford, Brian

  Cary, Sir Robert

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

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Emery, Peter

  Bell, Ronald

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Farr, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Cole, Norman

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

  Bessell, Peter

  Cooke, Robert

  Foster, Sir John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cooper, A. E.

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

  Bingham, R. M.

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Cordle, John

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Blaker, Peter

  Corfield, F. V.

  Gammans, Lady

  Bossom, Hn. Clive

  Costain, A. P.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  Box, Donald

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Crawley, Aidan

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Crosthwaice-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Brains, Bernard

  Crowder, F. P.

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Brewis, John

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Goodhart, Philip

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Curran, Charles

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

  Dalkelth, Earl of

  Gower, Raymond

  Grant, Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wlrral)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Longbottom, Charles

  Robson-Brown, Sir William

  Gresham-Cooke, R.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Roots, William

  Grieve, Percy

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Royle, Anthony

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Gurden, Harold

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Sharpies, Richard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Shepherd, William

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

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

  Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Marten, Neil

  Speir, Sir Rupert

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)

  Mathew, Robert

  Stainton, Keith

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Maude, Angus

  Stanley, Hn. Richard

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Stodart, Anthony

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mawby, Ray

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hay, John

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

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Steel, David

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Talbot, John E.

  Hendry, Forbes

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Miscampbell, Norman

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

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mitchell, David

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

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

  Monro, Hector

  Temple, John M.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  More, Jasper

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Morgan, W. G.

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hooson, H. E.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter

  Hopkins, Alan

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Hordern, Peter

  Murton, Oscar

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Hornby, Richard

  Neave, Airey

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

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

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Onslow, Cranley

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Walder, David (High Peak)

  Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Jennings, J. C.

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Walters, Dennis

  Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Jopling, Michael

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Webster, David

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Peel, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Percival, Ian

  Whitelaw, William

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Peyton, John

  Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

  Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Pitt. Dame Edith

  Wise, A. R.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Kitson, Timothy

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Kirk, Peter

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Lambton, Viscount

  Pym, Francis

  Wylie, N. R.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Younger, Hn. George

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

  Mr. McLaren and Mr. MacArthur.

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

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

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Blackburn, F.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Albu, Austen

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Boardman, H.

  Chapman, Donald

  Aldritt, Walter

  Boston, T. G.

  Coleman, Donald

  Allen, Scholefiold (Crewe)

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

  Conlan, Bernard '

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Boyden, James

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Atkinson, Norman

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Bradley, Tom

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Barnett, Joel

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Cronin, John

  Baxter, William

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Beaney, Alan

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Bence, Cyril

  Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Buchanan, Richard

  Darling, George

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Blnns, John

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  706

  707

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Prentice, R. E.

  de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Delargy, Hugh

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

  Probert, Arthur

  Dell, Edmund

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Hham,S.)

  Randall, Harry

  Diamond, John

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Rankin, John

  Dodds, Norman

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Redhead, Edward

  Doig, Peter

  Kelley, Richard

  Rees, Merlyn

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Driberg, Tom

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

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.

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

  Richard, Ivor

  Dunn, James A.

  Lawson, George

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Ledger, Ron

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

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lee, Miss Jannie (Cannock)

  Rose, Paul B.

  English, Michael

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Ennals, David

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Rowland, Christopher

  Ensor, David

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lomas, Kenneth

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

  Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)

  Flitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  McBride, Neil

  Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McCann, J.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  MacColl, James

  Silvcrman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Floud, Bernard

  MacDermot, Niall

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Foley, Maurice

  Mclnnes, James

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Small, William

  Ford, Ben

  Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Snow, Julian

  Freeson, Reginald

  MacMillan, Malcolm

  Solomons, Henry

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Garrow, A.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Stones, William

  Ginsburg, David

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

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Manuel, Archie

  Summerskill, Dr. Shirley

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Mapp, Charles

  Swain, Thomas

  Gregory, Arnold

  Marsh, Richard

  Swingler, Stephen

  Grey, Charles

  Mason, Roy

  Symonds, J. B.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Maxwell, Robert

  Taverne, Dick

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)

  Mellish, Robert

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Hale, Leslie

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Millan, Bruce

  Thornton, Ernest

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Tinn, James

  Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Tomney, Frank

  Hannan, William

  Molloy, William

  Tuck Raphael

  Harper, Joseph

  Monslow, Walter

  Urwin, T. W.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mulley,Rt.Hn.Frederick(SheffieldPk)

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Hazell, Bert

  Murray, Albert

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Neal, Harold

  Wallace, George

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Newens, Stan

  Warbey, William

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

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

  Watkins, Tudor

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Norwood, Christopher

  Weitzman, David

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Ogden, Eric

  Whitlock, William

  Holman, Percy

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Horner, John

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

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Or bach, Maurice

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Orme, Stanley

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Williams, Albert (Abertillery)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Owen, Will

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Howie, W.

  Padley, Walter

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Hoy, James

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Paget, R. T.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wimerbottom, R. E.

  Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

  Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn, A.

  Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

  Parker, John

  Woof, Robert

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Jackson, Colin

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Pentland, Norman

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Mr. Sydney Irving and

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Mr. George Rogers.

  It being after Seven o'clock, the Chairman left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That tlic Bill be now read a Second time.
  Sir Charles Taylor: On a point of order. As to the procedure in
  debating the Bill, I assume that after the Second Reading the three Instructions on the Order Paper can be moved separately. I also assume that it will be possible to divide the House on each one in turn. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: That is correct. We must first deal with the matter of Second Reading. If the Bill is read a Second time we shall proceed in the manner described by the hon. Gentleman.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 180.

  Division No. 98.]

  AYES

  [7.15 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Foley, Maurice

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

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

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

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

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Ford, Ben

  Lawson, George

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Freeson, Reginald

  Ledger, Ron

  Baxter, William

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Beaney, Alan

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Bence, Cyril

  Garrow, A.

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Ginsburg, David

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Bessell, Peter

  Gourlay, Harry

  Loughlin, Charles

  Binns, John

  Gregory, Arnold

  Lubbock, Eric

  Bishop, E. S.

  Grey, Charles

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Blackburn, F.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  McBride, Neil

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  McCann, J.

  Boardman, H.

  Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)

  McInnes, James

  Boston, T. G.

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

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

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mackie, John (Enfieltl, E.)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hale, Leslie

  MacMillan, Malcolm

  Bradley, Tom

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

  Manuel, Archie

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Hannan, William

  Mapp, Chares

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

  Harper, Joseph

  Maxwell, Robert

  Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mellish, Robert

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mikardo, Ian

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hazeil, Bert

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Molloy, William

  Chapman, Donald

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Monslow, Walter

  Coleman, Donald

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Murray, Albert

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hooson, H. E.

  Newens, Stan

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Horner, John

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

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oakes, Gordon

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howarth, Harry (wellingborough)

  Ogden, Eric

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

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

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Howie, W.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hoy, James

  Orme, Stanley

  Dell, Edmund

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Dempsey, James

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Owen, Will

  Doig, Peter

  Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

  Paget, R. T.

  Driberg, Tom

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Parker, John

  Edelman, Maurice

  Jackson, Colin

  Parkin, B. T.

  Ensor, David

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Pentland, Norman

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)

  Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(w.Ham,S.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Floud, Bernard

  Kelley, Richard

  Rankin, John

  Redhead, Edward

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Rees, Merlyn

  Small, William

  Varley, Eric G.

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Richard, Ivor

  Snow, Julian

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Solomons, Henry

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Wallace, George

  Rogers, William (Stockton)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Warbey, William

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Stones, William

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Summerskill, Dr. Shirley

  Whitlock, William

  Rowland, Christopher

  Swain, Thomas

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Swingier, Stephen

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

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

  Taverne, Dick

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hmpton.N.E.)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

  Thornton, Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Mr. Charles R. Morris and

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Tinn, James

  Mr. Rose.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Monro, Hector

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Goodhew, Victor

  More, Jasper

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

  Gurden, Harold

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Astor, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Murton, Oscar

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

  Neave, Airey

  Awdry, Daniel

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

  Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

  Barlow, Sir John

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Batsford, Brian

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Bell, Ronald

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Peel, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Percival, Ian

  Bingham, R. M.

  Hendry, Forbes

  Peyton, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

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

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Brewis, John

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Pym, Francis

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hopkins, Alan

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hordern, Peter

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Buck, Antony

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

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Burden, F, A.

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Roots, William

  Buxton, R. C.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Campbell, Gordon

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Carlisle, Mark

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Sharples, Richard

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Jennings, J. C.

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinsteead)

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Speir, Sir Rupert

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Stainton, Keith

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Stanley, Hn. Richard

  Costain, A. P.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthone)

  Kershaw, Anthony

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

  Crawley, Aidan

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Crowder, F. P.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Kirk, Peter

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)

  Curran, Charles

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Dance, James

  Lambton, Viscount

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Dean, Paul

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Longbottom, Charles

  Walder, David (High Peak)

  Doughty, Charles

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Walters, Dennis

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Eden, Sir John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McLaren, Martin

  Webster, David

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

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Whitelaw, William

  Emery, Peter

  Maginnis, John E.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maitland, Sir John

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Farr, John

  Marten, Neil

  Wise, A. R.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

  Mathew, Robert

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

  Mawby, Ray

  Wylie, N. R.

  Foster, Sir John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Younger, Hn. George

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Gardner, Edward

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sir Charles Taylor and

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Mitchell, David

  Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport.

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.
  7.26 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Part II of the Bill.
  Part II deals with what the rubric to Clause 5 calls the "Acquisition of land for development," but that Clause and the other Clauses of Part II go a good deal further. I should like, first, to refer very briefly to the five Clauses in Part II and then deal with them in more detail. Clause 5 deals with acquisition by compulsory purchase, subject to confirmation by the Minister, for the purposes set out. There is precedent in other Measures for Clause 5, but I submit that the Manchester Corporation has no special case for this Clause.
  Clause 6 deals with the acquisition of land for improving the appearance of derelict, neglected or unsightly land, and I will merely say of it that the general law making provision for this to be done was passed by this House as recently as 1963 in the Local Authorities (Land) Act. That Act gives local authorities quite sufficient power, and there seems to be no justification for Manchester Corporation to ask for a slight alteration in the general law for its own purpose.
  Ancillary to Clause 5 are Clauses 7 and 8. Clause 7 gives to the corporation power to lend to enable purchase of, or to enable a person to build upon, land. Clause 8 refers to the corporation's power to lend or grant money for building, extending or improving an industrial building.
  Clause 9 is wholly unprecedented. It is entitled, rather innocently, "Agreements with developers". It sets out the conditions which may be inserted in an agreement between the corporation and the developer and the consequences that may follow from such an agreement. As the Clause stands, both the original grant of town planning permission and the hearing of an appeal to the Minister from a refusal of town planning permission could be dependent upon the developer entering into such an agreement. It looks rather like a sort of legalised blackmail concerning the granting of town planning permission. Those are the Clauses with which we are concerned and, having briefly referred to them, perhaps I may now deal with them in more detail.
  Under Clause 5 there are stated the purposes for which the corporation may,
  714
  by means of an order which must be submitted to the Minister and confirmed by the Minister, purchase land compulsorily for the purpose of building or carrying out works on that land
  "for the benefit or improvement of the city."
  That is one puppose which is set out in the Clause. But the purposes go much further than that of purchasing land and building on it for the benefit and improvement of the city. The second purpose, under paragraph (b) is:
  "facilitating the provision of premises for occupation by any undertaking carried on or to be carried on there or for otherwise meeting the requirements of such undertaking."
  It seems that the corporation is seeking power to acquire land for the purposes of a private undertaking, perhaps an undertaking subsidised and supported by the corporation. Subsection (3) says:
  "In this section the expression 'undertaking' includes any trade or business, or any other activity providing employment."
  This is a very wide Clause. There are five precedents for it in previous private Bills. The first was in a Bill for Jarrow in 1939. I do not think Manchester Corporation would claim that Manchester is in the same state in 1965 as Jarrow was in 1939. Undoubtedly. at that time, such a Clause was necessary to attract industry to the Jarrow area in order to provide employment there. The Clause did not occur again in Private Bills until 1960, when Lancashire County Council sought to include it in the Lancashire County Council Bill of that year. The case made by Lancashire was that there were areas in the county where it was necessary to attract industry so as to provide employment for a percentage of unemployed higher than in the rest of the country.
  The same applied to three following Bills, Durham County Council Bill, 1963, West Riding County Council Bill, 1964, and Cumberland County Council Bill, 1964. In connection with each of these county council Bills there was the justification of need to attract industry by reason of unemployment in the area of the county. In three out of four of those cases since 1960 the time in which the powers under this Clause could be exercised was limited to a period of five years. That limit does not appear in the Manchester Corporation Bill. I do

  715
  not believe that this is genuinely required by Manchester Corporation on the grounds on which the Clause has been justified previously for Private Bills, to provide employment where there is a attract industry to the area in order to high rate of unemployment.
  I think that this Clause is required by Manchester solely for city centre development. For that reason I ask the House to instruct the Committee to reject the Clause. If there is a genuine case and Manchester Corporation needs land or buildings for this purpose there are two methods by which it can take exactly this step under the general law. It can go through the process of designating the land for compulsory purchase and holding a normal public inquiry. Why does Manchester Corporation want to avoid a public inquiry which every other corporation would have to go through if it required land for this purpose? Is it afraid in some way of bringing this matter before the public at an inquiry?
  Secondly, the corporation could ask the Board of Trade to act under Section 2 of the Local Employment Act, 1960. The Board of Trade can take exactly these steps to acquire land for the corporation to support undertakings which will attract employment to the area. So there are two ways under the general law by which Manchester Corporation can carry out what it wants to do under this Clause and there is no special case why it should have this Clause. One can see how this Clause might operate by promoting subsidised competition for some favoured undertaking if one refers to the following Clauses, especially Clauses 7 and 8. Those Clauses give the corporation power to lend money and Clause 8 gives power to make grants for the purpose of development by other undertakings.
  By Clause 8:
  "the Corporation may. if requested so to do by any person—

  (i) who is the owner or intended owner or lessee of any land in the city; or

  (ii)who has purchased or intends to purchase … any land …"

  may lend or grant money
  "for the provision or improvement of services or facilities on which any trade or business carried on or intended to be carried on in such building."
  716
  This is a power given to the corporation to support business undertakings by grants not necessarily for building, but to provide services in connection with that business.
  I do not think that I need refer to Clauses 7 and 8 again. They are ancillary to purposes which to me are objectionable in Clause 5. But I must couple with Clause 5 a subsection of Clause 9, namely, subsection (3) whereby
  "The Corporation may take or acquire shares or other securities in any company incorporated in the United Kingdom with which an agreement is entered into under this section."
  The corporation might acquire the shares in some private undertaking and buy land for that undertaking, erect buildings for it, provide the services for it and run any business it chooses.
  This would place Manchester in the position of being able to build anything it chose, to trade in anything it chose, to indulge in take-overs and practise monopolies. The purely logical reading of the Bill gives Manchester all those powers.
  In addition, Clause 9 is entirely novel. Such a Clause has never been seen before in any Private Bill. So far as I know, no promoter of a Private Bill has endeavoured to obtain from Parliament the powers which Manchester Corporation seeks to obtain by this Clause.
  From a statement issued by Manchester Corporation, I understand that it is prepared to remove certain subsections and paragraphs of Clause 9. It is prepared to remove paragraph (a) of subsection (1) and also to remove subsection (4). I must, however, refer to these because they show the intention of the Clause as originally drawn, an intention which I submit still remains in the Clause even when those paragraphs and the subsection have been removed. In Clause 9(1) it is said:
  "The Corporation and any person having an estate or interest in any land within the city may enter into an agreement which may provide for …"
  Then there are set out a number of paragraphs, of which the first says:
  "granting permission to carry out development of that land or of that land and other land within the city;"
  This is obviously intended to be an agreement whereby there will be a contract, as it were, between the corporation

  717
  and a developer who applies for town planning permission as to the terms on which the corporation will grant that permission. Without paragraph (a) it would be open to the corporation to say, "We will not grant you town planning permission, unless you enter into this agreement containing the provisions of the rest of Clause 9".
  The Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, lays down clearly the conditions upon which town planning permission can be granted. It cannot be made subject to any other conditions than those provided in Sections 17 and 18 of that Act. What the corporation was here trying to do was to choose its own conditions, in disregard of the general town planning law. If Clause 9 meant anything at all, it meant that Manchester wanted to impose conditions which are not within the law, not within Sections 17 and 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962.
  It may be said that this agreement provided by Clause 9 is intended to be only voluntary. If a developer liked to enter into an agreement with the corporation, he could do so. If he did not want to, he need not do so. If the corporation refused him town planning permission, he could appeal to the Minister. But then, as the Clause stood before this offer to remove subsection (4), had the applicant appealed to the Minister he would have been faced with subsection (4):
  "Where an appeal is brought under section 23 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, the Minister may before allowing or dismissing the appeal or revising or varying any part of the decision require the applicant to enter into an agreement with the Corporation."
  So the corporation, as it first drew Clause 9, was endeavouring to dictate to the Minister what he should do on an appeal from an applicant who had been refused planning permission by the Corporation. It was an impudent Clause to put before the House. Now that the Corporation has withdrawn, or intends to withdraw, subsection (4), it may look, on the face of it, to be a little better.
  What is left of the Clause now? Before I look at the wording of the Clause again, let me remind the House of the general law about agreements between local authorities and developers. It is set out clearly in Section 37 of the Town aid Country Planning Act, 1962. This gives corporations a very wide power to
  718
  enter into agreements with developers. The Section says:
  "A local planning authority may, with the approval of the Minister, enter into an agreement with any person interested in land in their area for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land, either permanently or during such period as may be prescribed by the agreement; and any such agreement may contain such incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions of a financial character) as appear to the local planning authority to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the agreement."
  One would think that that was wide enough for any corporation, including the Manchester Corporation. It gives the corporation power to enter into agreements containing almost anything relevant to development. But the important provision in Section 37 is that the local authority can do this only with the approval of the Minister. If it intends to enter into such an agreement, it is under the supervision of the Minister. It is that which the Manchester Corporation leaves out of Clause 9.
  What is the corporation afraid of? Is it afraid that the Minister will not give approval to right, proper and reasonable agreements which it makes with developers? It seems so from the drafting of Clause 9, otherwise there is no purpose in it. The corporation can do all it needs under the general law.
  When one looks at some of the express provisions which the corporation wishes to insert in its agreements with developers, one can see a reason for the Clause. One finds this sort of thing. Under paragraph (d) the agreement can include a provision.
  "that the estate or interest of that person"—
  that is, the developer—
  "in that land shall not be conveyed or assigned except by way of mortgage or legal charge to any person unless the Corporation shall first have satisfied themselves that that person has or can command sufficient financial resources to carry out the development for which permission is granted and to implement all the provisions of the agreement".
  What happens if the owner of the land dies? Are his personal representatives tied to an assignee or a purchaser nominated by the corporation? There is not in the Clause even a provision that the consent of the corporation or the approval of the corporation is not to be unreasonably withheld. There is no provision for an appeal. This

  719
  is dictation by the corporation as to the person to whom the owner of land shall sell the land.
  Paragraph (e) provides that the agreement may contain provision for
  "the maintenance and cleansing of the public rights of way …"
  This is right outside ordinary town planning law and could not be imposed under the normal conditions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962.
  Subsection (2) begins in this way:
  "An agreement entered into under the last preceding subsection may contain",
  and it first sets out a provision that positive covenants shall be enforceable against successors in title. This is a complete change of the general law. It may be a good change, but this is a change in the general law to which the corporation is not individually entitled and it cannot show a case for it above any other local authority.
  Then there may be a stipulation that if there is a
  "resolution of the council that the development … has not been completed by the time determined by the agreement … the Corporation may … estimate the cost of carrying out all the development … which has not been completed … and … declare that sum to be a legal charge"
  on the property. It is to be
  "a first charge on the estate",
  no matter what other first mortgagee there may be. Then:
  "any person … may appeal to the tribunal".
  However, having appealed to the tribunal and won his appeal, there is this:
  "but a decision of the tribunal shall not preclude the Corporation from making further declarations by resolution of the council if circumstances change."
  The change in circumstances is to be entirely at the discretion of the corporation, with no appeal at all from it. An unfortunate developer, having a charge placed upon his property, appeals to the tribunal and wins his case, but the next day is told by the corporation that the circumstances are changed and that it will not obey the tribunal's decision.
  Mr. L. M. Lever: He can appeal again.
  Mr. Graham Page: Interminably, Again and again, I suppose?
  Mr. Lever: Yes.
  Mr. Graham Page: Under Clause 9(2,b)
  "the Corporation may … enter on the land and do the work in default and the expenses incurred by the Corporation shall be recoverable by them from the person in default or from the owner of the land."
  Apparently the corporation can recover the costs of completing the work as well as place a charge on the property for the estimated cost of the work and do it twice over. The man can go on appealing again and again and pay twice for work which he has not completed.
  This is the sort of provision which by this Clause Manchester Corporation wants to include in agreements which cannot possibly be described as voluntary agreements. Suppose that the developer goes before the corporation with an application for general planning permission and he is invited to enter into this so-called voluntary agreement and he declines to do so and he is then refused town planning permission. Everyone knows how long it takes him to appeal from that and get the Minister's final decision. Of course, there is pressure on him to enter into an agreement of this sort. This is not the sort of provision which should be brought before the House in a Private Bill. It is an entirely new Clause. It has no precedent. I originates in the minds of the Manchester Corporation and should not be approved by the House.
  This is the final Clause of Part II. I have described Clauses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and I ask that the Committee be instructed to leave out the whole of Part II of the Bill.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. Paul B. Rose: I intend to confine my remarks entirely to Clauses 5 and 6 because I know that many of my hon. Friends are anxious to speak. Hon. Members who live in or represent constituencies in the Manchester conurbation will only be too well aware of the legacy of industrial squalor which the city corporation faces. They will know, moreover, that no amount of piecemeal development will create the wholesome and esthetically satisfying environment which should be the heritage of those who live and work in the industrial North. It is exactly the

  721
  scrappy piecemeal approach which we must discard in the Buchanan age where new concepts of planning and technical requirements demand a new approach to the whole question of land ownership.
  We need planned comprehensive development, and the new powers sought by the Manchester Corporation must be at the corporation's disposal if we are to get on with the job. These powers are additional to those which are available under existing enactments. It is inevitable that the use of these additional powers will interfere with the vested interests of a few individuals, but the overriding need is to provide modern amenities in a modern city. We have to provide in the North an alternative magnet to the swollen South-East. This is more than ample justification for these very limited additional powers sought, particularly in Clauses 5 and 6. Some exception has been taken to Clause 5 on the ground that its effect would be to permit the corporation to engage in trade on the acquired land.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: On the need to revitalise these areas of Manchester, which I do not dispute for a moment, could the hon. Gentleman explain in a little more detail why the existing power for the designation of this area as one for comprehensive development is inadequate?
  Mr. Rose: That is precisely what I was going to deal with. I want to deal first with some of the objections to the Clause, and I will deal with that point in the correct order.
  Municipal trading has been regarded as one of the objectives here and this is anathema to those who always prefer private profits to go into the private purse rather than towards helping the ratepayer. This is something of a red herring, apart from the doctrinaire nature of the objection, because it must be emphasised strongly that this is not the object of the Clause.
  Clause 5 seeks to empower the corporation to purchase land by agreement, or, with the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, compulsorily, for the benefit, improvement and development of the city. The city has possessed the former power over the past 40 years but this Bill will give it compulsory powers to begin sound, much-needed
  722
  development and redevelopment projects. One of the problems frequently facing an authority like the Manchester Corporation is that large-scale private development of an approved kind is often held up because the developer cannot get the freehold of one or two small sites which may be a tiny proportion of the whole. It would be wasteful of time and effort if it had to turn to the only other course of action by designating the site as an area of comprehensive development and then purchase the land and lease it in a building agreement to a developer.
  I would say in answer to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who has referred to this difficulty, that there is a right of petition against the Bill, and those who are responsible for Manchester's affairs are only too anxious to present their plans to a Select Committee to show why these powers are needed. The effect of voting against the relevant Clause would be that these powers would go out entirely. We ask that Manchester Corporation be entitled to bring its plans forward and to demonstrate why these powers are necessary. This is all we ask at this point.
  The sort of projects envisaged by Manchester hardly come under the heading of municipal trading. They include such things as a new centre for the B.B.C., a new headquarters for the Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes, a new teaching centre and an imaginative proposal for a new arts and cultural centre in the city.
  Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member will appreciate that this is an entirely new reason for the Clause. The five precedents which I quoted for the Clause were justified entirely on the need for industrial development to attract employment. This is entirely new and that is why I am objecting to it.
  Mr. Rose: Manchester Corporation is only too anxious to demonstrate why this is necessary and by voting against the Clause hon. Members will be denying the corporation that facility. The hon. Member for Crosby forgets the real and difficult problems faced by the corporation. He forgets that this is a particularly difficult legacy which is confined to the industrial North. We need real powers. We need teeth. It is not merely a question of bringing in industry.

  723
  One of the problems of urban renewal in Manchester stems directly from a go-ahead programme of large-scale slum clearance in the centre of the city. It is desired to get on with these proposals and there are large numbers of small businessmen who will be forced to seek alternative accommodation in the city. The Bill offers one solution of that problem. The objectors, among whom I understand is the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, are in great danger of causing distress and hardship to a large number of small business men in the city because of their doctrinaire objection to the possibility of municipal trading. I, for one, would oppose any attempt to deprive these small businessmen, dispossessed by Manchester improvement schemes, of the opportunity to seek their legitimate livelihood within the city.
  Many firms have already been displaced, and in plans up to 1971 it is estimated that there are 650 small industrial and warehousing firms which will be affected by slum clearance and other major projects. It is only just that these people who built up their businesses in the city should be accorded the right to remain in the city which gave them their prosperity and to which they have contributed and, I hope, will go on contributing. Clause 5 would be a very useful addition to the corporation's existing powers to meet these requirements. The hon. Member for Crosby has said that the Clause is unprecedented. The conditions which make the Clause a necessity may be different, but the Clause itself is not unprecedented. It follows Section 6 of the Durham County Council Act, 1963, and also the West Riding County Council (General Powers) Act, 1964.
  I turn now to Clause 6. We are here concerned with very forward-looking and imaginative proposals to rescue Manchester from the squalid legacy of Victorian industrialism which the laissez-faire economics of some hon. Members opposite bequeathed to us. Those who have spent their lives in Manchester know what conditions are like in areas like Red Bank or the Valleys of the Irk and the Medlock. We know the twilight areas on the periphery of the city and the problems which are faced there, problems which, of course, are to be
  724
  found in many of our large cities. In my own constituency, I have the problem of a derelict site in Croft of Lily Lane which I hope that certain people will take note of. All these things have to be dealt with, and those hon. Members who have seen what the problems involve know that it is time that a concerted effort was made in cities like Manchester to improve their appearance and make them places of which we can be proud.
  Manchester Corporation is planning a magnificent scheme for the improvement of the Irk Valley, where there are large tracts of derelict land and large tracts of land which is not derelict which have to be obtained by the corporation. The idea of this scheme is to create what have been called green fingers stretching out from the congested centre towards the suburbs, in other words, to create new linear parks. I look forward to the time when my constituents in Blackley, those who reside near Boggart Hole Cleugh or Heaton Park, will be able to walk from there to the centre of the city in pleasant green surroundings. If powers for this purpose are secured under Clause 6, it will one day be a real possibility.
  I refer to Clause 6 in this context because the corporation must secure the necessary powers if these projects are one day to be a reality in our city. The problem is not so much one of the derelict land. The corporation can carry out work on derelict land which it owns. There is no great problem on derelict land owned by others because even there, by agreement, it can carry out work or it can even take over the land. The problem arises in relation to non-derelict land. If we are to have a comprehensive scheme, if the corporation is to have a situation in which it can deal with derelict, neglected or unsightly land coming within the scope of the existing powers, it is desirable also to incorporate in the same project areas of vacant land which are not themselves derelict, neglected or unsightly and which are, therefore, outside the powers of acquisition which at present exist.
  The Irk Valley scheme, for example, would be entirely impossible without the powers sought for in the Bill. It is essential in this connection that both derelict

  725
  and non-derelict land should be treated together as one area for the purposes of improvement. I know that the corporation will be only too pleased to present facts, maps and plans to a Select Committee of the House. I hope that in this case, as in all the others in respect of which objections have been made, hon. Members opposite will not allow blind vested interest, lack of knowledge of the problems facing Manchester or doctrinaire stubbornness against the principle of municipal trading to stand in the way of the well-being of my constituents and the constituents of hon. Members on both sides who reside in or represent parts of Manchester and who want to see the improvement of our city so that we may all live in a healthier, happier, and more beautiful place.
  8.4 p.m.
  Sir Robert Cary: I agree with the general sentiments which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). One of our great disabilities—this applies not only to Manchester but to all our industrial areas in the North—is that we have the oldest capital assets in the world and we must replace them. This is a task which, in its vast comprehension, faces no other industrialised nation. When I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), whose judgments and opinions on so many matters are much respected in the House, I felt how much I wished that I could imprison his great energies in this task of recreating "Buchananising", if anyone likes the word—a great capital city like Manchester. Those who may have seen or travelled through Manchester recently will know that it has become a wilderness of vacant land and cleared sites, that the fulfilment of slum clearance is almost on the point of completion. Here is a glittering golden opportunity to recreate in full our great capital city.
  I am setting my sights high in this, almost on an idealistic plane, but I am convinced that we must approach all these problems now. I have to divorce myself from views which I once held and expressed in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby referred to our work years ago in regard to Jarrow, for example, when the mood dominating both
  726
  sides of the House was concentrated upon mass unemployment. Any expedient, either through a Private Bill or a Government Measure, which any hon. Member cared to put before the House of Commons which would add a little improvement in that situation of mass unemployment was accepted. But those problems, fortunately—they were not the good old days—no longer exist. Now we have a much bigger and much wider challenge to face.
  I have had the privilege of representing part of Manchester and its immediate area in the House of Commons for the last 30 years. I have been very proud to do so. But, again and again, in going through that area, the question has occurred to me: how are we to re-create its capital assets for a modern society? Anyone who has thought about these things knows that a similar pattern exists not just in Manchester but in the North-East, in the surrounding areas of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and elsewhere. No matter where one turns, one sees this enormous out-dated capital asset which must be replaced. We can no longer procrastinate about it.
  I was a little surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) divided the House on the Second Reading. He and his hon. Friends are old friends of mine, and I have participated in many votes with them. Why, having blessed nine-tenths of the Bill and having put upon the Order Paper three Instructions which we can debate, they should divide against the Second Reading of the Bill in toto, a Bill to which they had already given their blessing, I do not really understand.
  Sir C. Taylor: This was after long weeks and months of negotiation. We made our position perfectly clear to the Parliamentary agents representing Manchester.
  Sir R. Cary: I was unaware of that, and I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. I did not know that he had had negotiations of that kind. But I had hoped that the Second Reading would pass without a dissenting voice here. There are great problems now coming upon us. I assume—I hope that the House will forgive me for doing so—that, in regard to the implications of some of the matters in the Bill which

  727
  are the subject of contention, Manchester City Corporation would behave most honourably. By a sinister, difficult and perhaps spiteful authority in another part of the country, these powers could be misused, but I must assume that Manchester Corporation will discharge honourably any of the duties underlying the Clauses, particularly in Part II, which have been objected to—perhaps rightly so from its point of view—by Manchester Chamber of Commerce.
  I hope that, confronted as we are with enormous challenges, we shall, in considering this Bill, divorce ourselves from past attitudes belonging more appropriately to 25 years ago, that we shall not read sinister implications in the Bill and that the House will examine it fairly and objectively. If there is any aspect of Part II which could be further refined, there will be opportunity to do so.
  I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby should have sought examples in Jarrow and other places once stricken by unemployment. We are in a completely new and different situation. Unless we were able to look at this Bill in terms of a completely new situation in which we must rebuild the capital assets of our country and recreate our provisional capitals, I would be depressed for the future work of the House. I hope that, perhaps with further refinement, we shall, in spite of the Motions on the Order Paper, get this Bill for Manchester Corporation. I think that the House should know that the Bill has the blessing of all three parties in Manchester City Council.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. L. M. Lever: Normally, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and I are on common ground, as I have always known him to be a man who is balanced, understanding and appreciative of most earthly situations. I am sorry to tell him now that he has not put forward a reasoned case against this Bill, contrary to his usual practice, but has presented a case of spleen against Manchester Corporation, accusing it of wanting to do something on its own outside general legislation and of wanting to dictate right, left and centre simply for the sake of dictating.
  728
  I am grateful to my friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Carey) for the reasoned way in which he put the sorry position in which Manchester finds itself today in relation to redevelopment. That situation is transitional but these empty spaces in Manchester, may well affect not only Manchester itself but the position of our country in the eyes of the world.
  The hon. Member for salubrious Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) has been to Manchester frequently because he likes doing trade there. I do not know how often the hon. Member for Crosby has been there but I think that every dispassionate person who comes to our City, with its great and famous traditions not only in trade but also in great moral messages and leadership, will agree that it is a matter of the greatest consequence that Manchester should be rebuilt according to modern requirements and be the shop window not only for Manchester and the North-West but for Britain and the Commonwealth as well.
  Manchester attracts millions of people every year to do business, much of it in exports which are so important. But what kind of a picture do foreigners see? They find it somewhat flat because of the age of the buildings and because, apparently, nothing is or can be done swiftly under existing legislation in order to expedite the rebuilding of the City of which we are so very proud.
  Manchester is a very progressive city. It has a progressive corporation. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Withington pointed out that the Bill has the unanimous approval of the Conservative, Liberal and Labour Parties in Manchester. This is not a proposition which has merely been passed on the nod. All the implications of the Bill were carefully examined by the corporation's general parliamentary committee, of which I have the honour to be a member and on which all three parties are represented. The committee was unanimous in support of the Bill.
  Then the Bill had to go before the City Council. It could not be passed by a majority of those present at the time. It had to be passed by a majority of the full Council. The Council passed it unanimously after considering it.
  Sir C. Taylor: The Bill becomes an Act of Parliament of this House.
  Mr. Lever: I cannot agree to that. I do not think that you have any knowledge of procedure on this matter. The Bill has received its Second Reading and your efforts to prevent it were without success, which is all I wish you in Future. After we have defeated your attempts to put the brakes on—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. I am doing nothing to oppose the Bill.
  Mr. Lever: I want to acquit you wholeheartedly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of any suggestion of your putting the brakes on the Bill. I am speaking about the supporters—they are, I hope, temporary—of the Instructions on the Order Paper.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Surely we are debating the Instructions, not the Bill as a whole. Would it not be in order for the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the Instructions?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood that the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) was dealing with Part If of the Bill.
  Mr. Lever: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was. Even when these Instructions have been defeated, the Bill does not then become law.
  Sir C. Taylor: No. The hon. Member did not allow me to finish.
  Mr. Lever: Just a minute. You will have your chance when you catch Mr. Deputy-Speaker's eye. I have it now and it is my opportunity to speak for Manchester. The hon. Gentleman may speak for Eastbourne.
  The procedure is that, even when these Instructions are defeated, the Bill must go before a Select Committee of this House. That Committee must be satisfied not by mere speeches but by evidence in support of all the Clauses. It will not be impressed merely by speeches and airy nothings. Every Clause must be proved to that Select Committee before the Bill can become the law of the land.
  It is not correct to say that if these Motions are defeated tonight the Bill will
  730
  automatically become law. All we are asking is that we should be allowed to prove our case and to bring evidence before the Select Committee, but apparently your Motions are intent on preventing us and on stifling us so that we cannot produce the necessary evidence. We from Manchester are prepared to bring evidence, chapter and verse, in support of every Clause to the satisfaction of the Select Committee. If the Select Committee is not satisfied that Manchester has made out its case, it will delete such Clauses as it thinks fit, but you do not want to let us—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not continue to say "You". I am doing nothing about the Bill.
  Mr. Lever: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should have said that the hon. Member for Eastbourne and the hon. Member for Crosby do not want to let us, but I hope that their colleagues will not agree with them. What is wrong with the Bill going to a Select Committee? I should have thought that it was the British right to be heard, certainly for a corporation anxious to rebuild its city.
  What is wrong with Clause 9? This is not a matter of dictation or compulsion. All the Clause does is to empower the corporation to encourage developers to rebuild the city more speedily in the interests not only of Manchester and Lancashire but Britain, including Eastbourne and Crosby. Quite clearly, what we are doing is to serve the national interest by making Manchester attractive to the world, as we would like it to be and as would be in accordance with its great traditions for commerce and industry.
  Mr. Graham Page: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of redeveloping Manchester as a beautiful city, as he wants it to be redeveloped, but he has not addressed his mind to why Manchester cannot do it under the existing general law, and particularly, in connection with Clause 9, why Section 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, is not sufficient for it to be done in Manchester as it is being done in Liverpool.
  Mr. Lever: I will deal with those matters, but I wanted first to address the

  731
  House on the general attitude towards the Bill.
  It will encourage agreements with private developers. There is no reason why a voluntary agreement between the corporation and a private developer should not be reached, and I should have thought that this opportunity for the extension of private enterprise would have found a welcome spot in the hearts of some hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Crosby said that the Bill would damage the general law of town and country planning, but it would not do so. If an application for development were made, Manchester would have no right to say, "We will give you general planning permission on condition that you conform to this, that and the other". That would be ultra vires and hon. Gentlemen know it.
  The case made out by the hon. Member for Crosby is that this has never been done before. But this is not the first time that Manchester has been the pioneer in terms of human betterment. The fact that it has never been done before does not mean that it should not be done now if it is in the interests of the community. The argument of hon. Members opposite is that because it has not been done before, Manchester cannot take the lead. The hon. Member for Crosby let the cat out of the bag, because he said, "Liverpool can do it, so why cannot Manchester?" If Crosby were moved nearer Manchester, the hon. Gentleman would probably support the Bill.
  This is an attempt to rebuild a famous city by means of agreements, voluntarily made and without prejudice to the general law on town and country planning. If developers want to reach agreements with the corporation, why should they not do so? The agreements say that there should be an agreed order in which the development should be carried out. What is wrong with that? The time by which the development is to be completed is to be determined. We cannot wait all our lives for some developer to complete a project.
  The agreements say that land shall not be conveyed or assigned except by way of mortgage or legal charge unless the corporation is first satisfied that the person can command sufficient financial resources. Over the years how many
  732
  projects have lain derelict simply because those who embarked on them were not able to complete their contracts, to the detriment of the community and the defacement of our cities and towns?
  What is wrong with the corporation saying that it is prepared to dedicate, even at its own cost, public rights of way over any parts in which development takes place? The agreements say that arrangements are to be made for the provision, maintenance and use of facilities for the parking of vehicles in connection with development. I should have thought that that was most desirable. The hon. Member for Crosby would want all parking sites in all our redeveloped cities to be excluded from the application——
  Mr. Graham Page: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. I do not object to that because it is in the general law. The corporation has the right to make conditions about parking spaces under the general law. It does not need to make provision for it in a Private Bill. What I object to are paragraphs (d) and (e).
  Mr. Lever: I cannot see, with my long experience of Manchester and the law and knowledge of the conditions in which people are operating in the City, why there can be any objection to this proposal, whether it is in the general law or not. If it is included in the Bill and is also in the general law, instead of abrogating the general law it confirms it. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be very pleased about that.
  Subsection (2,a) says:
  "An agreement entered into under the last preceding subsection may contain—(i) positive and negative covenants … "
  These can be registered as local land charges. The hon. Member for Crosby appreciates that this is normal legitimate conveyancing practice in certain similar circumstances. Subsection (2,a)(ii) says that in the event of
  "a stipulation that in the event of the Corporation declaring by resolution of the council that the development or a part of the development has not been completed by the time determined by the agreement"
  it will do something about it. A local authority would be guilty of a very grave dereliction of duty if an agreement was entered into for the development of an area and nothing was done about it for

  733
  months. It would be failing in its duty it it did not take cognisance of the situation with a view to action being taken.
  The Bill then deals with the situation if a developer has any difficulty or does not agree with the action of the corporation. The hon. Member for Crosby gave the impression that there could be no right of appeal. He gave only part of the story until I intervened with regard to the Tribunal. A developer can appeal to the Lands Tribunal. After the matter has been to the Lands Tribunal and the corporation finds that the conditions have been varied, it can alter the terms and the developer can appeal against those terms. This is nothing new. If a person applies for town planning permission under the general law and his application is turned down, he can vary his application.
  I want to give others the opportunity of speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those who say Hear, hear "show that their zeal for Manchester is no less great than mine, and I feel that it should be given full expression, because the future of Manchester and the appearance of our great city depends so much on this Measure which will have an effect, not only on the lives of the people of Manchester but on the rest of the people of this country.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Gurden: I should like to make a short statement. I have no interest in or concern with any of the three Instructions on the Order Paper. Nor do I intend to vote if a vote is taken. But I must tell the House that by accident I voted on the Second Reading, which took place a short time ago. I did not realise at the time what the Division was on. I know that that was my own fault. After I went through the Lobby, I heard that it was a vote on the Second Reading of the Bill. I thought that the two Divisions which took place were connected.
  I apologise to the House, because I have no interest in this matter at all. I do not wish to take sides on the Bill. Since I understand that I might well be placed on the Committee, I should tell the House that my vote on Second Reading was an accident. I apologise to hon. Members for having gone through the Lobby. if it were within my power to cancel the vote, I should certainly do so.
  8.34 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): I hope that the House will allow me to intervene at this stage for a few moments and to state the case as the Government see it.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) is to be admired for his frankness and honesty in saying that he did not know what he was doing when he went through the Lobby. It is not the first time that that has happened. It happens to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  This is a Private Bill, containing 58 Clauses. I think that we all agree that the majority of them are not in dispute. If the Bill is enacted, these uncontested Clauses will confer on the Manchester Corporation powers which are useful though of relatively minor importance. Only a few Clauses in the Bill have provoked differences of opinion.
  If hon. Members are apprehensive about provisions in a Private Bill, they have every right to raise the matter in the House. I concede that at once to all those who have spoken. It is, however, the practice of the House to allow Private Bills to go to a Select Committee, where the arguments for and against the disputed Clauses can be heard in detail. A Committee may spend several days listening to detailed arguments, evidence and witnesses. My right hon. Friend does not think it right that we should attempt to settle these detailed local issues on the Floor of the House.
  The Manchester Corporation should be given the opportunity to state its case to the Committee on the Bill and the Committee should be free to arrive at its own decisions after hearing the arguments put forward by the corporation and the objectors who have petitioned against the Bill.
  I should like to say a little about the detailed matters in the Bill. As has been said, there are precedents in other local Acts of Parliament for most of the Clauses in Part II. The powers in Clause 5, for example, are already available to the County Councils of Lancashire, Durham, Cumberland and the West Riding. The Committee on the Bill may well decide that Manchester does or does not need these powers. I

  735
  do not know what the Committee will decide, but it should be free as a Committee to reach its conclusions after hearing the evidence. It would be wrong for the House to give the Committee a ready-made decision by means of the Instruction which we are discussing.
  In Part II of the Bill, the only Clause for which there is no precedent is Clause 9. In the Bill as deposited, the Clause would have permitted the corporation to make agreements tied to the system of planning control. It is not the corporation's intention, I understand, to try to force into an agreement people who apply for planning permission. The corporation is, therefore, prepared to amend the Clause so that there is no link with the machinery of planning control. As amended, the Clause would permit the corporation to enter into agreements with developers, as a matter of simple contract betwen the two parties, to secure that when land is to be developed under a comprehensive planning permission, the whole development and not just parts of it will be carried out.
  Sir Douglas Glover: I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the very fact that Manchester Corporation says that it will amend the Clause justifies those who oppose it in its present form.
  Mr. Mellish: I said earlier that it is the right of hon. Members to debate any Bill which comes before the House and, if they have objections, to say what they are. The day that we take that right away will be the day when we have destroyed what this House is all about.
  What I am asking is that Manchester Corporation—it is not for me to praise the corporation; it has some wonderful stalwarts here who have done that—should have every right to put its case before the appropriate Committee and for those who object to do the same.
  Mr. Graham Page: This assurance which the hon. Gentleman has given about amendment of the Clause is the first we have heard of it. We have had three hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of Manchester Corporation, but they have made no mention of this. To what extent can we take this as an assurance that these Amendments will be submitted to the Committee?
  Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member will know enough about Government practice to recognise that I am aided and abetted by first-class civil servants and a Department who have obviously informed me of the facts. If they have not properly informed me, there will be trouble with the civil servants concerned. I assure the hon. Member that that is what we now understand. It is as a result of consultation with the corporation. There can be no doubt, therefore, that, having said it in the way I have, this will be done.
  It is not for my right hon. Friend to defend or justify the Clauses in the Bill. That is for the corporation to do before the Select Committee. We honestly feel that there is nothing outrageous here for which Manchester is asking. I beg the House to give the corporation the opportunity to put its case to the Committee. If there is a vote, as there may well be, I ask the House to vote against the Instruction.
  8.40 p.m.
  Sir Charles Taylor: I rise to speak for only two minutes because I do not wish to detain the House for very long, but I feel that in answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever)—
  Mr. L. M. Lever: Perhaps I might explain to the hon. Gentleman that I am both right and honourable, but not right honourable.
  Sir C. Taylor: Because of a previous appointment the hon. Gentleman was designated right honourable, and I thought that it lasted for a lifetime. If I am wrong, I am sorry that it does not.
  It is the duty of every Member of the House to look at these corporation Bills. I expected to be thanked by the hon. Member for Ardwick for raising this matter, because it gave him a chance to make the wonderful speech that he did in support of his constituency. Instead of lambasting me as he did, I should have thought that he would have thanked me.
  Some of my hon. Friends and I study these corporation Bills very carefully. The object of the exercise is to ensure that there is nothing objectionable to the House in enabling corporations to take unto themselves powers which they should not take without the permission of Parliament. I think that in raising this issue

  737
  we have done a service to the House and to Parliament, and, even though I am the Member for Eastbourne, I make no apology for raising this matter of the Manchester Corporation Bill.
  Mr. L. M. Lever Mr. L. M. Lever rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.
  Question put and negatived.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: I beg to move,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 48 of the Bill.
  This Clause has nothing to do with the beauty of Manchester, but I think the House will agree—and in fact the Minister has made it clear that he considers this to be so—that all Private Bills presented to the House should be scrutinised very closely. Some of my hon. Friends and I spend a great deal of time vetting Bills presented to the House with the intention of bringing what we consider to be objectionable Clauses to the notice of the sponsors of the Measure, and frequently they amend them without the matter having to be raised on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. J. T. Price Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton) rose—
  Mr. Burden: I cannot give way at this stage. I shall do so later.
  We go to a great deal of trouble to study these Bills. These Bills which come before the House become Acts of Parliament, and hon. Members should recognise that it is their duty to study these Measures as carefully as they study public business. I was rather surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) apologise for intervening and say that he was not concerned with the Bill. We are all concerned with any legislation—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The lion. Member is getting very far from the Instruction which he is moving.
  Mr. Burden: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I give way to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price).
  Mr. J. T. Price: I am rather puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman has said. He takes the view that all hon. Members should have an opportunity of examining Bills of this character, but the action taken by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends in voting against the Second Reading of the Bill, as they did a short time ago, could have prevented—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the Second Reading on an intervention.
  Mr. Burden: Under Clause 48 the corporation
  "may enter into and carry into effect agreements with any manufacturer or supplier of smokeless fuel or liquid fuel for the manufacture or supply of such quantity or quantities as may from time to time be required or be likely to be required and may guarantee, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be agreed, the payment for, or sale of, any smokeless fuel or liquid fuel to which the agreement relates.
  (3) Any solid smokeless fuel or liquid fuel which is manufactured or supplied in pursuance of an agreement under subsection (2) of this section may be sold by the Corporation to any local authority or to any person.
  (4) The Corporation and any local authority may enter into an agreement under subsection (2) of this section for the sale and purchase of any solid smokeless fuel or liquid fuel."
  In subsection (1,b), "smokeless fuel" means,
  "any fuel for the time being declared by regulations of the Minister of Power under the Clean Air Act, 1956, to be an authorised fuel for the purpose of that Act."
  This would give the corporation tremendous powers, for which there is no precedent. The corporation claims, as a reason for the introduction of the Clause—I quote from its declaration—that
  "It is apprehended that the demand for smokeless fuel for use in normal or improved open grates will exceed the supply and the Corporation are anxious to encourage manufacturers, by giving them a guarantee that there will be a market, to increase their plant capacity so as to increase the supplies. By the clause the Corporation seek power to make agreements with a manufacturer or supplier of smokeless fuel or liquid for these purposes. It is also proposed by the clause to empower the Corporation and any other local authority to make agreements for the sale and purchase of smokeless fuel which may be the subject of an agreement or guarantee with a manufacturer."
  In the first sentence of that declaration the corporation refers to a possible shortage of smokeless fuel for improved

  739
  open grates. This is the only solid fuel in respect of which it says specifically that there is likely to be a shortage.
  If this is the case, why is it that the corporation asks for these powers to be extended to liquid fuels? It says that there is likely to be a shortage of some solid fuels, and it goes on to say that it is anxious to encourage manufacturers by giving them a guarantee that there will be a market. This seems an extraordinary argument. In the first place, the corporation says that there is likely to be a shortage of this fuel and then says that in order that there shall be no shortage of the fuel it must give this undertaking. Smokeless zones are being extended throughout the country, by order of the Government, and there is bound to be an increasing demand for these fuels.
  Let us deal first with the position concerting liquid fuels, in respect of which the corporation asks for powers to enter into agreements with manufacturers and purveyors. I do not think that any hon. Member could put forward any argument, or any facts, to show that there was any shortage of liquid fuel anywhere is this country.
  Mr. Bernard Conlan: Manchester is at the moment experiencing a serious shortage of solid smokeless fuel. Can the hon. Member guarantee that in future there will he no shortage of liquid fuel?
  Mr. Burden: If the hon. Member will contain himself for a moment, he will find that I am coming to the question of smokeless solid fuel. He asks whether anyone can give a guarantee that there will be no shortage of liquid fuel in future, although there is none now. In fact there is no shortage at present, but the argument on which the Manchester Corporation is, presumably, asking for the insertion of Clause 48 in the Bill, is because of an imaginary shortage.
  This is a highly specialised trade, both wholesale and retail, involving the use of tankers, bulk storage facilities and filling stations and there is a door-to-door delivery on a large scale. The hon. Member asks whether one could give any undertaking that there would be no shortage of liquid fuel in future. I say that this is extremely unlikely, but in any case, does the hon. Member say seriously
  740
  that the Manchester Corporation—in case there should be a shortage at some stage in the future—put into effect immediately all the paraphernalia connected with the distribution of liquid fuel in Manchester? Should the corporation construct large underground storage tanks, purchase bulk storage vehicles and create filling stations and an organisation and hold it at tremendous cost in case, at some time in the future, there should be a shortage of liquid fuel?
  Mr. Conlan Mr. Conlan rose—
  Mr. Burden: I am sorry, I cannot give way—
  Mr. Conlan: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question.
  Mr. Burden: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman. He should look into the matter and ask the Manchester Corporation—if he lives in Manchester to provide him and the people of Manchester with an idea of the capital cost involved and the charge on the rates which would result.
  There is also the fact that the people engaged in this trade—
  Mr. Conlan: The hon. Member asked me a question: I think I should have the right to reply.
  Mr. Burden: I am sorry, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that he asks the Manchester Corporation to provide him with the information—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is a member."] The distribution of liquid fuel is a highly technical matter and the men engaged in this business have built up the "know-how" over many years. They have established an efficient and flexible delivery service, not only for Manchester but throughout the whole country, which is fully satisfactory to the public. I doubt whether any person in Manchester who requires liquid fuel for any purpose has expressed dissatisfaction with the service he obtains. I am certain that if the Manchester Corporation was to undertake the distribution of liquid fuels with any chance of success—
  Sir R. Cary: It would not.
  Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend says that it would not, and if it would not why should it put this into the Bill? This is the whole point, and this is the point

  741
  which I am making. It would involve Manchester—
  Mr. Rose: When the hon. Member refers to liquid fuel, is he referring to that with a high or a low sulphur content?
  Mr. Burden: This is not specified in the Bill. I am merely making the point that this is a matter for Manchester Corporation. This is what we are discussing. If they had wished to specify that, they should have specified it in the Bill and we should have discussed it accordingly.
  Mr. Rose Mr. Rose rose—
  Mr. Burden: I cannot give way to the hon. Member again.
  It is also the ratepayer's money which is involved in this—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member says, "Hear, hear". If that is the case, the ratepayers of Manchester are entitled, before they commit themselves to any such vast expenditure, to know what the capital expenditure is likely to be, what benefits they are likely to derive, and how the capital expenditure involved would be charged on the rates. I would suggest that that part of Clause 48 which deals with liquid fuels is not justified. There is certainly no shortage and it would be reasonable to expect that there is likely to be no shortage in the future.
  I should now like to turn to the question of solid fuels. The corporation wants the same powers to make arrangements and to enter into contracts with makers of solid fuels. They declare in the Bill that authorised solid fuels will be indicated from time to time by order made by the Ministry of Power. There has been one Statutory Instrument, No. 2023, which came into operation on 31st December, 1956 and which laid down the range of solid fuels which were available. The Bill is based on those solid fuels. But the Corporation's case apparently rests on the statement that demand for smokeless fuel for use in normal or improved open grates will exceed the supply.
  Suppose that we accept that, for the sake of argument. Through these powers which Manchester Corporation wants to obtain it would get more than its fair share of a commodity which is in short supply. This can be the only
  742
  reason. If Manchester Corporation is saying that this smokeless solid fuel is in short supply and that it will therefore enter into an agreement in order to obtain better supplies for Manchester, it would, by this very act, be creating a corner in solid fuel for Manchester and thus denying to many other areas their fair share of a scarce commodity.
  This, I would submit, is something to which even hon. Gentlemen opposite would object strongly, particularly if their own constituencies were found to be short of solid fuel because the Coal Board or some other supplier had made an agreement to supply Manchester with more than its fair share of the scarce commodity. If it will not give the corporation more than its fair share and it would not get any more from the manufacturers by having this arrangement, why does it need this Clause? If that happened it would merely exaggerate the shortage in other towns.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for allowing an hon. Member who represents a Scottish constituency to intervene. Does he agree that in the preparation of solid fuels, of which there is a scarcity, it would be useful if a market could be guaranteed to any manufacturer who was prepared to expand his productive capacity?
  Mr. Burden: I have been in business all my working life and have found that when manufacturers find a shortage in any market they set about trying to increase their output in the quickest possible way.
  Mr. Bence Mr. Bence rose—
  Mr. Burden: If the hon. Gentleman will control his impatience I will try to show him precisely what is taking place now.
  As with liquid fuels, so with solid fuels. Experts have set up the whole machinery of distribution and it has been found, when the fuel has been available, that the media of distribution have worked satisfactorily. Suppose Manchester Corporation stated, "We are going to distribute". Have the hon. Members who represent Manchester considered that that would involve Manchester Corporation in considerable cost?
  Sir R. Cary: Only through the factors.
  Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend says that that would happen only through the factors but, with respect, that is not true because in a statement which Manchester Corporation issued in the last few days it was stated that it was prepared to enter into agreements with local distributors. Those were exactly the terms the corporation offered, for it stated:
  "…before selling direct to the public any smokeless fuel acquired by them under the clause to offer it first to the trade for distribution and sale at a price which would have regard both to the cost to the Corporation and the market prices of the fuel obtaining at that time".
  Thus, there is no question at all of it being mandatory on Manchester Corporation to sell only through the normal distributors. This would give it power to set up its own selling organisation.
  Sir C. Taylor: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to Clause 48(3), which states:
  "Any solid smokeless fuel or liquid fuel which is manufactured or supplied in pursuance of an agreement under subsection (2) of this section may be sold by the Corporation to any local authority or to any person."
  Mr. Burden: It is surprising to find that my hon. Friend, who represents a Manchester constituency, is quite ignorant of the corporation's intentions in this regard.
  Hon. Members: Rubbish.
  Mr. Burden: It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite saying "rubbish" because it is laid down in the Bill that the Corporation will have these powers. If that is not so, how do hon. Gentlemen opposite explain why provision for that is made in the Bill? I have described what might happen and if the powers in the Bill are exercised the Corporation will have the wherewithal to take those steps.
  It should be remembered that this would mean the establishment of very large dumps and the creation of an expensive selling organisation with all the attendant expenses, including costly vehicles and so on. Here again, the people of Manchester might find themselves involved in considerable cost, with increased rates, for no useful purpose.
  Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we accept that if there were an acute shortage the corporation would be justi-
  744
  fied in doing this. Is a shortage likely? It has been stated by one or two hon. Members opposite, who obviously have not looked at the subject very closely, that there will certainly be an acute shortage. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that some of the information now to hand about the obtainability of smokeless fuels was not available when the Bill was drafted. If it had been, I hold that Clause 48 would never have been inserted in the Bill at all.
  All the evidence shows, however, that the shortage was for solid fuels for use in open grates. There was a shortage there, and to a certain extent there still is, but this is the only shortage, and the Manchester Corporation is not asking for powers to deal with this fuel only but goes far beyond that. The fact remains that this is the only fuel of which there has been any evidence of any shortage, and that shortage is now being rapidly overcome.
  I have here Circular No. 13 dated 17th March, 1965, produced by the hon. Gentleman's Ministry. It is headed "Clean Air Act, 1956", and states:
  "The Parliamentary Secretary made it cleat to the Clean Air Council that the producers' present forecasts of fuel availability were based on the assumption that for purposes of the Clean Air Act grant the present freedom of choice between fuels and appliances would continue to operate when future smoke control areas were established."
  The interesting point is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power has made a statement within the last few weeks, in which he had some very pertinent observations to make about the position with regard to smokeless fuels.
  Speaking of "Domestic Fuel Supplies and the Clean Air Policy"—Command 2231—he said:
  "This forecast that supplies of smokeless fuels of all types should be adequate to meet demand, with the exception of the open-fire solid fuels."
  There, again, he indicated that there is only the one shortage, that of open fire solid fuels—no shortage of liquid fuels in regard to which Manchester Corporation is also asking for powers under Clause 48. The hon. Gentleman said:
  "I am pleased to be able to tell the Council that the National Coal Board and the private producers are now going forward with plans

  745
  for increased production of open-fire fuels which should materially improve the situation predicted in the White Paper."
  He also said:
  "These prospects … indicate that supplies of open-grate fuels should be adequate to meet expected demand, although consumers may sometimes have to buy more expensive varieties a reactive fuel when their first preference would be the cheaper gas cokes."
  That was issued—[Interruption.] There are lots of things that the hon. Gentleman, who has not been here for a great length of time, may not think it right to be raised in Parliament, but I believe that it is correct that there is no great shortage——
  Mr. Mellish: The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman is taking so long to say so little.
  Mr. Burden: That may be so. If I have taken so long to say so little I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. The statement continued:
  "but I am also advised by producers that they expect regional difficulties in the supply of reactive open-grate fuel to be largely overcome during the next two years."
  So the total time for which Manchester Corporation asks these powers under Clause 48 to operate is only two years at a maximum. The evidence shows that there is no shortage of liquid fuel, nor is there likely to be. The only solid fuel of which there is any shortage at the moment is the open grate solid fuel and the Government have themselves stated as a result of investigations that the shortage will disappear entirely within the next two years. Lord Robens and others engaged in the manufacture of smokeless fuels have stated that they are increasing very considerably their production to meet the demand. In the circumstances, I suggest that Clause 48 is entirely unnecessary.
  9.11 p.m.
  Mr. Will Griffiths: I shall try to answer the arguments of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) as quickly as possible because I know that hon. Members wish to discuss the very important Clause 41. The hon. Member began by saying that this Clause had nothing to do with the beauty of Manchester. In saying that he was almost as inaccurate
  746
  as he was in so many other passages of his speech.
  Mr. Burden: The architectural beauty.
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member ought to know that the architectural beauty of a city can be marred to the extent that the atmosphere is polluted. He ought to know that Manchester has a good record in implementing the Clean Air Act. Manchester Corporation has a smoke-control plan which contemplates that nearly a quarter of a million premises will be subject to smoke control orders by the end of 1969. At the end of 1964 there were already 61,660 premises covered by smoke-control orders. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan), who is a Mancunian but does not represent a Manchester constituency, has reminded me of the dramatic illustrations one may find of the value of smoke-control.
  My hon. Friend has pointed out that the Manchester Town Hall extension, built about 30 years ago, is already scarred and stained by pollution and eight years ago some remedial work was carried out to the facade of the building. In eight years during which smoke control has been in operation the repaired facade has been unblemished by the traditional pocking and ruining of the stonework which is so much a feature of industrial areas of the North. The hon. Member for Gillingham should appreciate that this is very much a question of beauty and, of course, of the health of the community.
  This Clause would simply enable the corporation to enter into an agreement with manufacturers or suppliers of smokeless fuel and oil. The hon. Gentleman at great length sought to demonstrate, first, that if the Corporation had the Clause Manchester's ratepayers would be involved in very considerable expenditure. The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman advanced lengthy reasons why it was unnecessary to have the Clause—because there was in reality no shortage of smokeless fuel. As I listened to the hon. Gentleman—I sought to intervene, but he would not give way—I thought how clearly this showed what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, that these expert opinions are precisely the matters

  747
  that should be probed by the Select Committee. If we were here for a long time, which we are not, I could go to the Library and examine the hon. Gentleman's proposition. I think that it was only part of the story. It is precisely for the reasons the hon. Gentleman gave that these matters should be examined by the Select Committee.
  Mr. Burden Mr. Burden rose—
  Mr. Griffiths: I will give way, as I am more generous than the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Burden: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I gave way a considerable number of times. Has the hon. Gentleman with him at this moment a copy of the Bill? If so, would he look at page 31, line 36, which lays it down that the corporation will have the power to sell to anybody? If it has the power to sell to anybody, it means retail also, as I see it. If not, why should it not be designated?
  Mr. Griffiths: I am not myself particularly worried about that sort of consideration. The hon. Gentleman may know that the corporation has said categorically that it has no intention of entering the distribution trade. For the protection of the trade, the corporation has said that it would be prepared to agree to the insertion of a provision requiring the corporation
  "(a) to consult with representatives of the wholesale and retail fuel trade before entering into any agreement under subsection (2) of Clause 48, and
  (b) before selling direct to the public any smokeless fuel acquired by them under the clause to offer it first to the trade for distribution and sale at a price which would have regard both to the cost to the Corporation and the market prices of the fuel obtaining at that time."
  That is a definite undertaking given by the corporation.
  The hon. Gentleman was rough on his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) when he accused him of not knowing what was in the Bill, because the hon. Member for Withington knew that the corporation was prepared to give that undertaking.
  Sir C. Taylor: To whom was this undertaking given? I, for one, was unaware of the undertaking. I have been in constant touch with the Parliamentary Agents and also with some officials of the
  748
  Manchester Corporation. It is news to me.
  Mr. Griffiths: This is very extraordinary, because the hon. Member for East-bourne (Sir C. Taylor) is an experienced Parliamentarian. It is in the Vote Office. It is a statement in which the Corporation says of Clause 48 that it would give these guarantees. This is available to all hon. Members.
  I am no great expert, but I am advised that because of technological changes in the gas industry coke is becoming scarcer. Despite the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power has urged the electricity supply industry to use more coal, I should have thought that there will be a general rundown here. Inevitably coke is becoming scarcer.
  I understand that the Government's policy is to regain the momentum in the establishment of smoke-control areas. There was, because of changes in fuel policy, a cut-back of smoke-control areas but I understand that the Government are now anxious that their establishment should go ahead. Manchester Corporation wants to complete its programme by 1969 and it seems to me perfectly reasonable that the Corporation, if it satisfies the Select Committee after producing witnesses and evidence, should have the powers.
  As the corporation puts it,
  "The object of the Clause is not to enable the Corporation to enter into competition with the trade in the retail distribution of smokeless fuel but to encourage manufacturers and suppliers to invest their capital in plant and equipment to produce the additional supplies of smokeless fuel which will be required by rigorous application of the smoke-control policy in future."
  This is what the Government want.
  Sir C. Taylor: What is the hon. Member reading from now?
  Mr. Griffiths: I am reading from notes supplied to me by the Manchester Corporation. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, he says that Manchester Members do not say anything about the Bill and do not answer the case, but when a Manchester Member tries to give him the case from the Manchester point of view he appears to think that there is something disreputable about it.

  749
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government will not confirm smoke-control areas or extensions of them unless he is satisfied that there is an adequate supply of fuel available. Therefore, if Manchester is to complete its programme it is important that it should persuade the Select Committee that it should have these powers. We know that the Coal Board is engaged on the extension of plants for the production of smokeless fuel and it is significant that the Board does not petition against the Bill. I have already said that supplies will be marketed through normal commercial channels. Manchester City Corporation gives an assurance about that. I quite understand that the apprehensions of hon. Members opposite, which I do not share, will not be allayed unless these words in the Bill are amended. I have quoted to the House certain undertakings which the corporation is prepared to give, which may or may not satisfy hon. Members. I should have thought that the undertakings went a long way, if not entirely, towards allaying the apprehensions of people in the retail and wholesale trade.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Member quoted from the latest statement issued by the Manchester Corporation which is available in the Vote Office and he said that the corporation has given an undertaking not to engage in retail trade. I also quoted from that document. The corporation said it was prepared to include a provision requiring it
  "before selling direct to the public any smokeless acquired by them under the clause to offer it first to the trade for distribution …"
  There is certainly no undertaking whatsoever in that statement that the corporation would not engage in the retail trade.
  Mr. Griffiths: Hon. Members opposite profess to have considerable regard for the interests of the ratepayers. I put it to the House and to the hon. Member for Gillingham in particular, that if the House decides to give Manchester Corporation the powers contained in the Clause, and if the corporation gave these undertakings to the trade which it promises to do, then if the corporation failed to secure the co-operation of the trade it would have a perfect right to dispose of the fuel itself to protect the interests of the ratepayers. What is wrong with that?
  Mr. Burden: And the ratepayers also have a right to know the capital cost which would be involved in a thoroughgoing distribution of these fuels by the Manchester Corporation.
  Mr. Griffiths: I quite agree, but, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I rely upon the good sense of the people in the distributive trade. I do not think that they will make such heavy weather of this. I do not believe that those whom the hon. Member for Withington calls the factors would be so unwilling to co-operate as is suggested. They have been terribly harassed in the smokeless zone in the Wythenshawe area by their customers begging them to get supplies which they have not been able to get. I should have thought that not only would the manufacturers of the fuel be delighted to have an assured market but that the distributors would as well. Hon. Members are making heavy weather of this.
  I have been interrupted many times. I conclude in this way. I beg the House not to accept this Instruction to the Select Committee for the reasons which the Parliamentary Secretary advanced when we were discussing the previous Instruction. There is here so much that a Select Committee can decide better than we can when the expert witnesses come before it.
  9.27 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I support the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) bent over backwards in trying to explain that there were all sorts of conditions which would prevent Manchester Corporation from embarking on municipal trading. If that is the intention of what is set out in the document from which the hon. Gentleman read, why is it necessary to have Clause 48 in the Bill at all? I am extremely concerned about Clause 48. Not only would it provide for the setting up of municipal trading in Manchester but it might well create a precedent so that we had municipal trading coming in all over the country. In a sense, it is a form of creeping nationalisation.
  Like many hon. Members, I welcome the Bill in its general terms. I come from a local authority area, Greater London,

  751
  every bit as proud as Manchester, and I fully appreciate all the observations and arguments advanced by hon. Members from the Manchester area about the importance of the Bill to them. But the inclusion of Clause 48 will have repercussions of a very significant political nature and going far beyond the needs of Manchester.
  I shall state my three basic contentions before dealing with the detailed points about solid smokeless fuel. This form of municipal trading is outside the scope of the activities of a normal local authority, or it should be. It could easily give rise to a situation in which there was competition between the local authority and its own ratepayers, people in the distributive trade. If the Clause were accepted, Manchester Corporation or any other local authority might well regard it as a very successful exercise and look for other ways of making excursions into commerce in its own area.
  Mr. Charles Morris: And reduce the rates?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Coming from a large local authority area where the rate burden is already enormous, I can only say that I simply do not believe that any efforts in municipal trading in the Greater London area would improve matters.
  It has been said by several hon. Members that the intention of the Clause is to help the corporation to institute smoke-control areas in the city. This, of course, is something which should be welcomed. I am advised that any shortages which exist can be put right, that the distributive trade is quite able to carry on the business of getting the fuels to the householders and that the manufacturers are in a position to meet the orders if required. The very good relations which the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange spoke about between the distributive trade and the Corporation and the manufacturers will surely ensure that this takes place.
  The danger under this Clause is that the corporation will have priority in the supplies of smokeless fuel.
  Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman was not in the House earlier. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he was."] He is making from his point of view a well
  752
  argued speech, but is he not aware that the apprehensions he is describing are not shared by his Conservative colleagues of Manchester City Council? They are quite satisfied with this Clause. Has he also never heard of the Birmingham Municipal Bank, founded by Joseph Chamberlain, and of all sorts of other municipal enterprises founded and supported by far-seeing and enlightened Conservative statesmen who were far more progressive than some of the young Tories who have come to the House recently?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) for improving my knowledge of history. But what he spoke of took place some time ago and I am not so worried about Birmingham as about the precedent that this Bill, particularly Clause 48, may have for all of us, in London and elsewhere as well as in Manchester. Incidentally, I have been here since the debate started.
  I am also worried about the possibility of the local authority cornering the supply of a fuel. One could have a situation of acute shortage with Manchester Corporation, under Clause 48, being in a position of monopoly in the supplies of smokeless solid fuel. I hope the situation would never arise in which tenants of the corporation were getting solid smokeless fuel while others, who might well be ratepayers, could not get it. In such a situation real hardship could exist in Manchester.
  But most objectionable of all is that the Clause creates a precedent. If it goes through, other local authorities will want these powers and if they get them those who do not come within the orbit of those authorities will be at a great disadvantage. We should be creating a system of municipal trading with local authorities possibly taking away the livelihoods of distributors throughout the country and in a position to corner supplies of certain fuels. They would be in a position to build a network of nationalisation of the distributive trade in solid smokeless fuel and perhaps in many other things as well.
  It is also possible, for example, that Manchester Corporation might get hold of a supply of a highly reactive fuel and

  753
  operate smokeless fuel zones through open hearth fires as opposed to room heaters as suggested in the White Paper on Domestic Fuel Supplies and Clean Air Policy. We might see a situation in which a local authority was able to do this and to apply smoke-control policies more cheaply than those areas which were having to do it with room heaters, which are a more expensive system. One would get a rush of other local a authorities seeking to do it as cheaply.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: That is enterprise.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: It may be enterprise, but it is not an enterprise that protects the ratepayer. This is creeping nationalisation. If this provision goes through. we will get a system of municipal training tantamount to Government trading at the distributive end of the coal trade.
  If Manchester gets this power, the solid fuel business in Manchester will be dominated by the local authority. Whatever hon. Members like to say about it, that is what will happen. It will deprive the existing distributive trade or a livelihood and, regardless of all the conditions which have been read to us, there will be a situation in which the corporation will tend to enter this trade more and more.
  That could lead to friction between those who are tenants of the corporation and those ratepayers who are not. It could lead to a situation in which other authorities wanted these powers. As hon. Members are well aware, the Manchested Chamber of Commerce has stated its objections to the Clause at some length and I very much hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us something to encourage us, or that at some later stage we shall be able to make sure that Clause 48 does not become part of the Manchester Corporation Bill.
  9.36 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): I intervene only briefly because we have another Instruction which we have to dispose of before ten o'clock.
  This Clause would allow the Manchester Corporation to make agreements
  754
  to guarantee a market for specified quantities of solid smokeless fuel or liquid fuel. As we understand it, the object is to encourage manufacturers of these fuels to increase their capacities. As the House knows, one of my right hon. Friend's responsibilities is for clean air and from that point of view we find the Clause unobjectionable. Smoke control is not going forward as fast as it should, particularly in the North-West. If Manchester Corporation—and I say "if"—thinks it has devised a scheme to remove all doubt about the sufficiency of supplies of smokeless fuel, it should be allowed to argue its case before the Select Committee.
  The Clause has met some opposition from fuel distributors. We are aware of that and I know that the corporation has been discussing ways and means of meeting those objections, but so far, I understand, it has not obtained the agreement of the distributors. This is precisely the sort of issue which should be considered by the Committee and I ask the House, if there is a Division on the Instruction, to reject it.
  The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and I have been closely associated. I had him oppose me at a General Election and I have great affection for him, because on that occasion he lost his deposit. I hope that on this occasion he will lose his Instruction, if he presses it to a Division.
  Mr. Burden: In reply to that rather personal note, there are hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Gentleman, who, if they fought some Conservative seats, would lose their deposit.
  9.39 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Taylor: I want, first, to align myself with those who have said that, in essence, this is a first-class Bill, which we all thoroughly welcome. It is the Bill of a great city and contains plans to transform a large area of the city into a thoroughly up-to-date development of which, when it is completed, we shall be proud.
  But it is our duty to look further than that into the Bill and to study the implications, and the implications are probably more important than the expressed intentions. We have to study the actual wording of the Bill and what

  755
  can happen if it is implemented as introduced. There is no doubt that it contains a number of provisions which are far removed from town planning, provisions which, if brought into effect, would further Socialism in Manchester and provide an important precedent for many other organisations.
  I was quite surprised at the wording of Clause 48, because it is revolutionary. I was still surprised when I read the details which we received from Manchester Corporation telling us what was intended, because its reason for putting the Clause in the Bill is apparently to ensure a supply of solid fuel and for that purpose it proposes to subsidise the fuel by guaranteeing a market to manufacturers to encourage them to increase output. This faces the ratepayers with the possibility of a heavy call being made on the rates. The only advantage is the attempt to ensure a continuity of supply. The ratepayers will have several thoughts before being willing to enter into an unknown responsibility and liability in this way.
  We all support the clean air policy. It is thoroughly right in principle. But I have had many complaints from my constituents about this matter. Solid fuel is not welcomed all that much as a lillywhite and wonderful product of the future. I have had complaints about its quality. I am told that it will not burn and that it creates an extraordinary number of fumes in the room, although it is supposed to be smoke free. The price is very unpopular, especially with pensioners. I have had grave complaints about its inefficiency and its burning capacity.
  I do not believe that the corporation needs to give a guarantee. Private enterprise is capable of increasing its productivity if it can see a ready market. I am sure that the situation will very quickly be put right. In fact, we have intimations that a solution is on the way and that there will be no shortage in two years. If the Bill goes through, the corporation will still have the right to open up in competition and to open a chain of petrol garages, and not only in Manchester. It seems to me from reading the Bill that it can also sell liquid fuel. There is no restriction. Surely this is
  756
  outside the bounds of the corporation's requirements.
  I believe that the Bill goes far beyond what is necessary. It is a thoroughly good Bill in principle, but we should not allow Socialism to be pushed into odd corners of it in this way. If these little dirty corners of the Bill which make it a parallel in many ways to the infamous Clause 4 in another document are cleaned up, perhaps in Committee, it will receive a great welcome in the House and we should all be only too pleased to help push it through with the maximum efficiency and in the minimum time. But while it contains these examples of pure Socialism, many of us on this side must hold back the wholehearted support for it which we should like to give.
  9.43 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: It is time that a Conservative Member from Manchester joined in the debate, which has been going on for some time. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have claimed the right of a Member of Parliament to criticise any Government. No one disagrees with that. No one suggests that it is an abuse of the House. But I believe that what has happened tonight has been a misuse of the House. Some hon. Members are getting into a rut. To use a term in their own profession, they are becoming vexatious litigants. They spend time discussing proposals and then, not having the courage of their convictions and putting them to the vote, withdraw them having received no more information at the end of the debate than they had at the beginning of it. This is a waste of time.
  This matter has been debated and criticised by hon. Members opposite from Crosby, Gillingham, Eastbourne, Run-corn, Darwen and Shipley.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: to the best of my knowledge, I have not spoken so far. I am waiting to speak on the next Instruction. I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman, first, that my constituency is as near to Manchester as his, and, secondly, that I am a ratepayer in that city. I very much doubt whether he is.
  Mr. Ogden: I challenge the hon. Gentleman on that. My home town borders Manchester and I have worked

  757
  in that city for the past 14 years. I believe that the hon. Member's name appears to an Instruction which, to put it in the most generous way, is a criticism of the Bill. I have referred to hon. Members who have put their names to Instructions for discussion tonight. That is criticism. I am simply suggesting fairly that it was time a Conservative Member from Manchester gave his point of view. There are not quite so many Conservative Members from Manchester now as there were some little time ago. They are equally capable of putting their point of view without a great deal of help and assistance from anyone outside.
  When hon. Members have referred to smokeless fuel and whether there is a shortage of it, they have not been quite fair. There are many type of smokeless fuel. The majority of them have been available and are usable in the open type of grate which we have in the North, but there has been, and there still is, a shortage of that kind of fuel.
  Clause 48 refers to
  "any manufacturer or supplier of smokeless fuel or liquid fuel".
  Twice in the Clause liquid fuel is mentioned. Manchester has been built by hard work on an island of coal. I suggest to my hon. Friends that Manchester could well do with giving support to its own industry, because it has one of the finest coal mines in the north of England or anywhere else.
  Sir D. Glover: As the hon. Member has that view, perhaps he will support our Instruction.
  Mr. Ogden: I never was able to understand the reasoning of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), and I do not follow it now.
  I suggest that rather than going in for liquid fuel from abroad, Manchester, which has a coal mine, less than a mile from the city centre—Bradford Colliery, one of the deepest, with some of the best seams, to which we can arrange a visit for anybody who wants to go—should support is own ratepayers, workpeople and employment.
  9.47 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I hesitate to intervene in the affairs of the City of Manchester, and I certainly would not say whether it
  758
  is a beautiful city. The Amendment, however, is not about keeping the buildings clean. It is a question of who is to supply the smokeless fuels for the smokeless zone. This is a matter which very much concerns all hon. Members and people throughout the country. My hon. Friends are right to raise this matter and to follow it up, because this is not a parochial matter concerning Manchester but a question of principle which the House has every right to debate.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in what must have been about the shortest speech on record, said that the object of the Clause was to give the corporation power to encourage the manufacture of smokeless fuels. I hesitate to correct the hon. Gentleman, who has the whole weight of his Department's advice behind him, but as I read the Clause it gives the corporation power to buy smokeless fuel, both liquid and solid. It gives the power to guarantee the sale of a quantity, which entails financial commitment. It gives the corporation power to sell to other local authorities and they in turn would have to get rid of those smokeless fuels. It therefore gives the corporation a power to indulge in trade in its own right. It gives the corporation power to trade in solid and liquid fuels throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. If that is the same as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's definition of the Clause, I do not understand it. Nor can the hon. Gentleman slide out of this by saying that it is a technical decision which could be left to the Committee to decide. It is a great question of principle as to whether a corporation, and one only throughout the country, should be given these wide powers.
  I have read the statement on behalf of the promoters of the Bill and the only argument that has been put forward for the Clause is that they apprehend that the demand may exceed the supply. Whatever else may be true, this certainly is not true of oil. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) made this point with great force. Nobody can conceive that there will be a shortage of oil in the foreseeable future, and I think that much the same comment applies to coal. But, even if there were to be a shortage of coal, it would not necessarily be the right way to handle the shortage to give

  759
  one corporation, and one only, throughout the whole of England, Scotland and Wales the power to preempt if it can scarce supplies from the National Coal Board or other suppliers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair-Wilson) developed this argument very well and forcefully, and I think that it is wrong to allow one corporation this power if we are not bringing this in as a public Bill to apply to all local authorities so that, in the same way, they can preempt supplies of fuel for their own purposes on an equal and fair basis, going back to a form of rationing as it were.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) referred to two provisos which the Corporation had offered. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, they do not go any distance to meet the objections which my hon. Friends have made to the Clause. The first proviso simply says that the corporation will consult representatives of the wholesale and retail fuel trade before entering into any agreement under subsection (2) of Clause 48. To consult is not enough. We all know that mere consultation does not go anywhere near giving the wholesale and retail trades the assurance which they need.
  The second proviso is simply to offer fuel to the trade for distribution and sale at a price which would have regard both to the cost to the corporation and the market price of fuels obtaining at that time. If the corporation is able to dictate the cost at which it is going to offer the fuels it possesses to the distribution trade, it can easily price the other people out of the market and continue in its monopoly as a supplier.
  I do not believe that these two provisos go anywhere near meeting the objections of principle which my hon. Friends have put forward. If the Corporation had offered the House some more substantial guarantees that it would not enter into municipal trading in fuel, both liquid and smokeless, we would have been happy to let the Clause go unchallenged, but there is no comfort to be derived from these two provisos.
  I submit that it is inexcusable to include oil in this Clause. There seems to be no reason why Manchester Corpora-
  760
  tion should not make a bargain with the Sheik of Kuwait, build a fleet of tankers, build a refinery, and import oil into this country. The Bill gives the Corporation power to do that. We all know that it probably will not want to use this power, but I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider the effect on the rates in Manchester if the corporation decided to exercise that power. This is not the purpose of a corporation.
  There is a minimum economic unit for doing these things. One cannot market oil in 2d. packets, nor can one set up a coal merchant's business on a very small scale. This operation has to be carried out on a sizeable economic scale, and the capital investment might be very large. This is surely a question on which the ratepayers of Manchester Corporation have every right to be consulted before it is put in a Bill of this sort.
  If we are to have this sort of backdoor nationalisation of fuel distribution, it should be done in a public Bill. We should have an opportunity of debating the principle as a whole. I do not know whether the hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) and Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) would agree with it, but at least they should be given the opportunity to read this in a Public Bill, and not in a Private Bill of this nature. I do not believe that Clause 48 has been anything like well enough thought out. If we are going to nationalise fuel distribution in Manchester let us think the Clause out, in respect of matters such as compensation and fair trading. This is not at all the right way to proceed with the Bill.
  It is never possible to contemplate competition between a municipal body and private traders engaging in the same trade. We shall never be told how the overheads are allocated, or how much of the taxpayers' capital has been allocated to the fuel business, or what is the exact profit or loss made on that part of the corporation's activities which deals with its trading in fuel. It will be impossible to determine the true cost of the activities of the corporation. Therefore, all competition, by its very nature, must be phoney.
  Mr. L. M. Lever: The corporation's accounts are published in every detail and particular.
  Mr. Ridley: I thought that the hon. Member was raising a point of order. I am delighted that I gave way to him. That is not so—because if a certain number of people occupy a building it is impossible to discover how much of the cost of providing that building is due to municipal activities and how much to trading activities. If a large amount of capital is invested by the corporation it is impossible to determine how much of the interest is due to its activities as a local authority and how much to its activities as a trading institution. We cannot separate and isolate the costs in the case of an institution such as a corporation which is trying to do both things at the same time. Therefore, it is not right that Manchester Corporation should take power under the Bill to set up a State trading organisation in fuel.
  I seriously suggest that the House would be unwise to give the corporation powers as wide as those which I have outlined. If the corporation wants fewer powers it should put fewer powers in the Bill. There was nothing to prevent its explaining much more carefully than it has done what it really wanted, and inserting limited powers in the Bill to which the House could agree with pleasure.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Lever: This debate has been an interesting exercise in flights of imagination. One hon. Member attempted to intimidate the House by suggesting that if Manchester Corporation was given the limited powers of the Clause it would make a corner of smokeless fuel in short supply and restrict supplies to its own tenants.
  The reasonable inference is that rioting would break out in the streets, and that this would be mollified only by persons seeking tankfuls of fuel supplied by hypothetical petrol pumps of the corporation, which, in turn, would be shipping in vast quantities of oil by reason of an agreement entered into with the Sheik of Kuwait.
  Far from persuading me to shackle the Committee which will now be examining the Bill, I would have thought that these complex and imaginative threats required the closest examination.
  Sir C. Taylor Sir C. Taylor rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be
  762
  now put, but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. Lever: I would have thought—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Experience suggests that if only one hon. Member makes a speech at any one time we make better progress.
  Mr. Lever: I would have thought that in view of the fears voiced by hon. Members opposite they would have welcomed the closest scrutiny of this Clause by a Committee of the House, so that its manifest evils and dangers, if any, should be exposed before the public gaze and the threat that the Manchester Corporation is, according to them, making to the lives and liberties of the citizens whom it is supposed to represent should be widely known.
  In those circumstances, the House having decided that this Bill shall be committed to a Select Committee, I am very anxious that without any sort of shackle or any hindrance—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  SUPPLY
  Again considered in Committee.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees Mr. Merlyn Rees (Leeds, South) rose—
  It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress to sit again Tomorrow.

  COMMONS REGISTRATION [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the registration of common land and of town or village greens, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Land and Natural Resources in paying to the Commons Commmissioners and assessors appointed under that Act fees and travelling and other allowances and in providing those Commissioners with services and facilities for the discharge of their functions;

  763

  (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
  10.2 p.m.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I wish to continue what I was asking the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources yesterday. I do so because I believe that the answer which he gave was erroneous.
  The House will recall that yesterday I asked why it was necessary to have the sums of money payable out of the rate deficiency grant. I said that this was a clumsy way of using the rate deficiency grant or Exchequer equalisation grant for paying money for such sums as were necessary to the local councils who would be engaged in dealing with the Register. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that this was the only way of getting money to the councils concerned. I think there are other methods and that this is not the best or the easiest way to see that this function is carried out by the county councils or county boroughs which are the authorities designated under the Bill. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why he gave me the reply that he did.
  My second point, which is very short, is that in the last line of the Money Resolution which we are discussing there are the words, "or in Scotland". As I understand, there is no common land whatever in Scotland and neither do town greens come under this designation. It would seem that the drafting of this subsection in the Money Resolution is loose and that these three words should not appear. I should like to know why they have been put in.
  10.5 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I am glad that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) gave me a run yesterday so that I could check the information which I could then
  764
  give without very much consideration. Those who advise me say that the answer I gave was correct. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had said that it was the only practical way in which sums from the Exchequer could be made available to the local authorities. The history of the matter is that in 1960, in the period of the previous Administration, there were negotiations with the Treasury over the method of paying towards what was a new burden on local councils. At one time, the Treasury was prepared to consider the possibility of going back to a percentage basis grant, but, on reflection, that view did not prevail. The decision was taken more than twelve months ago.
  Consequently, one is left now making financial provision within the general grant orders. The position is that, in the case of those authorities whose average rateable value does not come up to the general average of all authorities, that difference is made good by the rate deficiency fund, and there is a very complicated formula for calculating it, which I do not think that the hon. Member would want me to go into now, even if it was my province. I am advised that it is necessary, if we wish to ensure practical assistance to poorer authorities which may involve a contribution from the rate deficiency fund, to word the resolution in this way.
  It is calculated that the sum to be required over five years which will fall upon all the authorities is so small that it probably will not affect rate deficiency grant.
  I was asked also about the last line in the resolution and the reference to Scotland. The reason that the financial memorandum has to refer to Exchequer equalisation grants, the Scottish equivalent of the rate deficiency grants, even though the Bill does not apply to Scotland—as the hon. Member said, there are no common lands as we understand them in Scotland—is that under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, the Exchequer equalisation grants are calculated in total at a sum equal to 11/80ths of the grant payable to the local authorities in England and Wales in the corresponding financial year. Thus, any increase in the rate deficiency grant arising out of the Bill would affect the Exchequer equalisation

  765
  grants. Therefore, they must be set out in the resolution or the calculations could not be made accurately.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he not agree that this is a terribly complicated way of doing it? His speech, for which I am grateful and which is as clear as it can be, demonstrates how terribly difficult it is. It is absolutely nonsensical, when we have no intention of spending any money in Scotland, to bring Scotland into the Resolution. It is almost the wrong way of doing it. I would add that there are other more practical methods. What the hon. Gentleman says is that the sum should be small, that therefore it will not affect the rate deficiency grant at all and that the ratepayers should pay for this.
  This was not the intention of the hon. Gentleman in his speeches yesterday. Will he look at this once again? It should be possible to find a method of direct payment—direct hiring perhaps—for the 147 county councils and county boroughs. It would not be a vast sum. This would be by far the most satisfactory method.
  Mr. Skeffington: In the financial arrangements, we shall look at that question. In so far as making reference to the rate deficiency grant is concerned, the only practical way of making them is the way in which it has been done in the Resolution. On the Scottish point, this is a formula which generally applies. If the Scottish equalisation grant is a fixed mathematical proportion of the grant for England and Wales, there is nothing which this Department can do to alter it. I will see that the points which the hon. Member has made are conveyed to the right quarter.
  Question put and agreed to.

  ROAD LAYBYS (SANITARY FACILITIES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Harriet Slater.]
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I am glad to have this opportunity to raise a matter which is becoming more and more well known throughout the county, a problem which has arisen mainly in recent years, particularly in the
  766
  last two or three years. It is the lack of toilet facilities on main and trunk roads.
  This is becoming a more pressing problem the whole time, particularly in holiday areas and on and near roads which are traversed by holidaymakers. The problem also applies to the daily traveller going to and from work. This must be so since many people commute by car to the main centres.
  It is not necessary for rue, in view of the short time available for the debate and since several of my hon. Friends wish to speak, to go into all of the details involved in this problem. It is, after all, basically a very simple one. The amount of traffic on our roads has increased tremendously in recent years. The existing toilet facilities are badly signposted and inadequate. There is no dispute about this and one need only visit particularly the country areas to realise how severe the problem is.
  A look at laybys, hedgerows and fields adjoining main and trunk roads, particularly at holiday times, reveals how badly fouled they become by human excreta. A recent survey carried out on the A.1, between London and Edinburgh showed that 40 per cent. of the laybys were fouled in this way, which is a shocking state of affairs. It must be realised that if laybys, hedgerows and fields are to continue to be soiled in this way, bad habits, like strewing litter, are bound to be encouraged.
  The situation in my constituency, North Cornwall, is particularly bad. The laybys between Cornwall and Exeter during the Easter holidays were full of vehicles by 10.30 each night and the following mornings they were found to have been fouled by the people who had been staying in them. That is not to say that the travelling public want to foul these places. It is simply that toilet facilities are either not available nearby or are otherwise not easily found.
  It should be remembered that the fouling of laybys, hedgerows, and fields can lead to great danger. The National Farmers' Union is extremely perturbed by the hazards which can arise among animals and, through them, back to humans. For example, there is the threat of T.B. and dysentery, to name but two. Such diseases can be passed back through the meat of sheep and bullocks and through the milk of cows. It is obvious,

  767
  therefore, that the existing toilet facilities are not adequate and must be improved and increased in number.
  The necessity for improving them has already been accepted. It was accepted by the previous Administration and I am sure that the present Government will accept it. The acceptance of it by the Government is obvious, since in the construction of the motorways grants are made available for the provision of these facilities. Along the 345 miles of motorways there are toilet facilities. Along the 8,347 miles of trunk and main roads there are very few such facilities indeed.
  It is all to easy to subdivide the problem between the town and the country, although it exists in both. Generally speaking, there is a reasonable number of toilet facilities available in the towns, although it is extremely difficult to find them. Of great importance here, therefore, is proper signposting. Signposts should be illuminated and there should be easy access to toilets, as well as parking facilities nearby, so that the public who use the trunk and main roads are always able to find toilets when they are travelling in urban or built up areas. It will be seen that this is mainly a question of illumination and direction, although in some places there can be no doubt that additional toilet facilities will have to be built.
  In the countryside the problem is an altogether different one. A great deal must be done to provide more toilet facilities and, when that work has been done, those facilities must be properly sign-posted and illuminated. What would be the cost? There are two types of toilet facility that can be built. The first is the continuous chemical type—with which, I think the Parliamentary Secretary is familiar, as an experiment has been carried out in Oxfordshire by the county council, the maintenance being done by the Bullindon Rural District Council. This type costs about £1,700, and needs a very small tank to drain away the fluid. That is not a very great sum of money.
  The second type is a much more elaborate construction. It calls for mains water and septic tanks, and is, as a result, much more expensive. The cost of that type would be about £2,500 or £2,600. The difficulty arises in the fact that it has
  768
  been found that over a 10-year period the cost of maintenance and repair of damage caused by hooliganism is exactly the same as the initial cost. Therefore, during that period, with the first type, there is the initial £1,700 for construction and an additional sum of £1,700 for maintenance and repair. One therefore has to double the cost over the 10–year period.
  As I say, an experiment has been carried out in Oxfordshire on the A.40. The Oxfordshire County Council built the continuous chemical type of facility, which has since been maintained by the Bullingdon R.D.C. I understand that in the season over 200 people per hour use this facility. It is proving a great success, and there has been very little hooliganism.
  If this experiment proves successful, one then has to determine how many of these facilities we should have in the country. I should have thought that in open country, outside the built-up areas, a frequency of one every 20 miles is needed. If that is right, the cost on trunk roads only would be about £½ million. If one were built every 12 miles the cost would be just over £1 million, the same as the cost of one mile of motorway. At intervals of 25 miles the cost would be half a million pounds. In addition, one has to remember that a further half a million pounds would be needed for maintenance and repair of damage over the 10–year period.
  This is a very urgent problem. We are coming up to the holiday season, and in the West Country, in particular, we have encountered this problem already over the Easter weekend. It was an extremely unhappy experience as it always is, and as it has been year after year, building up to a crescendo now. I shudder to think what will happen this summer in Devon, Cornwall and Somerset, unless such facilities as these are made available.
  The main problem, as always, is where the money is to come from, and how it should be apportioned. I notice that there was a meeting at the beginning of the week between the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport and the various organisations that are interested in the subject. The Minister, therefore, has understanding of the problem, and realises its urgency. Quite obviously, the cost—and I hope that this was made clear to the Minister at the meeting, as I want

  769
  to make it clear now—cannot be borne entirely by the rural district councils or the county councils. There must be a Government grant, and the question revolves around how much the Government grant should be.
  The easiest thing would be to say that the Government, the county councils and the rural district councils should each pay one-third of the cost, but that would be quite unacceptable. That would be to put far too great a burden on the county councils, and, in my view, on the rural district councils as well. This is part of the services which the Government should provide and councils administer. I believe that a Government grant of 75 per cent. is absolutely vital if we are to have enough of these facilities. The total cost, including maintenance, would not be more than £1 million over 10 years. That is not a great sum, particularly when one thinks of the sums of money the Government are spending on other services. In any case, it is vital that the decision should be taken, and taken quickly, that these facilities should be built and that the Government should give grants for that purpose.
  The Government grant must certainly be more than one-third. It must be at least 50 per cent., and I would ask for a grant of 75 per cent., which I consider to be the right Government proportion. The cost over 10 years would be doubled because of repairs and maintenance, and the Government should also undertake to pay part of the maintenance and repair costs, as they do, after all, in regard to road maintenance. When trunk roads or main roads are torn up, or are broken by hooliganism, the Government make a grant of 90 per cent. for classified roads and 100 per cent. for trunk roads. The county council acts as agents. The same principle should be extended to repair and maintenance of these toilet facilities when they have been constructed. I hope that the Government will look at this matter seriously, because otherwise the burden could be too much for county councils and rural district councils.
  In places where toilet facilities have been provided in laybys hooliganism has caused damage. An additional safeguard against that would be some form of camping facilities at some laybys which
  770
  would help in the guarding of these facilities. This is necessary because, with modern methods of holiday travel, many people camp and sleep out at laybys. If, every 50 miles, camping sites were based near these toilet facilities, it would be a great advantage. Perhaps it would help to defray some of the costs.
  I hope that there will be trial areas where the experiment can be carried out this summer in a way similar to what has been done in Oxfordshire. I hope that such areas would be in the Eastern Counties—many people travel to Margate and places in that area—in the North, and certainly in the West Country. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to use Cornwall as a pilot area and to see whether such a system could be extended over the whole country. I wish to impress on him how vital it is to have such a scheme, not only for my constituency, but for the whole country, and that these facilities should be made available at the earliest possible moment.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that he accepts the necessity, that a grant of at least 75 per cent. can be made, and, in addition, a portion for maintenance paid over a 10–year period. If this is not done there will be danger to health and the whole system will be liable to breakdown, to the great detriment to the travelling public and the rural areas. This is something that we cannot leave unattended. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help us in this problem.
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Alison: My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has covered the case almost as completely as possible, but there are one or two points I should like to make.
  The private motor vehicle is at the root of this problem. The long-distance lorry driver uses transport cafes and regular users of motor coach tours use the hotel and other provisions made on those routes. The private motor car is the category of vehicle which will be increasing in relation to the total number of road users more than any other category in the next decade. The problem is serious now, but it will thus get a great deal worse. Something will have to be done. The question is who should do it. In the

  771
  West Riding, and particularly in my constituency where we have a long chunk of A.1 between Ferrybridge and Borough-bridge, the intensity of traffic on trunk roads is a result of policies taken at Ministry level. The Government have provided trunk roads and Treasury Ministers have provided encouragement to the motor industry. The general prosperity of the country is producing a huge increase in private motoring and this is a national problem for which the provision of a solution is a national responsibility. The impact is local but the responsibility is national.
  The Rural District Councils Association wants a 100 per cent. grant for construction and maintenance but if that cannot be provided it would be pleased to get a 75 per cent. grant. It is beyond the capacity of rural district councils to finance this matter themselves. It would be necessary to provide facilities on each side of the road for otherwise there will be a traffic hazard. Construction and maintenance costs for that would be entirely beyond the capacity of rural districts. So I ask the hon. Gentleman to give favourable consideration to provision of a maximum grant.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) for raising this important matter. I strongly support what he said. In my area, East Anglia, a number of surveys have recently been carried out by private individuals and by members of the National Farmers' Union, the details of which I would like to send to the Minister. I want to quote some examples along one road where a certain representative of the National Farmers' Union reported in the first layby paper, cellophane wrappers, beer cans, bottles, cardboard containers and drums. In the second layby he reported two old coppers and a cardboard box of rubbish. In the third layby he reported rubber, cardboard boxes and broken milk bottles. In the fourth he reported cans, paper, contraceptives and bottles. In the fifth he reported paper, boxes, bottles, car parts, bedsteads, metal drums and old sinks.
  It is clear that the desecration of our countryside is becoming a very real problem, and as our population increases we
  772
  must tackle this problem. In the first instance, it must require Government leadership. I am not one who believes that these problems can be solved by Government action. It is a matter of the individual himself tackling the problem. It is in this field, as well as in the provision of money, that I would feel that a Government policy is best directed. I believe that we are moving to a period where many of our people are demanding higher standards in our national life. I hope that in tackling the problem the Government will not simply look at it just as a matter of providing more money. It is also a matter of individuals accepting the responsibility of not messing this country up. We are not a dirty people. I believe that if this matter is spotlighted, in the House and elsewhere, the British public in the end will have to clean up their laybys themselves.
  10.27 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): We have heard a very powerful plea tonight from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). I know that many hon. Members are concerned about this serious problem. Several of them are here tonight. Some, like my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), who has pressed this matter for many years, are not.
  As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North said, this is a problem which has been serious for some time. It has been building up year after year. We definitely intend to do something about it. In my speech I shall announce that we shall be sponsoring a pilot scheme for the provision of sanitary facilities along certain stretches of trunk roads and that it will be launched as soon as possible.
  Before coming to the details of that, may I say that I know that hon. Members have been frustrated for some time by a long period of relatively fruitless discussions. No one, least of all those of us at the Ministry of Transport, disputes that this problem has been getting worse over the years as a result of the tremendous increase in the traffic on trunk roads. It is most noticeable along these roads, which are my right hon. Friend's responsibility, but it also arises on other roads.

  773
  As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North said, motorways are an exception. Toilet facilities are provided at the services areas on motorways. But they are not provided by us. In fact, service areas are provided on the motorways by the Ministry of Transport and on those areas there are toilet facilities.
  The provision of more laybys, which, apparently, invite and concentrate abuse, and the greater number of by-pass schemes avoiding towns, which causes motorists to miss places where sanitary conveniences are available, have undoubtedly aggravated this problem.
  The difficulty has been, frankly, the question, who should be responsible for dealing with this problem? And especially, of course, the inevitable question, where does the money come from? The trouble—let us be perfectly candid about it—is that although local health authorities have powers to provide conveniences the authorities, especially in rural areas, have great financial difficulties in finding the resources. Not unnaturally, they have been reluctant to spend ratepayers' money for travellers who are merely passing through their localities.
  It has been suggested that my right hon. Friend ought to provide sanitary facilities upon trunk roads. The argument, as put by many hon. Members, runs that my right hon. Friend is the highway authority for these roads, therefore he ought to provide the sanitary facilities for the users of the roads. However, my right hon. Friend simply cannot be expected to meet all the needs of travellers on the roads. Many other things could be suggested—for example, the provision of bus shelters, and other things of that kind. My right hon. Friend has no power to provide lavatories on trunk roads under the law as it is, and that is the position we have inherited.
  I come to the present position, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that we are now on the way, in spite of these difficulties, to adopting a pilot scheme which we hope to get going this summer for the provision of sanitary facilities along selected stretches of trunk roads. The County Surveyors' Society, through the County Councils' Association, has most helpfully investigated three representative sections of roads in detail, and we shall be glad to authorise the schemes
  774
  which they suggest. Moreover, the Rural District Councils' Association has sent us a very helpful report urging that the physical provision and maintenance of conveniences on trunk roads should be a public health function, and accepting that public health authorities ought to contribute to the costs. To us, these are very encouraging signs from the local authorities' associations, bodies which have the "know-how" and expert staff to deal with sanitary provisions.
  My right hon. Friend also recognises that local authorities might have difficulty in meeting the full costs of the pilot schemes which we suggest. Therefore, I am able to say that we have obtained authority for an Exchequer contribution of one-third of the cost of providing sanitary facilities for these schemes in this financial year—and I may say that this is, of course, an extra-statutory contribution, since Parliament has given no powers for an advance for this purpose. I hope that I shall not be pressed to explain the position on that point.
  At any rate, as the hon. Gentleman said, earlier this week there was a meeting of all those who have been concerned in this matter, the local authority associations, my Department, and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It is our hope that, as a result of that, we shall now have very speedy action, and it can happen this summer if we can get very quick agreement on the details. From these schemes we hope to get experience of the problems of the siting of sanitary facilities, their maintenance, and so on, and also to test that vandalism, a disease which, unfortunately, seems to be spreading all over the place, will not make these toilet facilities unusable and a waste of money.
  Let me come to some of the detailed points. The lengths of road suggested for these experiments by the County Councils Association are the A.40 in Oxfordshire, the A.38 in Somerset and the A.1 in Hertfordshire. In addition, we have suggested the A.2 in Kent, which we know suffers badly. We know that we shall be pressed to extend this further. I might add, in addition to what the hon. Gentleman has said, that we applaud the initiative of the Oxfordshire County Council and the Bulling-don Rural District Council which have

  775
  had experimental sanitary facilities on the A.40 at Wheatley for about two years.
  We are hoping now that the county councils concerned and the public health authorities in collaboration with our divisional road engineers will get going to work out the necessary plans for submission by those county councils to my Department and to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. We are suggesting that toilets, one on either side of the road, would be provided at 15 mile intervals. The exact spacing and siting would depend on local conditions in the places that I have mentioned.
  As I have said, the Exchequer would contribute one-third of the cost and we have suggested that the public health authority and the county council concerned should share the remainder equally. I emphasise that this is an experiment. We are proposing pilot schemes and we hope to get going this year. The Government are prepared to contribute the sum of £50,000, which means that with the local authorities contributions there should be £150,000 for the installation of sanitary facilities in the places that I have mentioned.
  Of course, we realise that these are experimental schemes and after, say, 12 months' experience all of those concerned will want to consider what are the next steps that should be taken. The Government will have to see how far financial assistance should be given—and maybe increased—as a regular thing. The local authorities, of course, will have to review their responsibilities in the matter. We are not at the moment saying that anybody should be com-
  776
  mitted to any proportion of responsibility in these arrangements—particularly financial responsibility. These will be matters for future discussion because this is the first time that action of this kind is actually being taken.
  The important thing as far as we are concerned is that these pilot experiments should be mounted here and now in 1965 on this basis. I feel confident that the local authorities—and I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will support this—will do whatever they can to deal speedily with the plans and arrangements proposed for these places and get these projects pushed ahead.
  As well as motorists who need to stop at a toilet during the course of a long journey, there are holiday motorists who, more and more often, pull up and sleep overnight where no toilets are available. This was a point which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We are very glad to see that one or two county councils have taken powers to provide trunk road service areas for such travellers and we have suggested to the local authority associations that it might be useful to give such powers generally to the county councils.
  We are also prepared to consider further the possibility of giving wider powers to the public health authorities to contribute to the provision of sanitary facilities for the general public at refreshment places and petrol stations on main roads.
  Finally, I would say—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.

BOARD OF TRADE
  Coal (Exports)
  Coal (Exports)
  National Exhibition Centre, Crystal Palace
  National Exhibition Centre, Crystal Palace
  Industrial Development, Scotland
  Industrial Development, Scotland
  Exports to Hong Kong
  Exports to Hong Kong
  Manufactured Goods (Imports)
  Manufactured Goods (Imports)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Standards of Management)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Standards of Management)
  Companies (Sales Methods)
  Companies (Sales Methods)
  Imported Canned Pilchards (Tariffs)
  Imported Canned Pilchards (Tariffs)
  Cotton Textiles (Import Quotas)
  Cotton Textiles (Import Quotas)
  Office Development Permits
  Office Development Permits
  Textiles (Imports and Exports)
  Textiles (Imports and Exports)
  Advance Factory, Camelford
  Advance Factory, Camelford
  Unemployment, Bude
  Unemployment, Bude
  Shipbuilding Industry
  Shipbuilding Industry
  Audio-Visual Material (Customs Duty)
  Audio-Visual Material (Customs Duty)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  International Conferences
  International Conferences
  Marine Nuclear Propulsion
  Marine Nuclear Propulsion
  Film Producers (T.U.C. Proposals)
  Film Producers (T.U.C. Proposals)
  Exports
  Exports
  Deceptive Advertising (Consumer Council's Views)
  Deceptive Advertising (Consumer Council's Views)
  International Engineering Exhibition, Olympia
  International Engineering Exhibition, Olympia
  Japanese Shipowners (Loans)
  Japanese Shipowners (Loans)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Machent Report
  Machent Report
  Speed Limit Enforcement (Radar)
  Speed Limit Enforcement (Radar)
  Jury Service (Report)
  Jury Service (Report)
  Electoral Registers, Cardiff
  Electoral Registers, Cardiff
  Casement Diaries
  Casement Diaries
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Postmen (Pay)
  Postmen (Pay)
  TSR2 Project (Cancellation)
  TSR2 Project (Cancellation)
  East Midlands Planning Board (Chairman)
  East Midlands Planning Board (Chairman)
  Nurses and Midwives (Pay)
  Nurses and Midwives (Pay)
  Incomes and Prices
  Incomes and Prices
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Export Rebate
  Export Rebate
  British Petroleum Company
  British Petroleum Company
  Corporation Tax (North-East)
  Corporation Tax (North-East)
  Retirement Pensioners (Earnings Rule)
  Retirement Pensioners (Earnings Rule)
  Public Service Pensions
  Public Service Pensions
  CENTRAL EUROPE (NUCLEAR-FREE ZONE)
  CENTRAL EUROPE (NUCLEAR-FREE ZONE)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  EASTER RECESS (MINISTERIAL OVERSEAS VISITS)
  EASTER RECESS (MINISTERIAL OVERSEAS VISITS)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL (CHEQUERS VISIT)
  SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL (CHEQUERS VISIT)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Phantom Aircraft
  Phantom Aircraft
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Science Research Council (Grants)
  Science Research Council (Grants)
  School Swimming Baths
  School Swimming Baths
  MR. GORDON WALKER (FAR EAST TOUR)
  MR. GORDON WALKER (FAR EAST TOUR)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Commonwealth Education Liaison Committee
  Commonwealth Education Liaison Committee
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensioners (Earnings Rule)
  Retirement Pensioners (Earnings Rule)
ROADS
  Easter Road Accidents
  Easter Road Accidents
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (Noise)
  Motor Vehicles (Noise)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Gas and Electricity Charges (Tenants)
  Gas and Electricity Charges (Tenants)
TECHNOLOGY
  Automation Machines
  Automation Machines
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Subscribers, Wellingborough (Shared Lines)
  Subscribers, Wellingborough (Shared Lines)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle
The Lord Casey—Took the Oath.

NEW GOVERNMENT-APPOINTED BODIES
3.5 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: 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 will publish a list of all

Title of Council, Committee, etc., and date set up

Functions (except those obvious from title) and Authority to which body will report

Name of Chairman

Number of other Members

Whether Planning Advisory, etc.

Committee of Inquiry into certain matters concerning the Port Transport Industry (30.10.64)

To inquire into (i) a dispute between the two sides of the industry; (ii) decasualisation; (iii) causes of dissention and other matters affecting efficiency (Minister of Labour)

Lord Devlin

4

Investigatory and Advisory

General Policy Committee of the Central Training Council (30.10.64)

To consider and make recommendations to the Council on general policy on Industrial training, on the development of research, and on the form and content of publications by the Ministry of Labour (Central Training Council)

Sir John Hunter, M.B.E.

10

Advisory

Commercial and Clerical Committee of the Central Training Council (9.11.64)

To recommend to the Central Training Council, what guidance should be issued to Training Boards in respect of training for commercial and clerical occupations (Central Training Council)

Mr. J. A. Hunt, M.B.E.

18

Advisory

Sub-Committee of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee (10.11.64)

To review the appointed Factory Doctor Service and to make recommendations (Minister of Labour)

From Ministry of Labour

7

Investigatory and Advisory

Committee on General Medical Services in the Highlands and Islands (13.11.64)

(Secretary of State for Scotland)

The Hon. Lord Birsay, C.B.E.

11

Investigatory

the new Councils, Committees, subcommittees and such-like bodies of a national or regional character set up, or about to be set up, by the Government since it came into office, which have planning, advisory, executive, investigatory or similar functions; together with separate notes on their functions where these are not apparent from their titles, and the number of members comprising each group.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords,the Answer to the Question is "Yes". I will, with permission, circulate it as a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There are 63 items in the table which shows all the Councils, Committees and so forth whose appointments have been announced by the Government since it came into office. The list includes a proportion of bodies which are merely reconstituted successors to previously existing bodies.
Following is the list referred to:

Title of Council, Committee, etc., and date set up

Functions (except those obvious from title) and Authority to which body will report

Name of Chairman

Number of other Members

Whether Planning, Advisory, etc.

Advisory Council on Technology (24.11.64)

(Minister of Technology)

Minister of Technology

12

Advisory

Inter-departmental Committee on Training for Skill (30.11.64)

To advise the appropriate Ministers on the means of encouraging the more rapid development of industrial training and of the associated technical and other forms of further education, and to secure the fullest co-ordination between the bodies responsible in these fields (Minister of Labour and the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Scotland)

Mr. R. W. Marsh, M.P., Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Labour

12

Advisory

Space Review Committee (November, 1964

To review British Defence interests in space and to make recommendations about the future research and development programme (The Defence Research Committee)

Professor H. Bondi

11

Advisory

The Animals Advisory Committee (3.12.64)

To advise upon any question which may be referred in connection with the Animals (Restriction of Importation) Act (Secretary of State for Education and Science)

Lord Cranbrook, C.B.E.

7

Advisory

Committee of Enquiry into the Aircraft Industry (9.12.64)

(Minister of Aviation)

Lord Plowden

8

Investigatory and Advisory

The Albemarle Review Committee (16.12.64)

To re-examine the objectives of the Albemarle Report in the light of five years experience and to make recommendations for future development (i.e. of the Youth Service) (Youth Service Development Council)

Lady Albemarle, D.B.E.

5

Advisory

Council for Scientific Policy (16.1.65

(Secretary of State for Education and Science)

Sir Harrie Massey, F.R.S.

13

Advisory

Scottish Committee of the Central Training Council (21.1.65)

To consider matters arising out of the implementation and operation of the Industrial Training Act as they affect Scotland and to report to the Central Training Council from time to time (Central Training Council)

Mr. J. Anderson

22

Advisory

Scientific Advisory Panel (22.1.65)

A body of independent scientists to advise the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the scientific aspects of any questions affecting the activities of his Department which he may from time to time refer to them; and on their own initiative to advise on any problems in this field on which they think it would be useful for him to have their advice (Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)

Professor A. C. Frazer, C.B.E., M.D., D.Sc., F.R.C.P

5

Advisory

Energy Advisory Council (22.1.65)

(Minister of Power)

Minister of Power

11

Advisory

Welsh Committee of the Central Training Council (28.1.65)

To consider matters arising out of the implementation and operation of the Industrial Training Act as they affect Wales and to report to the Central Training Council from time to time (Central Training Council)

Mr. R.B. Southall, C.B.E., J.P.

22

Advisory

Title of Council, Committee, etc., and date set up

Functions (except those obvious from title) and Authority to which bodywill report

Name of Chairman

Number of other Members

Whether Planning, Advisory, etc.

Commonwealth Exports Council with the following Area Committees (January 1965)

To promote British Exports to the Commonwealth (An independent grant-aided body)*

Sir William McFadzean

27

Committee for Exports to Australia

Mr. C. R. Wheeler, C.B.E.

14

Committee for Exports to New Zealand

Mr. Alexander Ross

12

Committee for Exports to Commonwealth countries in Africa

Mr. A. H. Smith

9

Committee for Exports to Commonwealth countries in Asia

Sir Edward Thompson

11

Committee for Exports to Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean

Mr. J. R. M. Rocke

11

Sports Council (3.2.65)

To advise on matters relating to the development of amateur sport and physical recreation services and to foster co-operation among statutory authorities and voluntary organisations concerned (Secretary of State for Education and Science)

Mr. Denis Howell, M.P., Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Department of Education and Science

16

Advisory and Consultative

Committee to consider awards to industry for outstanding achievement in increasing exports or technological innovation (4.2.65)

(Prime Minister)

H.R.H. The Duke of Edinburgh

12

Advisory

Committee on Man-power Resources for Science and Technology (4.2.65)

(Secretary of State for Education and Science and Minister of Technology)

Sir Willis Jackson, F.R.S.

26

Investigatory and Advisory

Standards of Housing Fitness sub-committee Central Housing Advisory Committee (5.2.65)

To consider the practicability of specifying objective criteria for the purposes of slum clearance, the recertification of disrepair and other housing powers relating to minimum tolerable standards of housing accommodation; and to make recommendations (Minister of Housing and Local Government)

Cllr. Mrs. E. Denington

14

Advisory

Transport Advisory Council (8.2.65)

To advise the Minister of Transport on policy matters generally (Minister of Transport)

Minister of Transport

8

Advisory

* The Commonwealth Exports Council also includes the Committee for Exports to Canada previously set up under the British National Export Council—Cyprus, Malta and Gibraltar are covered by the Export Council for Europe.

Title of Council, Committee, etc., and date set up

Functions (except those obvious from title) and Authority to which body will report

Name of Chairman

Name of other Members

Whether Planning, Advisory, etc.

Advisory Council for Probation and After-Care (11.2.65)

To advise on questions relating to the administration and development of the probation and after-care service (Home Secretary)

Mr. T. A. F. Noble, M.B.E., M.A.

16

Advisory

Training Committee of the Advisory Council for Probation and After-Care (11.2.65)

To advise on recruitment and training of persons for probation and aftercare work, and to select persons for training (Home Secretary)

Mr. T. A. F. Noble, M.B.E., M.A

31

Advisory and Executive

Committee on Enforcement of Judgements (15.2.65)

(The Lord Chancellor)

The Hon. Mr. Justice Payne

10

Advisory

Shipbuilding Enquiry Committee (16.2.65

To establish changes necessary to make the shipbuilding industry competitive in world markets and to reduce costs of manufacture of large marine engines; to recommend how to bring the changes about. [Full terms of reference Official Report H. of C. 2.2.65] (President of the Board of Trade)

Mr. R. M. Geddes

7

Investigatory and Advisory

Scottish Economic Planning Council (25.2.65)

(i) to assist in the formation of plans for the development of the Scottish economy, having regard to the best use of Scotland's resources; (ii) to advise on the steps necessary for implementing the plans on the basis of information and assistance provided by the Scottish Economic Planning Board; (iii) to advise on the Regional implications of national economic policies (Secretary of State for Scotland)

Secretary of State for Scotland

24

Planning and Advisory

Committee on Inducements to Teachers to serve in areas of teacher shortage (25.2.65)

(Secretary of State for Scotland)

Dame Jean Roberts, D.B.E.

15

Investigatory and Advisory

Working Party on Educational Psychologists (26.2.65)

To consider the field of work of educational psychologists employed by local education authorities and the qualifications and training necessary; to estimate the number of psychologists required; and to make recommendations (Secretary of State for Education and Science)

Professor A. Summerfield, B.Sc.

10

Investigatory and Advisory

West Midland Economic Planning Council (1.3.65)

(i) To assist in the formulation of a regional plan, having regard to the best use of the region's resources (First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs)

Mr. J. A. Hunt, M.B.E., Hon. ACT. (Birmingham) F.B.I.M.

25

Advisory

North West Economic Planning Council (1.3.65)

(ii) To advise on the steps necessary for implementing the regional plan on the basis of information and assessments provided by the Economic Planning Board (First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs)

Mr. C. Carter

26

Advisory

Northern Economic Planning Council (1.3.65)

(iii) To advise on the regional implications of national economic policies (First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs)

Cllr. T. Dan Smith

26

Advisory

Title of Council, Committee, etc., and date set up

Functions (except those obvious from title) and Authority to which body will report

Name of Chairman

Number of other Members

Whether Planning, Advisory, etc.

Welsh Economic Planning Council (1.3.65)

(i) To assist in the formulation of plans for Wales, having regard to the best use of its resources (Secretary of State for Wales)

Minister of State Welsh Office

25

Advisory

(ii) To advise on the steps necessary for implementing the plans (Secretary of State for Wales)

(iii) To advise on the implications for Wales of national economic policies (Secretary of State for Wales)

Research Advisory Group (2.3.65)

To advise the Minister of Housing and Local Government on an Urban Planning Research Programme dealing with rebuilding old towns and developing new towns (Minister of Housing and Local Government)

Lord Llewelyn-Davies

15

Advisory

Committee of Enquiry into the Pharmaceutical Industry (8.3.65)

To examine the relationship of the Pharmaceutical Industry in Great Britain with the National Health Service, having regard to the structure of the industry, to the commercial policy of the firms comprising it, to pricing and sales promotion practices, to the effects of patents and to the relevance and value of research, and to make recommendations (The Health Ministers)

Lord Sainsbury

Not yet decided

Investigatory and Advisory

Committee of Inquiry into dispute between the two sides of the National Council for the Omnibus Industry (10.03.65

(Minister of Labour)

Sir Roy Wilson, Q.C.

3

Investigatory and Advisory

Advisory Committee on the Censuses of Production for 1965, 1966 and 1967 (9.3.65)

(President of the Board of Trade)

From Board of Trade

14

Advisory

Working Party on Nutritional (18.3.65)

To review the nutritional standards laid down in the Department of Education and Science Circular 290, with special reference to whether the proportion of first class protein needs adjustment for different age groups; to consider whether the present type of school dinner is appropriate in the light of changes in feeding habits since the current standards were fixed in 1955; and to make recommendations (Secretary of State for Education and Science)

Mr. R. Howlett, C.B.

13

Investigatory and Advisory

Natural Resources Advisory Committee (25.3.65)

To advise on problems associated with the availability and use of natural resources in Great Britain (The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (in association with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales))

Sir Dudley Stamp, C.B.E.

9

Advisory

Title of Council, Committee, etc., and date set up

Functions (except those obvious from title) and Authority to which body will report

Name of Chairman

Number of other Members

Whether Planning, Advisory, etc.

Research Committee of the Central Training Council (26.3.65)

To consider the needs for research into matters relating to training for employment in industry, the means by which these needs can be met, and the steps necessary to promote the application of the results of research; and to make recommendations to the Council accordingly. To advise the Minister on the merits of particular research projects prepared by training boards or otherwise (Central Training Council)

Mr. F. Garner

12

Advisory

National Road Safety Advisory Council (30.3.65)

To keep under review the road accident situation in Great Britain and methods of accident prevention; to advise the Minister of Transport and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales on those matters which he, or the Secretaries of State may refer to them; and to consider and report on other matters which may appear to the Council to be of importance in relation to road safety (the Minister of Transport and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales)

Sir Alfred Owen, C.B.E.

12

Advisory

Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers Associations (March, 1965)

[For Terms of Reference see Prime Minister's statement in H. of C. Official Report Vol. 705 No. 48 Col. 940] (Her Majesty the Queen)

Lord Donovan

11

Investigatory and Advisory

Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council (1.4.65)

For terms of reference see W. Midland Economic Planning Council above (First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs)

Sir Roger Stevens, G.C.M.G

29

Advisory

E. Midland Economic Planning Council (1.4.65)

For terms of reference see W. Midland Economic Planning Council above (First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs)

Mr. G. E. Dearing, M.B.E.,J.P.

23

Advisory

Science Research Council (1.4.65)

As in Section I(2) of the Science and Technology Act, 1965 (Secretary of State Education and Science)

Sir Harry Melville, K.C.B., D.Sc., F.R.I.C., F.R.S

11

Executive and Advisory

National Board for Prices and Incomes (9.4.65)

[For Terms of Reference see the White Paper "Prices and Incomes Policy" (Cmnd. 2639)] (Her Majesty the Queen)

The Rt. Hon. Aubrey Jones

7

Investigatory and Advisory

South West Economic Planning Council (14.4.65)

As for W. Midland Economic Planning Council (First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs)

Professor R. C. Tross

23

Advisory

Police Council for Great Britain (About to be set up under Section 45 of the Police Act 1964 which came into effect on 1.4.65)

To consider questions relating to police hours of duty, leave, pay, and allowances, pensions, and the issue, use and return of police clothing, personal equipment and accoutrements and to consider regulations on these matters in draft (The Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for Scotland)

Not yet appointed

Not yet settled

Negotiating and Advisory

Title of Council, Committee, etc., and date set up

Functions (except those obvious from title) and Authority to which body will report

Name of Chairman

Number of other Members

Whether Planning, Advisory, etc.

Police Advisory Board for England and Wales (About to be set up under Section 46 of the Police Act 1964 which came into effect on 1.4.65)

To advise the Secretary of State for the Home Department on general questions affecting the Police in England and Wales and to consider regulations on these matters in draft (The Secretary of State for the Home Department)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Not yet settled

Advisory

Police Advisory Board for Scotland (About to be set up under Section 46 of the Police Act 1964 which came into effect on 1.4.65)

To advise the Secretary of State for Scotland on general questions affecting the Police in Scotland and to consider regulations on these matters in draft (Secretary of State for Scotland)

Secretary of State for Scotland

12 representatives of police authorities; 18 of police associations; up to 6 independent members

Advisory

Natural Environment Research Council (Not yet set up)

Responsible for carrying out, facilitating, encouraging and supporting research in the earth sciences and ecology (Secretary of State for Education and Science)

Sir Graham Sutton, C.B.E., F.R.S.

Not yet decided

Executive and Advisory

Committee on Police Cadets

To advise the Secretary of State for Scotland on regulations as to the government, administration and conditions of service of police cadets. (Paragraph 9 of Schedule 7 of the Police Act 1964) (Secretary of State for Scotland)

Official of Scottish Home and Health Department

3 representatives of police authorities; 6 of police associations; H.M. Inspector

Advisory

Highlands and Islands Development Board (Not yet set up)

To secure the economic and social development of the Highlands and Islands (Secretary of State for Scotland*)

Not yet

appointed

Executive

Highlands and Islands Consultative Council (Not yet set up)

To advise the Highlands and Islands Development Board on the exercise and performance of its functions (Highlands and Islands Development Board*)

Not yet

appointed

Advisory

Official Working Party on Pension Rights for Part-time Teachers (About to be set up)

To consider whether and on what terms pension rights can be extended to part-time teachers (Secretary of State for Education and Science)

Mr. W. D. Pile, M.B.E.

25

Investigatory and Advisory

An Advisory Committee for Scientific Technical Information (Not yet set up)

To advise on U.K. activities in scientific and technical information over the whole field of the natural and social sciences and their related technologies (Secretary of State for Education and Science)

Sir James Cook, F.R.S.

Not yet appointed

Advisory

Home Grown Cereals Authority (Not yet set up)

To improve the marketing of homegrown cereals†

Mr. W. D. Scott

20

Meat and Livestock Commission

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Secretary of State for Scotland have begun consultations with the interests concerned about the establishment of a commission to be charged with responsibilities for the improvement of meat marketing. A further statement will be made later.

—

—

*Subject to the passage of the Highland Development (Scotland) Bill.

†Subject to the enactment of the Cereals Marketing Bill.

LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, and through him the civil servants who have had the work of preparing such a long reply, may I ask him why it has been necessary to set up as many as 63 new Councils and Committees since the present Government came into office, and whether the Government have taken fully into account the amount of time of busy men which will be absorbed, if these Committees are to work effectively?
LORD CHAMPION: Yes, my Lords, it has all been taken into consideration. The number is certainly large, and so is the number of urgent tasks to which Her Majesty's Government have promised to put their hands, using to the maximum the range of skills, knowledge and experience of the whole nation, where-ever it is available. Her Majesty's Government do not believe that the Government of the country should be confined to a narrow ring of professionals in the Metropolis.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a very large number of business men in this country who very much appreciate the opportunity of taking part in these various Committees in furtherance of Government policy?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I welcome that, of course. It is the case that we do not believe that Whitehall always knows best.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that the volume of work in Whitehall varies as to the square of the participating bodies?
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the results they have obtaineď from setting up all these Committees?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, when these Committees report, I am sure that their reports will be closely considered, and if they have the wisdom we expect them to have, action will be taken upon them.

INSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS OF COLLEGES OF TECHNOLOGY
3.8 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that following the transfer of the ten colleges of technology to the control of the University Grants Committee each has now been instructed to insure separately for various financial risks; that heretofore the Ministry of Education and Science carried such risks and that the change will result in a considerable increase of expense and administrative work.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BOWDEN): My Lords, the colleges of advanced technology were informed in a recent memorandum, which was issued jointly by the Department of Education and Science and by the University Grants Committee, that they would cease on March 31 to be indemnified by the Crown for purposes of fire and other insurance, and that it would be for governing bodies to decide what insurance cover they considered necessary from April 1, and to meet the cost from within their own resources. This is in accordance with Government policy aligning the colleges with other universities which, as autonomous bodies, arrange to insure their own property. Adequate financial provision has been made in colleges' block grants to meet the cost of this change.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that this infringes the basic principle of insurance, to wit, that the body with the larger financial resources—in this case, Her Majesty's Government—does not take out insurance with bodies with smaller financial resources? And is the Minister aware that, as a result of this direction, presumably to the U.G.C., every university in the country is negotiating separate insurances with insurance companies, with the result that a great deal of money which could have been saved is thus being wasted?
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, I think that I had better give the noble Lord an answer in two parts. In the first place, universities are autonomous bodies whose finances are in large measure under their own control. It would therefore not be in accordance with normal Government practice for the Government to insure them against the various contingencies to which they are liable. The colleges of advanced technology will merely be conforming to the practice which has been followed for many years by all other universities, and this seems to us quite proper.
In terms of the general question of the amount of money to be saved, I think that the difference between the cost of insuring with an insurance company and the corresponding cost of insuring, as it were, with the Government should not be very great. I have had considerable experience of this matter in my previous incarnation (if I may be forgiven for so describing it), and I assure the House that the details are complex. I have had occasion to deal through insurance brokers who have given us the very best possible service. This has not proved to be an unreasonable burden on our finances. In fact, adequate grants have been made to all the institutions referred to in the original Question.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government, as this kind of special insurance tends to be rather expensive, whether they will keep some account and make a comparison with figures of the past with a view to making a change if they should deem it necessary?
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, it might he possible to make an adequate comparison from the figures already at our disposal. I will look into the matter.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the cost of this insurance is rising steeply for universities, that in the last five years it has increased by more than twofold, and that this is a serious drain on university resources?
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, this has not been my own experience. But the number of things against which one can take out insurance is almost unlimited. There are some things against which the
714
changing activities of the universities make it more and more necessary to insure. But my experience has always been that it is not a difficult or unusual matter to take out insurance policies against the normal risks run by universities.

PROPOSED WITNEY BY-PASS
3.15 p.m.
LORD HAYTER: 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 can give a date for the commencement of proceedings for the work on the proposed by-pass for Witney, Oxon, on the A.40.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, preparatory work is proceeding, but my right honourable friend is unable to give a date at present for the start of construction.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he would accept the thanks of the Liberal Party for his Answer to this Question emanating from the Liberal Benches?
LORD HAYTER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which gives me a flicker of hope for this by-pass which has been for such a long time under discussion. May I add a word about Witney?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD HAYTER: My Lords, will you allow me to put a supplementary question?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD HAYTER: My Lords, surely we can have some relief from this terrible South Wales traffic which passes through the narrow streets of Witney. My question is this. Two sets of traffic lights and crossings have already been agreed by the Witney Council and the Highways Committee of the Oxfordshire County Council. I hope that these will now have the approval of the Ministry. Would the noble Lord kindly say whether that is so?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords I will take the noble Lord's question in the various parts. First, it is anticipated that when the M.4 becomes operative in the 1970s about 25 per cent. of the traffic now passing through Witney to South Wales will go through on the M.4. On the improvements which can be made now, the position is that traffic lights for both ends of Bridge Street have been agreed; and since the noble Lord put down his Question we have also agreed an improvement to the Witney bridge and the Ducklington road. The cost of the latter scheme comes to about £64,000.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would my noble friend give an assurance that, meanwhile, everything will be done to hasten completion of the High Wycombe By-pass, which carries a far greater volume of traffic on the A.40 than 'Witney does?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, this is a question of priorities. There is a tremendous amount of road improvement to be done. There have to be priorities, and the Witney By-pass is not among the highest of those priorities.

ROAD CASUALTIES AT EASTER
3.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what, in their view, was the cause of the great increase in road casualties during the Easter period in relation to the same period in 1964.]
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, it is too soon to say what were the significant factors contributing to this increase. My right honourable friend has called for a special and thorough analysis of the accident and traffic figures over the holiday period, and its findings will be made available as soon as possible. But whatever these may be it is clear, as my right honourable friend has said, that in the last resort the true remedy lies with the individual road user.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, will the Government not agree that no
716
amount of threats or exhortations is going to make the slightest difference, and that neither they nor any other Government will succeed in changing human nature? Will they not further agree that the only practical way to prevent people from killing each other in motor cars is to make it almost impossible for them to do so by dividing major roads into two parts so that they cannot run headlong into each other?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl has put his supplementary question, because there is a danger of emphasising the holiday figures to the extent that one thinks this is only a Bank Holiday problem. It is a problem that is with us every hour of every day of every week, and every week of the year, and we have to deal with it. But I could not be quite so callous as the noble Earl. Every one of these accidents is a tragedy to some family somewhere, and by education, road improvement, or in some other way, we must do all we can to reduce this heavy toll.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that, whatever inquiry is to be held in future, as has been the case following every inquiry held in the past, the net result will be what he has himself said in your Lordships' House this afternoon—namely, the responsibility rests upon the shoulders of the individual road user? The cause of these accidents lies with the individual. Will the noble Lord not agree with me that the only solution to this problem, difficult though it may be, is for the Government to find a method of removing from the roads those users of the roads who cannot behave themselves?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, that will be one of the things which will arise from the analysis. It may seem strange to some that where people are being killed with a lethal weapon, in giving them a licence to do so we do not require that they should be physically fit, or take steps even to see that their eyesight is satisfactory.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree with the noble Earl that these three-lane roads constitute an invitation to motor cars to run into each other, and ought to be done away with as soon as possible?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I took the same view as the noble Lord, and expressed it in a debate in this House. But when I came to office and had the figures provided for me by the police and the Road Research Laboratory I found that, while the frequency of accidents is no higher on three-lane roads than on other roads, the severity of accidents is certainly much higher on them, and that that is where death rather than sever injury often occurs.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, might I point out to the noble Lord—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I mean, might I ask the noble Lord that, if you take the yearly amount of fatal road casualties and divide them by the number of days in a year, you find that the average daily death rate on the road is about the same as these terrible Easter tragedies. We are rather inclined to forget that we have this terrible toll.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount would agree to put that in the form of a question.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that these accidents are often not the fault of the motorists, but the fault of the pedestrians.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, referring to the first supplementary question, it is true that the average is about 21 per day. So far as the second question by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, is concerned, pedestrians are involved, motor-cyclists are involved, ordinary cyclists are involved, and children playing on the roads are involved. But one has to bear in mind the whole time that the motorist has at his command a lethal weapon, and it is his ability to use it which really matters. Equally, one has to bear in mind—and this we will do in the analysis which is now being made—that at holiday times there is not the same heavy lorry traffic on the road, and that the traffic consists of motor cars, motor-cycles and pedestrians.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they are considering, in the analysis of this problem
718
trying to get the proportion of accidents to car-miles run, because I think that is important?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, that is one of the factors taken into account when percentages are given.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us are getting rather worried about the number of supplementary questions asked on Starred Questions, and I would ask whether it would be possible at some time to have a debate on procedure.
LORD LINDGREN: That is not for me to answer.
LORD COLWYN: My Lords, are the Government aware that, if a man failed a driving test in this country, it was possible, up to a few months ago, for him to go to Eire, where he could get a driving licence to drive in this country? I should like to know how many Southern Irish are driving in this country on Irish provisional licences.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I think that is outside this Question. If he likes to put a Question down, I will gladly answer it for him.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be making a Statement on the Rhodesian White Paper. May I also remind the House that light refreshments will be available this evening?
DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
SWEEPSTAKES ON HORSERACES (AUTHORISATION) BILL [H.L.]
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
WAR DAMAGE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROCEDURES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
3.26 p.m.
LORD ALPORT LORD ALPORT rose to call attention to the need, now that various changes have been made in the composition and powers of this House. for a full and early review of its procedures which, without involving any extension of its legislative powers or challenging the House of Commons, will enable it to be a more effective forum for the discussion of public policy and for the independent examination of defects in the apparatus of national administration, and will ensure that, within the framework of the present-day British Parliamentary system, it continues to fulfil a constructive rôle as an Upper House of Parliament; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is just over a year since your Lordships had a wide-ranging debate on the structure of Government, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. To-day's Motion, which I now beg to move, is a logical sequel to that occasion. Its aim is to invite your Lordships to consider that aspect of Government which falls directly within the powers of this House to determine: our own arrangements for conducting our Business in the most workmanlike manner possible, and of so organising that Business as to be in the best interests of the good government of modern Britain.
Your Lordships will have seen the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in another place. This represents a first tentative step towards modernising the methods of work of the Lower House. It is important, I think, that we should not be behind them in this matter. Your Lordships' House is unique in the flexibility of its procedures, in the nature of its composition, and in the fact that it is the only major House of Parliament in the world whose Members serve without financial reward. It possesses many well recognised anomalies. At the same time, it possesses characteristics which, in a
720
modern State, should enable it to make an invaluable contribution to good government for a long time to come. Because of all these things, it seems to me important that the manner in which we arrange our affairs should be so designed as to carry out that service most effectively, and that this ancient institution should, of its own initiative, and without the goad either of public opinion or of political pressure, show that it is constantly able to adapt itself within the limits of its own powers to meet the changing needs of Government in Britain.
Your Lordships will recollect Gibbon's celebrated description of the penalty in decay and degradation paid by the Roman Senate for its failure to adapt itself to the changing circumstances of the Roman world. It would be no mean achievement if, in the unique historic circumstances of this House, as a result of its own membership's instinctive sense of public service and acute sensitiveness to contemporary needs, we were able to prevent the same thing from happening here.
Your Lordships will note that this Motion does not refer to the powers or composition of this House. So far as the former are concerned, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who said on that previous occasion last year that this House has no real power, although it can, and does, have considerable influence. This Motion is about functions and procedures or, to put it another way, how that influence can be most effectively exerted in the public interest. To this end I shall take the opportunity, with your Lordships' permission, of puting certain propositions before you. But I should, at the same time, like to make it absolutely clear that I do so entirely on my own initiative and without any previous consultation whatever with any other Member of your Lordships' House. I do so in the capacity which we all enjoy in this House, whatever may be our particular political affiliation, as an independent private Member of this House of Parliament.
I seek to persuade your Lordships to appoint a Select Committee, in addition to the permanent one that sits at present, to which any ideas which will be of value to the future conduct of our Business may be put and discussed,

721
either by those who perhaps will distinguish this afternoon's debate by the contributions that they may make, or by experts from outside the House who may have valuable suggestions to put before such a Committee. I have no doubt that in some cases they will be voluble as well.
Although in the past the legislative function of this House has been the raison d'être for its existence, this, in my submission, is no longer the case. Since 1949 our function has been confined to enabling the House of Commons to have an opportunity for second thoughts about legislation, and occasionally delaying a Bill, in theory for a year but in practice for five or six months. During the passage of legislation through this House there is an opportunity to amend and improve it, and every successive Government have regarded the opportunity which it presents as a godsend for the improvement of the legislation before it reaches the Statute Book.
I suggest to your Lordships that a great deal of the time of this House is occupied in the Committee stage in considering such legislation. This is an important stage, but I suggest to your Lordships that it can be best taken in Standing Committee and that all Public Bills, with the exception of one category which I will mention in a moment, should in future be sent, after Second Reading, to a Standing Committee. It might well be that that Committee should be selected to reflect a particular political composition, or the composition of the Lower House. It might also be desirable that Members serving on that Committee should have some additional recognition for the work which they do on behalf of your Lordships' House. But I am not convinced that either is necessary or desirable.
I am well aware that the experiment of the Standing Committee was tried during the years 1889 to 1910, and during that period it was considered to have been a failure. But the circumstances of this House have changed radically since that period, and I do not think that the use of a Standing Committee for the Committee stage of a Public Bill would provide the difficulties and in some degree the embarrassment which was true of that previous experience of the use of that
722
particular instrument. I suggest to your Lordships that the only Bills whose Committee stage should be taken on the Floor of this House should be Bills relating to a matter of substantial constitutional significance, and that the decision as to whether any particular piece of legislation falls into this category should be decided, after Second Reading, not by a vote of this House but by a special constitutional committee, for which your Lordships would have no difficulty in finding an abundance of wisdom and experience.
The effects of this change in procedure would be to speed up the legislative process, and this would, I imagine, be acceptable to any Government, and might I hope, commend itself to your Lordships. It would also do a second thing. It would enable public and Parliamentary attention to be focused upon legislation which, while dealing with some particular social or administrative problem, has at root provisions which make far-reaching consequences to the constitutional rights and liberties of the nation. It does not, of course, I fully recognise lie within the power of this House to prevent the passage of legislation which imposes the shackles of arbitrary power by any Government on the British people, but it is certainly the duty of this House to draw the attention of anyone who may be interested or concerned with such a process to the fact that such shackles are being forged.
Not long ago one of the Members of this House said to me that he had come to the conclusion that government in a modern State was almost impossible. It is certainly not my objective—and here I think I can speak for every Member of this House—to add unnecessary and additional burdens to those which are borne to-day by Her Majesty's Ministers. It is, after all, not in the interests of anyone on this side of the House to do such a thing, because those burdens have been borne by Members of this side of the House and they are well familiar with them, and indeed they may well be so borne again. But one thing we do know—and we have seen it from the experience of our own lifetime—is that the pressures of government to-day increasingly accumulate power in the hands of the Executive, and that as that power increases, so automatically, however good

723
the individual may be, however good the Government may be, it leads to that consequence which Lord Acton called attention to many years ago—namely, the fact that all power tends to corrupt; and, as we know, he went on to say that absolute power corrupts absolutely. As the; machinery of Government becomes more complicated, as decisions require to be made more swiftly, so power becomes increasingly accumulated in the hands of the machine. And this is what has happened during the last twenty years under Labour and Conservative Governments. This is what is happening and this is what will tend to happen to-morrow, whatever Government is in power.
It is therefore, in my view, vital to the political health of Britain that there should be machinery in the Parliamentary edifice to scrutinise the general trends and the detailed activities of the national administration. I believe that even though the membership of another place in the future were to consist of whole-time and highly-paid professionals, they would have insufficient time and energy, and perhaps imagination, to spare from the essential and central Party struggle for power and from their responsibilities for legislation, to give to supervision of the trends of administration the objective thought which that supervision demands. I believe that the responsibility for advising upon, investigating and scrutinising these developments, the developments that are taking place in the many-sided and increasing activities of Government, which can and do inflict injustice upon individuals and groups within our country, can in some degree be carried out very properly here in your Lordships' House.
I am not seeking to disparage in any way what Lord Derby in the last century called "The honourable ties of Party association". I have always been a member of a Party, and I rejoice that here in your Lordships' House that membership can continue while at the same time there is given, for better or for worse, a great deal of independence of action and judgment. I know, and your Lordships know as well as I do, that the demands of discipline which modern government requires from its following within the House of Commons, the prejudices which are built into the Party system and are part and parcel of its practice, the refinements
724
of Party tactics and the inevitable impulsions of personal ambition, make the objective investigation and scrutiny of the actions of the great apparatus of administration to-day difficult to be carried out fully by the House of Commons alone.
There are, as I have said, great anomalies in the composition of this House. But there is one thing that we—and others as well—should bear in mind; that is, that not one Member of your Lordships' House depends on his membership of this House for his career. Any reputation that any of us may have achieved in our lifetimes has been achieved outside this House, and not through it; and no one here depends upon continuing membership for his livelihood.
Our position is, in fact, different from that of the House of Commons—and inevitably so. This House has always been at its best when it has been least like another place in the conduct of its functions, its procedure, and the political climate which it has achieved in its deliberations. And we should, I think, he making a great mistake if we regarded ourselves, or came to be regarded, simply as the House of Commons writ small. The value of this House lies in its independence, while applying to ourselves and to our activities constant self-discipline and restraint in the conduct of our affairs and in our attitude to the political realities of a modern State, with universal adult suffrage, in the 20th century.
As the work of advice and scrutiny and investigation requires a proper impartiality, it is in this House that it should be appropriately carried out. If there is to be a Parliamentary Commissioner or Ombudsman, I suggest to your Lordships that it is here that he should have his presence and platform. He should not be an official outside Parliament, since that would be derogatory to Parliament. If there is to be more effective Parliamentary scrutiny of the relations between, on the one hand, the great State enterprises (which I recognise have come to stay) and the public services which have been brought into existence over recent years for the welfare of the people of this country, and, on the other, the general public of the country, I suggest that such processes of scrutiny and investigation can be best conducted in your

725
Lordships' House, where they will not be distorted by the tactical needs of the inevitable and proper and historic struggle for power in the House of Commons.
We have all listened from time to time to a dialogue of great interest and sensitivity between, if I may put it in that way, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice on the one hand (not the present one, but previous ones) and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the other, discussing and giving their views on matters of law. I see no reason why there should not be the same sort of dialogue in this House in which those that lead our great national services and who are Members of this House take part. For example, I should like to see the existing Addison rules of 1950–51 completely revised. I do not believe that they are in accordance with the spirit of the proper function of your Lordships' House.
In these remarks that I address to you this afternoon, I do not want to trespass more than is inevitable upon ground that is unfamiliar to your Lordships, but it seems to me that the functions of the Council on Tribunals, for instance, should be carried out in relation to Parliament and not by some separate Tribunal, council or organisation. It seems to me that the method of ensuring right dealing between the Executive, in all its various and multitudinous forms, and the individual citizen of this country should be the responsibility of the Parliamentary machine and not delegated to any organisation that is outside the scope of the work and activities and responsibilities of your Lordships' House. I believe we can do that effectively here. I believe that is one of the functions which we should carry out.
I have suggested one way in which additional Parliamentary time can be given for this sort of work. I realise, of course, that the first call upon that time must be that of the Government and the second that of the official Opposition, and that proper opportunity must be given to the Liberal Party and to those who sit on the Cross-Benches to take a due and appropriate part in providing the order of business in your Lordships' House. But I should think there is a great deal to be said for putting some of the responsibility for decisions
726
with regard to that order, the subjects which are to be discussed and the timing at which they are to be discussed, in the hands not of the "usual channels" but of a Committee which would be non-Party and representative of all parts of your Lordships' Chamber.
I think that would be fairer to our distinguished colleagues on the Cross-Benches. It would provide for an orderly allocation of business, and, through our own volition and impetus, so to speak it would enable the new, additional functions of this House to be brought naturally and properly in to our order of business. I do not say that the suggestions which I have made this afternoon are necessarily rightor would be acceptable to many of your Lordships, or even to a few. My object is to persuade your Lordships that there is something that should be done and that could be done; moreover, I feel an obligation to give some constructive ideas which may or not be dismissed in practice as having no value. That is the object of our debate.
Few people realise—and this is the main point which I wish to put before the House this afternoon—the extent to which recent legislation has altered the character of this House. The Parliament Act, 1949, the Life Peerages Act, 1958, the Peerages Act, 1963, and, 1 would add, the decision of Sir Alec Douglas-Home and Mr. Hogg to renounce their Peerages, have produced far-reaching changes in the character of this House. What we need now is to look carefully at our procedure and its relation to the functions which we can carry out effectively in the public interest, and to see how it can be improved.
During the last fifty years, all sorts of people have advanced ideas as to the future of the House of Lords. For debating societies the subject has provided an annual motion for discussion; constitutional experts have expounded interesting schemes; radical minds have sought to sweep your Lordships' House away. I believe that they have not realised, and maybe I and others have not, that the power to do what is right in the interests of Parliament and of the country lies as much in your Lordships' hands as in anybody else's, and action now will show the people of this

727
country that we are not simply a Chamber of old men dreaming dreams; that we do not seek only to achieve some special advantage for any faction or Party; that it is not our purpose to entrench any interest; but that, even with the anomalies of our membership, the antiquity of our history and the curiosity of our procedures, we can, by our own act and decision, do what no other Chamber like ours has done in history—reform ourselves in such a manner as to retain and to merit the confidence and respect of the people of Britain. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.50 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, from these Liberal Benches it is not difficult to support the Motion which has been so ably, so thoughtfully, and so comprehensively moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, to whom we are most grateful for the lead he has given us this afternoon. I would ask your Lordships' indulgence, not only for myself, but for future speakers, if we find it impossible not to touch marginally on the larger question of reform of your Lordships' House, with which the terms of the Motion before us to-day are inextricably mixed un. We cannot really deal with one without the other, though I hope we shall not delve into detail in either.
For half a century the Conservative Party has failed to tackle realistically the problem of House of Lords reform because it likes the House of Lords. For half a century the Labour Party has failed to tackle realistically the reform of the House of Lords because it did not like the House of Lords. For half a century the Liberal Party has advocated tackling the subject realistically because it likes the House but perhaps is not quite sure of the Lords. If I may put it morekindly, it likes a Second Chamber and insists that a Second Chamber should always be with us, but sees much room for improvement both in its composition and, I would go so far as to say, in the archaic aspect of many of its powers and lack of powers. The Labour Party oddly, expresses its congenital distaste for your Lordships' House by condemning an increasing number of
728
its distinguished supporters to sit in it —to the great advantage of us all here.
The Conservative Party, realising that something really was a bit wrong, made the very generous gesture of introducing the Life Peerages Bill. That Bill was specifically introduced into both Houses (in the other House by the noble Lord. Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who I see is with us to-day) with the particular and avowed object of strengthening the numbers in Opposition to the Conservative Party in your Lordships' House. As the Opposition was then shared in roughly equal proportions by the Labour and Liberal parties, the Conservative Government, taking a leaf from Alice in Wonderland, created a few Labour Life Peerages, even more Conservative Life Peerages, and, of course, no Liberal Life Peerage. So we got back not to square one but to square minus one, where we are now. Whether this action was quite honourable is a matter of opinion.
THE EARL OE LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? He is well aware, as I am, that this House has no kind of autocrat who can stop anybody from saying anything, but I am bound to say that I wonder whether the noble Lord is keeping within the spirit of the Motion in discussing the composition to this extent. I am sorry, for we are enjoyng his observations; but he is going very wide. He is setting—I hesitate to say so as he is one of the three Leaders of the House—an example which lesser people might be tempted to follow later on with disastrous results.
LORD REA: I readily defer to the noble Earl and apologise if I have transgressed, but it seems to me that this Motion is very much mixed up with other things, which I will now try to leave. After all, what I have been talking about is rather ancient history. To-day we are concerned more with the actual procedure and the machinery of the House than with the reforms recommended unanimously so many years ago —in 1948, I think it was. My reaction to the noble Lord's Motion now before us is, therefore, that while it is praiseworthy in general principle, it is in fact merely nibbling at a problem, if Lord Longford will forgive me, which still should he tackled fully as recommended by the Speaker's Conference of 1948.

729
It may well be that our detailed procedure does need refurbishing here and there, but personally I would not describe it as very inefficient. It works pretty well. I believe it was the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who remarked that the curious thing about the House of Lords is that it works. If we are to make alterations I would respectfully suggest that the place for discussion and conference of such detail is not really in the first place on the Floor of your Lordships' House, here in public debate, when the intricacies of practice and procedure and administrative convenience cannot possibly be assimilated by us all without considerable study. The problem should be remitted, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, to a committee—I should have thought to the Committee on Procedure—who would have the benefit of very expert and professional advice and guidance, before your Lordships are asked to come to a decision. If the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has this course in mind and is not in fact asking the House to-clay to thresh the matter out this afternoon, apologise to him if I have unintentionally misrepresented his views. The field of possible investigation and revision is so wide that T personally shall be sorry to be put into the position of prejudging even the necessity of immediate procedural alterations without further considerable thought, even though it is obvious that improvements can he made.
I support this Motion for its underlying principle of constant revision and of keeping up to date. I have no doubt that innumerable suggestions beyond those already made by the noble Lord can be made, and doubtless will be made. We may hear some of them this afternoon. I hope that they will not to-day he analysed in too much detail. We all have our hobby-horses on this subject and, with your Lordships' permission,I will briefly refer to three.
First, T should like an investigation into whether we are or are not making the best use of this House and its talents in taking so much and such exhausting Committee work in this Chamber rather than delegating some of it, as is done in another place and in other civilised
730
and advanced countries. I would even suggest that we might have Standing Committees on particular subjects. Your Lordships who wish to speak in this House know that it is comparatively simple to get material on many subjects, but if one wishes to speak on Defence, Foreign Affairs or Commonwealth Affairs it is practically impossible to get the subject-matter which one needs because that is carefully locked up behind the stony faces of Her Majesty's Government, and we cannot get at it.
Secondly, I sometimes wonder whether we are wise—I apologise in advance to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor if this is not quite proper; I think it is —to take up so much of the time of the Lord Chancellor, the highest Officer of State in the land, a man with immense responsibilities and an enormous amount of work, in his capacity as Lords Speaker, with virtually no powers as such. Personally, I would not change that status; I enjoy it and I think we all appreciate it. But as we know, this involves his spending many hours on the Woolsack when the Business before your Lordships' House is not of prime State importance. I throw that out as a thought for consideration.
Thirdly, and lastly, I would urge on Her Majesty's Government to give consideration to taking steps to rectify the public image of the House of Lords, which is so often distorted, maliciously or ignorantly, both in the Press and in uninformed conversation by those who seldom if ever attend our debates or read the Parliamentary reports of our activities in this Chamber. I will not expand this, except to say that I frequently hear newcomers to all Parties to your Lordships' House, men of intelligence and attainment, saying, after they have been here a short time, "I never knew that the House of Lords did so much work, so much good work or such important work as it does in our Parliamentary life, or how representative it very often is of public opinion"—though it be not an elected Chamber. My Lords, I have finished what I have to say. There are many other noble Lords who wish to speak, and I will therefore leave the field to other hobby-horses and other bees in other bonnets.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA
3.58 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, if it is not inconvenient, may I now repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister? The Statement is as follows:
"The Rhodesia Government have issued a White Paper setting out their views on the economic effects of a unilateral declaration of independence.
"Her Majesty's Government have no desire to try to influence the voters of Rhodesia in the general election due to take place on the 7th of May, and for this reason have not hitherto commented, on what is being said by spokesmen of either the Rhodesian Government or Opposition parties during their respective campaigns. They obviously cannot, however, remain silent in the face of official utterances in Salisbury about the probable content of decisions which would be taken in London. The Rhodesian Government did not consult Her Majesty's Government about their decision to issue such a White Paper, still less about its contents, which completely misrepresent the likely economic effect on Rhodesia of a unilateral declaration.
"The Rhodesia Government White Paper, after referring to the statement issued from No. 10 Downing Street on the 27th of October says
"it has been assumed, in some quarters, that the proposals referred to in the statement would be applied by the British Government with a degree of severity designed to collapse the economy of Rhodesia within a relatively short period".
It then purports to "evaluate" whether, in fact Britain could or would implement in full what it calls the "sanctions" suggested after a unilateral declaration. By this means the Rhodesia Government are seeking to convey the impression that they and not Her Majesty's Government are the best judges of what action Her Majesty's Government would take in the event of a unilateral declaration.
"Her Majesty's Government adhere to the statement issued on the 27th of October, 1964. It expressed the
732
view that the economic effects of a unilateral declaration would be disastrous to the prosperity and prospects of the people of Rhodesia and that Rhodesia's external trade would be disrupted. Nothing that has happened in the last six months has afforded reasons for modifying this judgment in any way.
"The White Paper states that a great proportion of Rhodesia's exports could be marketed in countries other than Britain with whom Rhodesia has trading relations, and it discusses in particular tobacco which is Rhodesia's chief export. Britain is by far the biggest buyer of Rhodesian tobacco and if Britain were to stop buying Rhodesian tobacco, the effect upon the tobacco growers and upon the whole economy of Rhodesia would be particularly severe. The Rhodesian Tobacco Association is itself reported to have reached the conclusion in January that the imposition of embargoes would be disastrous to the industry. There would be no difficulty in procuring British tobacco requirements from other countries.
"The White Paper seeks to reassure Rhodesians that after a unilateral declaration money will be forthcoming for investment in Rhodesia from what it terms" countries not unfriendly "towards her. Britain has hitherto been the chief external source of capital for Rhodesia's economic development. A unilateral declaration would put a stop to this flow. The statement of the 27th of October made it clear that all financial, as well as trade relations between Britain and Rhodesia would be jeo-pardised, that aid would cease, and that, with one or two exceptions, other Governments would be likely to refuse to recognise Rhodesia's independence or to enter into relations with her. The establishment of an illegal regime in Rhodesia is least calculated to produce stable Government there which the Rhodesian Government themselves recognise to be a prerequisite for attracting investment from abroad.
"Other Governments inside and outside the Commonwealth will no doubt make known their own views on the White Paper. Commonwealth Prime Ministers, in their communiqué of the

733
15th of July, 1964, noted with approval the statement of the British Government that they would not recognise any unilateral declaration of independence, and the other Prime Ministers made it clear that they would be unable to recognise any such declaration. Moreover the entire Commonwealth expressed their approval of the declaration of the 27th of October. There can be no justification for the Rhodesia Government or people to nurse the delusion that they would receive widespread international support. The Rhodesian view of events elsewhere in Africa and their effect on thinking in the West is profoundly mistaken and it would be an error to assume that this view could affect Her Majesty's Government's policy towards an act of rebellion in Rhodesia.
"The White Paper argues that the adverse consequences of a unilateral declaration would be the responsibility of Britain alone. It is not Britain, however, which is contemplating unconstitutional action. If such action were to be taken, responsibility for the consequences would lie squarely on the shoulders of those who took it. The White Paper appears to assume that it would be improper for Britain to react in any way if Rhodesia chose to put herself in the position of a colony in rebellion, whereas Rhodesia would be entitled to take whatever measures she chose against Malawi, Zambia or any other country in retaliation against the inevitable consequences of her own action. No Government outside Rhodesia is likely to share this view.
"Her Majesty's Government remain firmly convinced that the only route by which Rhodesia can achieve independence without grave consequences to herself is by the process of constitutional negotiations. She cannot hope to defy Britain, the whole of the Commonwealth, nearly the whole of Africa and the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government therefore profoundly hope that Rhodesia will not be misled into thinking that she could escape disaster if she were to fly in the face of world opinion. As I have indicated earlier this afternoon, the answer lies in an agreed solution and Her Majesty's Government stand ready to carry forward their not entirely un-
734
hopeful negotiations with the Government of Rhodesia after the election, in order to achieve this objective."
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating the Statement made by the Right Honourable Gentleman the Prime Minister in another place. It is clearly a Statement of the very greatest importance and certainly it will be studied with the very greatest care by noble Lords on this side of the House, and I am sure with equal care and attention throughout this country and elsewhere.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends and myself, I would say how glad I am that the Government have given this strong warning to Rhodesia on the consequences of setting up an illegal régime. I am sure it will do a great deal of good. Secondly, we should like to support the view of Her Majesty's Government that the only road by which Rhodesia can achieve independence without grave consequences to herself is by the process of patient and peaceful negotiation. There is one question I would ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Has his attention been called to the fact that the Rhodesian Government have said that they might deport half a million Africans to Zambia and Malawi? If this is so, does he not feel that the result of that threat may be the most utter chaos in the economic and social circumstances of Central Africa?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my Lords, my attention has been called to that statement and your Lordships will have observed the reference in the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to measures against Malawi, Zambia and other countries. I do not think any man can well foresee what the consequences of a unilateral declaration of independence might be.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My, Lords, I do not want to make any comment on the Statement made by the noble and learned Lord, except to ask him to give an assurance once more that he and the Government will do everything in their power to get a settlement of this

735
hideous problem by agreement. I understood from the last words of the Statement that such was their intention, and I hope those efforts will be continued and, if possible, increased.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my Lords, that effort will be continued and I am happy to give the assurance for which the noble Marquess asks.

PROCEDURES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
4.10 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I now revert to the rather more domestic problem which is before us today? My noble friend Lord Alport has made a most interesting speech in introducing his Motion, and many of the suggestions he has made will, I have no doubt, be widely discussed among us, together with other suggestions which will be made by noble Lords in the course of this debate. As he has said, his Motion is concerning solely with procedure and with neither the composition nor the powers of your Lordships' House. I intend, as he did and as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, did in the end, to stick strictly to the terms of the Motion and not to be led down the by-ways of those two fascinating and topical subjects. But it is necessary, if we are to discuss sensibly what the procedure of the House should be, to have clearly in mind what its functions are, and they seem to me to be three.
First, we should and do act as a Council of State, in the sense that owing to the rather slower tempo of affairs in this House we have time to discuss at our leisure important issues of the day. Because our membership is varied, distinguished and experienced, we can on any subject, I think, be relied upon to have a debate in which the participants are most often great experts on their own subjects, and which can set in perspective for those who care to read it or study it the problems and the issues at stake. These are not necessarily, of course, political issues, though sometimes they are. I believe that we can perform a very useful and valuable rôle in this way. We need only to look at the debates
736
which your Lordships are having in the coming weeks to see examples of what I mean. Next week we are discussing the Commonwealth, the day after the importance of private investment overseas, the week after the Wolfenden Committee Report, and the problems of regional planning and development. All these are important and topical, and unlikely to be discussed in another place, where time is much more difficult to come by.
The second rôle of your Lordships' House is to amend and revise legislation. Sometimes business starts in this House—and I will say a little more about that later on—but most often it comes up from another place, and with the pressure of business there, and sometimes with the imposition of the guillotine by both of the major Parties, important legislation has not been sufficiently discussed. This has been true of Bills brought in by both the Labour and the Conservative Governments. Here, again, with more time at our disposal we have an opportunity of examining these measures at greater leisure on the Committee and Report stages.
I do not think I would agree with my noble friend that it would be an advantage if we took the Committee stages of these Bills elsewhere than on the Floor of the House. I think a great deal of value is gained by the fact that the Whole House discusses these Bills; but we can talk about that later. Naturally, as we are, I hope, a sensible body of people, many of the Amendments which are proposed are agreed to by the Government of the day because they improve the legislation, and sometimes even because the Government have been convinced by the Opposition or by some noble Lord that their original thoughts were wrong. Sometimes there is a clash of opinion between two opposing points of view and we have a Division, as we did the other day on the War Damage Bill and the Law Commissions Bill.
Here I must say that I think it is a pity that the passing of an Amendment by your Lordships for reconsideration by another place should be considered by journalists or broadcasters to be a clash between the two Houses. It is, of course, nothing of the sort. It is the House of Lords functioning as it should function: that is to say, after debate, which may have

737
introduced new arguments or in which circumstances may have changed,your Lordships are giving another place an opportunity to look once again at a particular point. It has happened that the Government of the day have sometimes thought that the arguments produced in this House have been novel and convincing and that the Amendment should stand, but if they do not think so they disagree to the Amendment and it is then up to your Lordships to decide whether or not we should insist on it. It is not until that moment is reached that there should be any talk of a clash between the two Houses, and even then there are opportunities for compromise, and a formula may be reached on which both Houses agree.
I, for one, am certain that most of your Lordships do not understand the point of view advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, I think a fortnight ago, on the Committee stage of the War Damage Bill. I understood him to say that your Lordships should not carry to a Division any Amendment to a Bill which has been discussed in another place.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, I should like to clear up that point. I was not dealing with the general run of Amendments; I was dealing with a vital question of principle. There was a complete difference of view from the other place in regard to that principle, in respect of retrospective legislation.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not of course want to misinterpret what the noble Lord said, but I do not think what he has now said has really cleared it up very much. I do not think that he and I would agree on his last point either, but we will not pursue that point. I also do not think that your Lordships would agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, if I understood him aright, when he said that your Lordships should not pass Amendments except on issues which had been missed in another place.
Lastly, my Lords—and I do not know that I shall carry noble Lords opposite with me on this—I think that there is a third function which can be performed in very rare circumstances by this House, and by this House alone. There could be circumstances in which a Government of an extreme political character,
738
whether Right or Left, might with a large majority pass measures through another place which had not been foreshadowed in the programme of that Party at the General Election, and on which the views of the electorate were very uncertain.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Like the Rent Act.
LORD CARRINGTON: Like the Rent Act; but noble Lords opposite did vote against the Rent Act. That surely proves my point. I do not quite see the point of their observation. It seems to me that the delaying powers which still exist in your Lordships' House should then be used to allow a period of time to elapse and to allow public opinion to form.
If I am right in suggesting that these are the roles of your Lordships' House, do our procedures enable us to carry them out successfully? I have now been a Member of this House for nearly twenty years, and perhaps it may be that, with age, complacency has set in, but I must say that if I had to answer the question in the broadest possible terms, I would say: Yes, our procedures do make it possible for us to do our job with ease and despatch. There are no doubt certain things which could and should be altered, and I will in a moment suggest one or two of them, but, generally speaking, I think that the Rules in this House make it possible for every Member of it, whether he belongs to a political Party or not, to have his say, to raise any question that he wishes and which he considers to be of public importance, and to take a proper part in our proceedings.
I thought while listening to my noble friend Lord Alport that I detected a wish that the House of Lords could be a good deal more independent of the political Parties than he feels it to be at the present time; and he stressed particularly independence from the Executive. Anybody who has been a Conservative Whip in this House could never have any doubt as to its independence. I remember that long ago, when I was a Whip and we wanted to get a good attendance on a particular issue to defeat the Labour Government of 1945-51, we sent out a two-line Whip. Quite a number of those

739
who came, having listened to the arguments advanced by both sides, wholeheartedly aligned themselves with the Government in the Division, against the Party to which they belonged. I must say that I have known it happen in more recent times when I was Leader of the House, and the Government of the day were soundly defeated on a number of occasions, not by noble Lords opposite alone but with the help of Conservative Peers.
Though that may have been very frustrating for me, I make no complaint about it. Noble Lords listened to the debate and the arguments on the merits of the case, and made up their own minds; and that is one of the most valuable things that anybody can do in this House. But, having said that, there is no doubt that there must be some kind of political organisation and control in the House. After all, we are a House of Parliament, the legislation proposed by the Government of the day has to go through this House if it is to get on the Statute Book, and so there must be some organisation on both Government and Opposition sides to see, on the one hand, that the legislation does get through and, on the other, that it does not get through without constructive opposition.
I am bound to say that I do not think that the rather loose political organisation which we have in this House has meant that any noble Lord, of any political Party, or on the Cross-Benches, has greatly suffered. There are a number of ways in which any Member of the House, of any or no Party, can raise issues. He can put down a Starred Question, over which no control is exercised by Government or Opposition, and on which the only limit is the number. He can at any time put down an Unstarred Question for any day, and he can be neither prevented from so doing nor compelled to take it off, unless he falls under the spell of the Government Chief Whip's silver tongue. He can put down a Motion on any subject he chooses to call attention to, or on some aspect of a particular problem; he can move a Resolution; or he can move for Papers. In regard to Motions, of course, the situation is more difficult, since it is generally desirable to devote the whole of a day, or the greater part of it, to a Motion; and
740
in the nature of things, there are not all that number of days, so that on Motions there must be some consultation through the usual channels.
But if there is any burning topic which it is proper that this House should discuss, I do not think that there is ever the slightest difficulty in finding time for it. The only difficulty, I think, is that what may seem of burning importance to one particular noble Lord may not seem so important to anybody else. The noise of grinding axes is not necessarily music to your Lordships—even "Backwoodsmen". So the noble Lord concerned may feel that he is being thwarted by the Whips. But even then, my Lords, if he wants to, and has the persistence, he can still put down his Motion for consideration after the Business of the Day ordered by the Government and the Opposition has been concluded—that is, if he is prepared to sit in the House, and the House is prepared to sit a little longer than it would normally.
It seems to me that the Motion we are discussing to-day is a perfect example of an issue which is of interest to the House, and is important, because it has a bearing on how efficiently we do our job. My noble friend has put his Motion down on the day allocated for the purpose; he is airing the subject and moving for Papers. I do not know whether he intends to withdraw his Motion, but if he does not, he may get a surprise. I remember that, once, one of my colleagues, against all advice, accepted a Motion for Papers. He was told the next day that it would require eight pantechnicons to transport the relevant Papers to this House, before which they had to be laid. I do not know what my noble friend would get, but I will tell him in advance that he will not please the Clerk of the Parliaments.
So, my Lords, though I agree with much of what my noble friend has said, I am not entirely convinced that he is right in suggesting, as I think he did, that the control of our business procedures should be through the means of a Standing Committee. There is, however, one aspect of our procedure which I think does call for some improvement; and on this it is within the power of the Government of the day to help. What we usually find is that there is no legislation before your Lordships at the beginning of a Session,

741
since most Bills start in another place, and that it is not until well into the summer that legislation starts to come up from the Commons and to build up to an almost intolerable level. This happens every summer, under every Government; and just before the Summer Recess we are at great pressure and the workings of the House are made much more difficult than they would be if legislation were spread out over a longer period.
If I may say so, in passing, it looks as if the situation is going to be even worse this year, when a number of very long and controversial Bills must come to this House at a time which would normally be just before the Recess. I do not know what noble Lords opposite intend—and perhaps we may be told sooner, rather than later. Perhaps they intend to go on sitting after the end of July, when no doubt there will be many political jokes made that Parliament is still sitting on August 12. But, whatever solution is proposed, I very much hope that your Lordships will be given enough time to study these Bills thoroughly.
The answer to the problem, of course, is that more Bills should start in this House. I know that there are difficulties. Ministers in charge of Departments naturally want the credit, the publicity and the glory (if there be any) of introducing their own Bills in their own House, and it is obviously right that Bills of major importance, as well as Finance Bills and legislation of that kind, should start in another place. Even so, there is more scope for starting Bills in this House. Incidentally, one which I thought could perfectly well have started in this House was the Law Commissions Bill. As everybody knows, it is the favourite child of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He is, I believe, the father and the mother, and I should have thought it entirely appropriate that he should have been also the midwife to the Bill in this House. And there are other examples.
I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said about the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in this House. All recent Lord Chancellors have spent a great deal of time on the Woolsack, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is no exception. It is, of course, very flattering
742
if he should stay and listen to our speeches, but I sometimes wonder whether he would not be better employed elsewhere—not, of course, on this occasion, because this is probably the one bit of the one speech that I shall ever make with which he will agree; but, still, perhaps he would read it.
Lastly, there is the question of the length of speeches—and in this respect, unless I sit down very shortly, I shall be as guilty as everybody else. Of course, that is just the trouble: there is always an excuse why one should make a long speech oneself, but never much of an excuse why anybody else should. My Lords, I hope that I have not sinned too much in that respect, because I am sure it does not help debate. It makes the attendance a great deal less than it otherwise would be; it means that a number of noble Lords who come and want to listen to all the arguments of more than two or three speakers an hour do not find it possible to do so. It also means, sometimes, if I may say so, that noble Lords who have spoken in a debate do not find it possible to stay until the end to hear what the Minister says in reply—and that, I must say, I find a pity.
My Lords, to sum up, I think that, broadly speaking, without being too complacent, I hope, our procedure is satisfactory, though there are obviously small ways in which it could be improved. We have a Procedure Committee, which I hope will look at the suggestions made in this debate; and I trust that they will look at them sympathetically and in the knowledge that, as with the suggestions of my noble friend Lord Alport, they will have been made only with the purpose of making your Lordships' House more effective.
4.28 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, both for having given us the opportunity of a certain amount of introspection into our procedure—which is always a very gratifying thing to happen to one—and also for having introduced the subject with such breadth and vision, and with an understanding of the functions of this House. The noble Lord has been here a relatively short time, and it is useful to have what

743
are virtually the first impressions of someone who comes to this House with considerable experience of another place. I am speaking as one who has been here not so long as the noble Lord who has just sat down, but in the fifteen years that I have been here I have made, probably, as many speeches in this House as any other noble Lord. I do not claim that as a merit, as it has been in the past an unfortunate necessity; but I have made a great many speeches, and I am therefore in a position to express certain views about the conduct of this House.
I am very glad that we are not discussing composition or powers, but merely procedure—although, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, it is sometimes a little difficult not just to impinge upon functions and powers. I would agree with the noble Lord about the three main purposes of this House, and I think we must bear them in mind if we are to consider how we can improve the procedure. I do not agree that the procedure is, on the whole, satisfactory. I think it is not. I believe that there is tremendous scope for improvement, and perhaps I may devote the rest of my speech to a number of proposals for improving the way in which this House conducts its business.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, have referred to the expenditure of time by the Lord Chancellor in sitting on the Woolsack; and I definitely agree with them. But I would go much further. What is the purpose of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack sitting there at all? It is not just to listen to the debates. He is, nominally, and on the face of it, conducting the procedure of this House; but in fact all he is doing is acting as an announcer. He announces the business and sometimes, when the spirit moves him, he takes two steps to the left and becomes a protagonist, a strong, hearty, political protagonist. I think it is completely out of keeping that the person who even purports to be in the Chair should sometimes leave the Chair and become a Party political protagonist while wearing the robes of office of a person who is the head of the Judiciary. It seems to me quite out of keeping that he should take a strong political line (and, of course, I am not speaking about this particular Lord
744
Chancellor; but of all Lord Chancellors) while appearing to sit on the Woolsack as an objective and impartial person, which for most of the time he is, because he is silent.
That brings me to the point that we have no one in control of procedure in this House at all. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, made reference to the fact that any Member can put down any Motion or any Amendment he likes without restriction. The noble Lord went further and said that he could, if he was sufficiently persevering, force a discussion on it. I do not regard that as a merit. In a well-conducted Chamber there must be some limit to what we should be permitted to discuss; and the subjects should be confined to those within the limits of the three functions that the noble Lord put before us. But, in fact, there is no limit whatever. A Member can discuss whether a particular horse ought to have won a particular race. He can put a Motion down on it; there is no one to stop him from so doing, unless my noble friend stands up and makes himself unpopular by moving, That the noble Lord be no longer heard".
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? While that may fall to my unhapy lot, any Member of your Lordships' House can move it; it is not solely a matter for the Leader of the House.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, in actual practice I do not remember anybody else moving that a noble Lord "be no longer heard". The noble Earl and his predecessors have been able to convince a noble Lord who is transgressing that he should "shut up" and not be heard any further. But, theoretically, there is no way at all of preventing somebody from putting down a Motion or putting a Question—or even moving an Amendment which is completely out of order, either because it goes outside the purposes of the Bill or because it is outside the functions or the powers of this House. The Clerks at the Table can advise a noble Lord that such an Amendment ought not to be moved; but they have no power of enforcement and no power to prevent it from going on the Paper.

745
Although we have been a very orderly body, and noble Lords have not taken too much advantage of this state of affairs, the fact remains that from time to time something goes on the Order Paper that should not, or a Question is put that should not be put, or speeches are made that are completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion. Therefore, I feel that, if we are honest with ourselves, and want to make this House more efficient, there should be somebody in charge of our proceedings: an objective person outside Party politics; a person, like the Speaker of another place, who would take charge and sit here and be able to control what is said and to whom questions of order and relevance and so on could be referred. If there were any doubt, he could rule that an Amendment ought not to be put down or that a speech ought not to be made, and so on. In other words, as I say, he would be somebody very much like the Speaker in another place.
But that, of course, gives rise to the question of the functions of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. His function is an historical one, and there is a certain amount of pageantry about the Lord Chancellor's procession. I would not wish that that should not continue for we can do with all the colour we can get. But, somehow, the two functions should be reconciled. I should like to see every noble Lord who is introduced into this House shaken by the hand by the Lord Chancellor, and possibly also by another noble Lord, as Speaker, and I should like to see other ceremonial functions continue to be carried out by the Lord Chancellor. But the business and procedure of this House, I feel, should in some way-and I am not defining it more exactly at this moment-be in charge of a Speaker in this House.
That is the first thing that I would suggest as something that ought to be considered. I will in a moment elaborate on how I think we should consider it. I do not think there would be any dispute about the three purposes of this House, but I think I ought to make my own position clear about one of the functions of this House. That is that it should remain. so far as possible—though it is, of course, a political body—
746
objective and independent in its outlook. There are matters which strongly divide us and over which it is quite impossible to reconcile our differences, but there are other matters (a recent example of which was the War Damage Bill) where there is no irreconcilable Party political difference between the two sides.
If this House is not to be in a position to express its views—and not only express its views, but vote on them—freely and without fear or favour, then I can see no future for this House at all. What was saying about the War Damage Bill applies also to an Amendment which was carried to the Law Commissions Bill—although I myself did not vote on that occasion; and in fact I voted with my Party on the War Damage Bill. If this House were not free to say on such a matter as the Law Commission that it should continue in existence for five years or three years, as the case may be; if that is to be outside the function of this House, then really there is no point in our discussing any Bills before the House.
Of course, as the noble Lord said, when we have passed an Amendment which is hostile to the Government, it is for another place to make up their minds whether they want to press it or not. We have discharged our responsibility in voting on the matter, and in letting, them know what are the views of this House. So long as we discharge our duty in a responsible way then I think we have done our duty. If we do not do that, then we have not done our duty.
There is another point: it is not new, but I think it is right that I should speak about it in fairly strong terms—namely, the fact that to vote against one's Government is regarded in some quarters as an affront. I do not think it is anything of the kind. It has happened before. I well remember one particular case where an Amendment which I moved in this House—an almost identical one had been defeated in another place—was carried by 125 votes to 25. The noble Lord will remember it, because it gave this country a Prime Minister and it has given to another place a Leader of the Opposition, very much to the loss of this House, where the right honourable gentleman would

747
have been much better employed. But, be that as it may, it was a momentous decision and it was carried in the face of the opposition of the Government and in spite of the very large majority which noble Lords opposite had at that time.
I want to pass on to one or two, as I think, important suggestions about improvements we could make in our procedure, apart from those to which I have already referred. As I have said already, there ought to be some control over Questions. A number of them are quite irrelevant to the machinery of government. They are Questions for which no Minister is really responsible and with which no Minister can really deal. As the noble Lord said, though not in the course of this debate—possibly in anticipation of it—there ought to be some kind of control over the number of supplementaries, and equally over the kind of supplementary that is put—and may I, greatly daring, also say, over the length of some of the answers that are given by some of my own noble friends.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD SILKIN: Well, I have said, and say again, that when a Member asks a Question, he is not asking for an essay on the subject; he is asking for a simple statement of fact. If we want to be educated, we do not want to be educated when asking a Question. Some Answers are unduly long and this encourages equally long supplementaries. I do not know that there is much that anyone can do about it, except for noble Lords who are answering Questions to exercise a little restraint and perhaps censor some of the briefs they are given and not try to repeat them verbatim. But I am sure that a great deal can be done to improve the position and deal, with Questions more effectively. I think also that there ought to be a certain period of time allocated to Questions—half-anhour or three-quarters, or possibly an hour, if we can spare the time—at the end of which time any Questions which remain unanswered would be treated as questions for Written Answer, as in another place. I think we could get a substantially larger number of Questions if we exercised restraint in the number of supplementaries and in their length, and also in the length of the Answers.
748
I come to debate. One of the charms of this House is that every noble Lord who wants to speak has an opportunity of doing so. He may not always speak in the order in which he would like to speak, but, at some time, if he exercises sufficient patience, he will get in and be allowed to say what he wants to say. When he comes into the Chamber he knows exactly when he is going to speak. That is a great advantage. But, from the point of view of debate, it also has its disadvantages. It tends to stereotype the form of debate. Speakers tend to come along with prepared speeches, which they read, disguising it with more or less skill. Some are completely unsuccessful in disguising the fact that they are reading; others are able to pretend that they are not reading; but a great many speeches are read. Knowing that one is to come on, say, roughly at half-past six, there is a tendency to come along with a speech all ready, regardless of what has been said before. And not only that: sometimes speakers do not even turn up for the debate until a short time before they expect to speak. That does not make for good debate.
I think that this House could improve its debating methods. We are regarded as a first-clas debating Chamber, but in fact we are a Chamber in which, in the main, we get a series of first-class speeches, usually having very little relation to what has gone before. So I would plead for rather more flexibility in the order of speaking. If a noble Lord is moved to come in because the noble Lord, Lord Rea, or one of his colleagues, has said something provocative, he should be able to come in straight away or as soon as possible after the noble Lord, and make an impromptu speech.
LORD BOWLES: Called by the Speaker?
LORD SILKIN: Called by the Speaker, of course. I think the House would be far better for that opportunity.
There is one other matter which the noble Lord touched upon—that is, the length of speeches. I know that I have made some pretty long ones myself, and I am making a long one now, but I want to get this off my chest. I was once a member of an assembly where it was the rule that speeches were limited to fifteen

749
minutes. There were exceptions for speakers moving Motions and introducing particular topics but, by and large, speakers were limited to fifteen minutes. A member could get an extension up to five minutes, with the leave of the assembly, which he usually got if he was talking sense, and, exceptionally, he could get another five minutes. It was very unusual for anybody to get more than a second period of five minutes. I think there could be at any rate an understanding in this House, if not a rule, that the period of speeches should be limited and that it would be regarded as not being discourteous to any noble Lord if a Member of the House drew attention to the fact that he had been speaking for an hour or for fifty minutes or some time of that sort. At present, we are much too polite to say anything of the kind—we merely walk out and have tea. I would not object to even an experimental period of limiting the length of speeches to something like fifteen or twenty minutes. I think there might be some advantage.
Something has been said—and there has been a variety of opinions—about the desirability of referring Bills to Standing Committees. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, went a bit too far in saying that Bills should automatically, with certain exceptions, go to Standing Committees. I think, equally, that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, went too far in saying that they should not. I think it should be the practice that certain Bills should go to Standing Committee. I think that the Bill on the Law Commission was one that could quite well have gone to a Standing Committee, because in fact only four or five noble Lords understood what it was all about, or spoke on it, or took any interest in it. A Bill of that kind, which took two days of the time of this House, could well have been dealt with in Standing Committee with much less friction and much more agreeably. After all, it is much easier for a Government to give way in Standing Committee than in the whole House. The discussions there are on a more intimate basis; you can interrupt one another, and get your views across. And there is no loss of face in Standing Committee in giving way if the case requires it. So I think that a good many more Bills could go to Standing Committee.
750
I should not like there to be a committee to decide which Bills should go to Standing Committee, because that would lend itself to a good deal of controversy when they reported. But I think if a Bill has received its Second Reading, there could be a Motion from the Government that the Bill be referred to a Standing Committee or that the Bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House; and it could, in my view, be decided usefully there and then.
I think I have said enough to indicate that I think there is scope for a good deal of improvement in the procedure of this House, starting right at the top and coming down to noble Lords themselves in the speeches that they make. The question is: how can this best be considered? obviously, we are not going to come to any decisions this afternoon —at least, I hope not, because even what I have said is purely tentative and provisional. I do not think it could come within the province of the ordinary Procedure Committee. In my view, if we are really serious about this, we should set up a Select Committee to examine any suggestions that might be made, including those that have come forward during the course of this debate, and they should bring out a considered report on the procedure of this House so that we may examine all the proposals with the greatest care.
The Procedure Committee is a very good Committee for dealing with isolated questions of procedure. One that I hope will be considered quite soon is Questions. I do not think we are going to get very far. The noble Lord and I are at one about the undesirability of the way in which Questions are dealt with now. I think that might be a suitable subject for them to consider, even if they decide in the end that there is nothing to be done. But I think that discussion of the whole procedure of this House over a wider field is not a matter for that Committee, but is one for a Select Committee on Procedure. I hope that, as a result of this debate, we shall set up such a Committee, and, with the greatest modesty, I hope that I may be allowed to be a member of it.
4.53 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, may I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord

751
Silkin, for pointing out to me some of the pitfalls which I should avoid. I assure your Lordships that I shall be brief, and I shall try not to read my speech. I have enough sins on my conscience, since, to start with, I am a comparative newcomer to your Lordships' House, and I have little experience in your Lordships' forms and practices. What is more, I have the temerity to address your Lordships perhaps in a controversial way and to put forward views which may seem disrespectful to many of your Lordships. I assure you that no disrespect or offence is intended.
My only qualification to speak to-day is my youth. If I have a contribution to make, it is in telling your Lordships how as a young man with an independent political outlook I reacted to my status as a Member of this House. I am proud to belong to such a distinguished gathering, and I wish to play my part in it in whatever way I can. But I am also proud to have been born into an age when prejudice and class are being broken down, and where old-fashioned ideas and institutions are being constantly questioned. I hope that I may occupy my seat in this House for another fifty years or more, but I want to be sure that it will be worth occupying.
I believe that this House possesses two fundamental assets, and that these should make it an ideal Second Chamber. First, its functions and powers, having been evolved over many years, are, I believe, wholly admirable. It is not so strong as to be a rival to the elected House of Commons, but it is too strong to be considered a mere debating society. Secondly, its Members include some of the most able and distinguished men and women in the country. Yet, in spite of these advantages, I believe that this House is rapidly losing the respect of the Government in power, and it is considered an anachronism by the majority Party in the country. Why is this? It is because the voting, the making of decisions in this Chamber, is unreasonably and disproportionately influenced by the purely hereditary element. The work, at least the bulk of it, is done by men and women who would be universally acceptable members of an Upper House, but the voting does not reflect the consensus of their considered opinions.
752
My Lords, I do not intend in this speech to venture an opinion on the composition of this House. I should be adding irrelevance to my other sins, and I should be in very deep water indeed. But I think it relevant to this debate to consider the voting: and the point I want to make is that, however valuable it may be for the views of a wide cross-section of people to be heard in debate, it is not right that legislative decisions should be made by people like myself, who are unrepresentative, unqualified, and not selected by any reasonable process.
It is worth considering whether in fact, as many people believe, we are a Chamber which is dominated by a purely hereditary element. If we are, it is small wonder that the Government are losing patience with us. I have been doing some research into the 1963-64 Session of Parliament, and I was astonished to discover how far the contribution of meritorious "Peers—that is to say, first creations, Life Peers and a few notable hereditary Peers who have held ministerial appointments—exceeds that of the purely hereditary Peers. The figures are briefly as follows. "Meritorious" Peers made 72 per cent. of all speeches at the Second Reading of Bills, proposed 77 per cent, of all non-Government Amendments, and made 70 per cent. of all the speeches in debates on matters of general interest. But when it comes to voting, the power of the Conservative aristocracy makes itself felt: only 55 per cent. of the votes cast in Division were the votes of "meritorious" Peers.
These figures are significant because they indicate where both the strength and the weakness of this House lie. Its strength is in the quality of its active membership. When three speeches out of every four are made by men and women of unquestioned distinction, this House cannot justly be accused of being a hangover from an aristocratic past. Its weakness is that the purely hereditary element, by contributing nearly one vote out of every two, makes its greatest impact in the field where it can do most damage and cause the greatest annoyance.
My Lords, here surely lies the right way to change: to restrict the right to vote to those Peers who are entitled

753
to it by their merit and achievement. If a reform along these lines were carried through, I am convinced that it would enormously increase the effectiveness of this House. I envisage a voting membership composed of Conservatives and Socialists in roughly equal proportions, balanced by a strong body of Liberals and Independents. A situation would then arise which is not at present found in either Chamber, which is that no Division could be treated as a foregone conclusion. I believe that this would be extremely healthy, and that our debates, and especially our Committees, would be highly stimulating as a result. Furthermore, our decisions would have a real significance and would command greatly increased respect. A Conservative Government could no longer assume that it could force through measures which an assured majority, and a Socialist Government could not treat lightly the rejection or amendment of its Bills by such an undeniably able and distinguished body.
I have one final thing to say, and that is that the need for change is urgent. It is not enough to stop making hereditary creations and to let the heredity element die out; because it will take a long time dying. Unless we remove those elements which bring this House into disfavour with the present Government, we risk the curtailment of our powers and the removal of our sting. This would be a tragedy and, speaking personally, I should be ashamed to be a Member of a quaint, slightly ridiculous relic of the past. But I should be proud to give up my vote to ensure that this House becomes the dynamic revisory body which it is so superbly equipped to be.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he had no qualifications. Surely youth is a great qualification.
LORD GIFFORD: I said that my only qualification was my youth, but I thank the noble Lord.
5.2 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I think the House would venture to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in saying that his only qualification was youth. I thought he brought to his speech tremendous
754
sincerity and a vast amount of truth. It is with great pleasure that I welcome his speech to this House, not only for the reasons I have already indicated but because, in a large measure, there is hardly a word in it with which I would disagree myself.
I welcome very much the Motion put down by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and I wish that a few more people could have got under the gate, as it were, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, endeavoured to do, to explore what is really the issue in this discussion. My qualification for taking part in the debate is not youth, I am afraid, nor can I claim a very long membership and experience of the House. I lack the long and profound experience of many noble Lords, but, at any rate, perhaps I can look at things with the fresh, or fairly fresh, eye of a newcomer who has been here for only just over a year. I hope that this may be some compensation.
I think the first impression—and to me it is a tremendously important one—of anybody coming into this House is the impression that one gets from the atmosphere of the place. The building itself is beautiful and dignified beyond belief. The feeling of history lies behind every door and down every corridor. I think this is especially so at night, when it can be sometimes astonishingly beautiful, when the House is up and the lights have been lowered. Then, in the shadowed Chamber, or on the stairs, it is sometimes quite possible to imagine that you can see the great figures who have dignified this House in the past, as if they have left some part of themselves here, in the House they served so long ago.
This wonderful atmosphere of the House to me is one of its greatest glories, and also one of its greatest dangers. It is rather like the atmosphere of that land that was discovered by the Lotus-eaters in Tennyson's poem:
"In the afternoon they came unto a land in which it seemed always afternoon."
It seems to me that the atmosphere here, the languid air of your Lordships' House, is just as insidious, because it encourages that most common, most understandable, and yet most alarming of all human frailties, the gentle art of self-deception.
We have had several speeches in the course of the debate this afternoon, and

755
I have had the opportunity to speak to many noble Lords in the last few months, and it is very rarely that one hears a word of criticism of the House and of its procedures from inside. Mostly it comes from outside. Indeed, one of the things that puzzled me most when I first entered the House was the number of Lords who came up to me and went out of their way to tell me how independent, how intelligent, how important the House was, and what went on in the House. Of course, it is easy to convince yourself of this because it is a House dignified, as I have said, by more than a thousand years of history, and it is easy to believe, in such an atmosphere, that it is important and that what goes on here is important. I am sure that all those noble Lords were trying to help me and to be friendly, but, being a bit of a cynic underneath, I had a sneaking feeling that they were sometimes talking to convince themselves.
Of course, there is a great deal of truth in many things that have been said in this debate, and I greatly welcome the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the work and procedures of the House. It is true that we make a powerful and important contribution to a number of Bills, a number of debates, and so on. All this has value. But, seriously, to turn a realistic eye on the situation, if we rise above the gentle intoxication of the atmosphere of this House, can we really claim that the existence of the House of Lords is justified by the contribution it makes to government? Would there be any more than the slightest ripple in the great world outside, or the slightest halt in its progress forward, if we were to shut up shop tomorrow? This is, in my view, the only real and the only honest question which we must ask. We ought to ask it, and we ought to keep on asking it. I think we should be guilty of gross self-deception if we gave a false answer to that question. We ought continually to search for the right answer and to convince ourselves by our procedures, by our discussions, and by our composition, that we do justify our existence.
We should not deceive ourselves about our image, either. This has already
756
been referred to in the debate. It is not just because there is a lack of publicity about the House of Lords. The fact is that, if we were honest, we would recognise that outside this particular Chamber there is not a great deal of respect for your Lordships' House. We should not deceive ourselves into thinking that our departure would inflame a great popular movement of support. There will be no marches in Trafalgar Square, no sit-downs in Piccadilly. There will be very few to mourn our passing, and there will be many who will look upon the wake as a wedding.
The truth is that the vast majority of people look upon us as a museum, a showpiece, to be visited along with the Tower of London, the Albert Memorial, Windsor Castle and the Hampton Court Maze. We ought to be serious about this, and think about it for a moment. They see us as a historical anachronism, something which has survived beyond its day and age and, some of them think, beyond its use, and they think it is tolerable because it is quaint. There is much truth, however painful, however exaggerated, in this point of view. It is from that point of view that we ought to look at our problems of procedure and otherwise, to see what can be done about them.
It is my view that we are the victims of history in more ways than one. Historically, we represent one side of a non-existent triangle; we represent a theory of Government which no longer has any validity. In 1642, Charles I, in a famous letter to both Houses of Parliament, put forward the conception of mixed government. He abandoned the idea of the divine right of kings, and declared that Government henceforth should be a three-fold partnership between monarchy, aristocracy as represented by the Lords, and democracy, as represented by the Commons. What he advocated out of expediency was elevated into a constitutional principle and theory. It must be admitted, in fairness, that it worked very well for a great number of years.
But in fact over the years, as was inevitable and as was right, the Commons has gradually asserted its supreme authority. It has taken the power and left us with very little except the

757
trappings. It has always had a traditional suspicion of the Lords because of its non-elective basis and its hereditary foundation. One by one it has pulled our teeth until we have very little bite left. In almost any other country we should have been abolished years ago. In Britain, because we worship tradition and have a built-in love of compromise, the House of Lords has been allowed to linger on, a faint and rather sad echo of its former self, possessing in abundance the shadows but none of the substance, a house of impotence. We cling tenaciously to life, and like all ancients deceive ourselves into thinking we still have some great importance. This, I submit, is the real background to this debate, and it is because I have grown to be fond of this place, it is because I believe we have a need for it, because I believe we have a need for a powerful Second Chamber, that I should like to see us get to grips with the real problems instead of just talking about odd items of procedure.
There are certain changes in procedure that I should welcome very much indeed. First of all, I should like consideration to be given to the idea that Unstarred Questions should not be left at the end of the day's Order Paper. I believe that sometimes our debates lack immediacy, and it ought to be possible to have an Unstarred Question higher up in the day's Order Paper, to be dealt with when many more Peers are here, so that we can discuss topical questions with very much more speed.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I point out to the noble Lord that he has only to put his Unstarred Question in the form of a Motion, a very slight difference, and if his Whips allow it it would certainly appear at the top of the list.
LORD SHEPHERD: It would not.
LORD WILLIS: I am afraid the noble Lord does not know our Whips. On the other hand, I was thinking, too, in terms of a small debate.
Also, I should like us to have a look —and I beg noble Lords not to be prejudiced by traditional background, and I have noticed that not many are—at the ceremony of Introduction, which may
758
have been hallowed by time but really has become, to use a rather strong word, a little tatty. The object of tradition and the object of the ceremony is to dignify the entrance of a Peer to your Lordships' House. I believe this to be right. But I do not think the present ceremony of Introduction really does this. It is rather badly stage managed and it goes on just a little long. I am sorry, but that is my opinion, speaking perhaps as a professional. I should like to see also some attention given to the robes. I think we are coming to rather an absurd situation when, as your Lordships know, many noble Lords either borrow or hire robes from a costumier for various occasions. It would seem to me that one might discuss whether or not we should go in for the simple black academic gown for any occasion other than major State occasions.
I also welcome the suggestion that we should have shorter speeches in your Lordships' House. I realise that your Lordships would like me to be very much more brief at the moment. It seems to me it ought to be possible to have an introduction—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Alport, set a very good example in this respect—which did not exceed half an hour, and contributions by noble Lords which did not exceed twenty minutes. I think something along those lines could be done.
I do not want to touch on the thorny question which brought the noble Earl the Leader of the House to his feet earlier in the debate. I am one of those lesser ones who might be dangerously influenced by what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, had to say. But I must say, in welcoming the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that I agree very much that the knife ought to be taken to the hereditary principle, and that we ought also to relinquish once and for all our right to delay legislation for any period of time.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, as I intervened in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, the least I can do is to intervene in the case of my own colleague. I think that in many of his remarks the noble Lord has gone very wide of the Motion. As always, it is for the House to decide, not me, but that is my opinion.
LORD WILLIS: I am about to finish. I do apologise for that. In conclusion, in throwing out these points the main point I wanted to make was that I believe that what is necessary now, in order to consider our procedures, is that we should not only get together among ourselves, or in some form of Select Committee, but revive the Conference of 1948 to consider the whole relationship of Lords and Commons. This would be important from the point of view not only of the composition of this House, but also of consideration of how much more legislation and how much more work of Government could be taken at this end. I think that, while we could make a number of small moves which would improve our procedure here, the basic question lies in working with the Commons to see how both Houses can become efficient arms of government in this country.
5.15 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, told me that he did not think he would speak, although he had put his name down, because everything he was going to say had been said already. Perhaps the noble Marquess whom we were all looking forward to hearing came to the same conclusion; and I have a sneaking feeling that I ought not to be standing up myself, because anything I thought to say has already been said several times; but if we all go on like that the debate will perhaps suffer.
I hesitated a good deal before deciding to speak on this Motion at all. We are given to understand, if I may put it that way, that a certain element of delicacy has now entered into the relationship between this House and the Government, or between this House and another place. When a person is delicate it is very important not to upset him. But I concluded that I should not really upset anybody. After all, we Back-Benchers are not very important people: it is when the "big boys" talk that the trouble comes. What we say cannot get anybody worked up. May it not be that those who do get worked up at the moment are imagining things? I think perhaps they are imagining things that are not happening; that will not happen, and, in effect, cannot happen.
760
I noticed that in the Motion which the noble Lord has tabled he has used this expression of our "challenging" the elected Chamber. I should have thought that any idea that this House tries to challenge, or could challenge, the elected Chamber is unrealistic. It is over a hundred years ago, if I may remind your Lordships, that the excellent Walter Bagehot said:
"In truth it is idle to expect a Second Chamber, a chamber of notables"—
I suppose we can still call ourselves that—
"ever to resist a popular Chamber, a nation's Chamber, when that Chamber is vehement and the nation vehement, too."
That is a very simple truth that was enunciated over a hundred years ago. It is correct that it has been forgotten once or twice. I think the last time was at the end of the first decade of the present century. But I see nothing in the present situation to justify anybody's saying that it is being forgotten at present or is likely to be forgotten.
I warmly support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Alport. He suggests that we should look at our procedures. I think that it is an inevitable task of all big organisations or institutions to look at their procedures from time to time, to look at them with a fresh mind, to be prepared to change them drastically. I wonder (though I have, of course, far less experience of this House's affairs than the noble Lord, Lord Carrington) whether the ordinary machinery of the Procedure Committee is the best instrument to use when we want to take a really fresh look and get some fresh ideas. I intend no discourtesy to that Committee, or its members, but I think that experience shows that in these cases an organisation does better to set up a special committee or party in order to ensure that a really fresh look is taken.
The noble Lord referred to Committee work; and it seems clear that that is something which should be examined. But I am also impressed with the need for us to look at those procedures which perhaps can more conveniently be described as "manners". The noble Lord said, quite rightly, that our prestige is largely in our own hands, and I think that sometimes we are not quite careful about it. I agree with the reference made

761
by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Silkin, and I think others, to this question of Members' coming down just in time to make their set speech, and then going off without waiting to hear the opinions of others. It is true that we in this House have had a wonderful reputation as a debating Chamber. I claim that we still have a wonderful reputation as a debating Chamber—some first-class debates take place here; but they are not improved by that kind of behaviour.
I also entirely agree on the question of long speeches. I must keep an eye on the clock myself. I am sure that the reason why one makes a long speech is that one has not worked on it long enough. Anybody can make a long speech. It is much more difficult to make a short one, especially if you are going to try not to read it too closely. That is what I think some noble Lords are not doing. I warmly support that part of the Motion. I find it difficult to consider this question of our prestige completely in the abstract. I think that one is bound, in talking about it, also to look at what this House is itself. I keep a weather eye on the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and I do not think I shall cause him too much uneasiness over this; but I cannot avoid the subject completely.
Before I start, I should like just to say one word on the maiden speech that we have just heard. One is supposed to agree with a maiden speech. It is not quite that I disagree with it, but I should like to comment on one aspect of it—namely, that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, was, unfortunately, himself a wonderful advertisement for the hereditary Peerage system. That is the only thing I have to quarrel with; that he stands up and delivers a first-class speech which comes as a breath of fresh air to the whole House; and I am sure that we are all most grateful to him for doing it.
To get back to my point, what kind of a House are we? I have read to your Lordships a little quotation from the excellent Walter Bagehot. I should like to read another. He said:
"The abolition of proxies would have made the House of Lords a real House. The addition of Life Peers would have made it a good House."
He said that over one hundred years ago. I wonder what he would have to
762
say about us to-day, if he were here and alive? Of course, the proxies have gone, years ago, and the Life Peers have been with us now for some time, to the great strengthening and adornment of this House. I believe (and here I clearly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Willis) that Walter Bagehot would say, as I say myself, that this House is a wonderful institution. It is, of course, full of anomalies. It is, of course, quite easy to poke fun at it. But the fact remains that it is a wonderful institution, and it is the envy of many other countries.
I personally go further than that. I go so far as to say that we who are in it are wonderful people. Of course, your Lordships may think that I go too far; that that is immodest. But I do think so. But if you disagree, if you do not think this is a wonderful House and you do not think that we are wonderful people, then—and I address myself to those who are sitting on the Front Benches of both sides of this House—why have you done nothing about it? Why have you not shown any signs of doing anything about it? I think that until you do you should be careful with your criticisms of this House.
As to the composition of this House, I think it is most important, as one or two noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, have brought out, to realise the large part now taken in the proceedings of the House by the Peers of first creation and by the Life Peers. The voting figures were quoted to us by Lord Gifford, and what he said was illustrated by the voting on the War Damage Bill. If all the hereditary Peers had stayed at home, the result would have been practically the same. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, devoted a good deal of his speech to voting. Of course, voting in this House is not the same as it is in another place. But I do not see how one can avoid a voting. It is indicative of the feeling of the House. Our voting, I think, needs to be looked at—analysed, as it were; but it is an important and inevitable part of our procedure.
Speaking as an independent Peer, perhaps I may be allowed to add this comment: that on these issues the independent Peers are generally much divided. It is only on certain occasions

763
that we nearly all troop into the same Lobby. When that happens, especially if the independent Peers are accompanied by some of the Peers who are not going the way their Whips would like them to go, I think that a situation is created which a wise Government will look at and consider fairly seriously.
My Lords, to sum up what I have to contribute on this subject, I think that it is largely a matter of attitudes. It is a matter of the attitude of the political Parties to this House; of the attitude of the Government of the day towards this House, and of our own attitude to our work. If all Parties would consistently regard this House, not as something which it is not—namely, a rival to the elected Chamber, something to be resented—but as a complement to the elected Chamber, a junior partner, capable and desirous of making a valuable and constructive contribution to the work of Parliament, but neither capable nor desirous of thwarting the will of the people or of their elected representatives; if Government, whether Labour, Liberal or Conservative, were to treat this House in the same sense, making more use of us to speed up their legislative programme, and being always conscious of the awesome responsibility with which the Executive now, under our present conditions, is invested, receive our suggestions, and even our criticisms, in good spirit, and without being too thin-skinned about it, and, lastly, if we, for our part, having expressed our views as well as we can and may, offer our suggestions, but in the end are careful to refrain from pressing the counterattack on issues that have already been decided at the hustings—if these were the attitudes adopted then our prestige would, I think, take care of itself.
5.30 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if Sergeant George Dixon happened to be in the Gallery listening to the speech of my noble friend, Lord Willis, and if he should happen to tap him on the shoulder as he leaves this Chamber, my noble friend can rest assured that many of us would willingly bail him out, and possibly even go so far as to give recognisances for his good behaviour. I think my noble friend was wrong on one rather technical point, in suggesting
764
that the Unstarred Question might be given an earlier position in debates. That sounds attractive—I was attracted to it at one time—but we have to bear in mind that this House, in addition to being a debating Chamber, is also a machine for passing through legislation, and obviously the legislation put forward by the Government must have precedence at most of our Sittings.
As an old newspaper-man who spent forty years in helping to produce newspapers in this country, some of those years being spent under the guidance of my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams, who for a time was my editor, I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rea, suggest that the image of this House needs to be improved and that the Press was really to blame for the bad image. This House does not get a very large number of inches in the reporting columns. It is usually among the cartoonists that this House is lampooned and criticised, and if Lord Rea wants to start censoring cartoonists, that is a very new idea of what I always thought Liberalism was supposed to be.
I think that this House works, and works fairly well. Whether it should work at all, or should be called on to work at all, depends upon whether one takes the view that a Second Chamber is necessary. If we look round the Legislatures of the world we come to the conclusion that a Second Chamber is often a blessing. There is a fair amount of work of revision to be done, there is sometimes the need for somebody to have second thoughts, and so long as the Second Chamber does its revising work without trying to usurp the position of the elected Chamber, then I do not think any great harm is done.
But I am not going so far as to suggest that everything is perfect with regard to this House. I feel that there has been a good deal of "shadow boxing" during this debate. Ostensibly, we are discussing procedure, yet we know that in the minds of many of us there hovers over us the question of the powers and constitution of the House. I shall not be tempted into channels which lead one into discussing those matters. They are being discussed in the Press—the Press of all shades of opinion—at great length. Whilst I would

765
not believe everything I read in the newspapers, we have to take it for granted that these matters are obviously being discussed in other quarters as well. I think that this House can perform a very useful function, but I am definitely of the view that we should discipline ourselves and aim at making this a debating Chamber, a deliberating Chamber, rather than primarily a legislative Chamber. That may require us to dilute to some extent the power, limited though it may be, which we enjoy over legislation at this moment. I think that in that role this House can have a valuable and long and useful life. I feel that the more we switch ourselves over into the deliberative stream and away from the legislative stream, the more outspoken and frank we are able to be in any contribution we make to debates on public affairs.
I extend to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, a warm welcome for having introduced this Motion, for having given us an opportunity to let our hair down—I hope that some of my noble friends will not take that too literally—and to think aloud for a few hours about this particular aspect of public affairs. Although Lord Alport spoke from the position of Back-Bench impartiality, I have to recall that for many years he was the Director of the Conservative Political Centre, and therefore I approach him with some little degree of suspicion. Of course, the noble Lord and I are closely associated in one of the most exciting enterprises of this age, the new University of Essex. We find ourselves able to agree on many questions—I could probably agree on a few of those which he adumbrated this afternoon—but on others I must beg leave to disagree.
The noble Lord really wants this House to be given the power to do things which it has not the power to do to-day. He wants a more effective House, as he says in his Motion. The word "effective" may have many meanings, but the dictionary I consulted gave as its meaning "powerful", and I do not want to see a more powerful House. It can probably have more influence won on sheer grounds of merit; but I do not want a House endowed with more power, particularly power over legislation, than it has at this moment.
766
Certain of the proposals put forward by the noble Lord have some merit in them, but I want to ask—following up that same line of suspicion at which I hinted a few moments ago—why were not these munificent proposals put before us during the thirteen years of Conservative rule? That would be a test of their genuineness. As it is, it appears that they were allowed to remain in cold storage for thirteen years, and were brought out only when a Labour Government attained power, on the eve of two such controversial Bills as the Steel Bill and the Land Bill. Therefore, I entertain a slightly suspicious attitude towards it all. There was once a feeling in this country that this House was nothing more than a Tory Party Sub-Committee. I agree that it is not so much that now, but I should not like to see it getting back to the kind of reputation is used to have years ago.
I want now to do something which nobody else has so far done in this debate: to turn to the actual terms of the noble Lord's Motion itself. It starts off by saying:
…now that various changes have been made in the composition and powers of this House…"
So far so good; but there may be more changes in the composition and powers of the House. Is this therefore an appropiate moment to come forward with proposals for altering our procedure? Would it not be better to wait until those possible changes of powers and composition have been effected, and then to view the whole matter in its new light and frame our procedure in accordance with the needs of that new situation? Then the noble Lord uses the words:
"without involving any extension of its legislative powers…"
That is hardly an appropriate expression for him to use, because even its present powers are considerably out of keeping with a good deal of political and public opinion.
This House at this moment could have the power to throw an enormous burden on the taxpayers of this country. For instance, to take the action which many Members of the House took a short time ago on the War Damage Bill, if the Government were thereby involved in paying many millions—perhaps scores of

767
millions—in compensation to the Burmah Oil Company, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to raise money to pay that compensation, would be compelled to put a shilling on the higher grades of surtax or abolish all the privileges in the matter of death duties on large landed estates. I feel it is not right this House should have the power, either by its direct vote or by compelling the other place to drop its legislation, to ask the taxpayers of the country to pay out huge sums such as those which might be involved in the case I have outlined.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAK-RIDGE: My Lords, may I, with respect, interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? As I understand the position, this House has not the power to do these things. We make our suggestion, it goes back to another place, but in the end it is for them to accept or reject it. We can only hold it up for a certain number of months, and there is nothing to compel the Government to pay out the compensation during those months.
LORD LEATHERLAND: The noble Lord is quite right. We are able to cause a year's delay, and if the Government were defeated—which we hope they will not be—during that year that Bill would be stone dead, and the other place, acting in the light of the legislation needed to deal with a current situation, would have been deprived of the opportunity of enacting it, by a vote of this House.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt for one moment, because he and I have discussed this matter in a different sphere? I do not want to introduce any Party controversy, although he has tempted me almost beyond endurance. I gather from his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, that he would do something if he possibly could to prevent the electorate of this country from having a chance of second thoughts. He would like to get such legislation through and into action before the electorate had a chance to have any second thoughts in case the Government of the day were defeated at a subsequent Election. Is not that an undemocratic point of view?
LORD LEATHERLAND: I should be wanting something similar to what the last Government did when they sprang the Rent Bill on to this country without any warning or any mandate at all.
The noble Lord's Motion went on to say, "without…challenging the House of Commons". My Lords, this House does that now. It challenged it on the War Damage Bill; it will probably challenge it on the Steel Bill, and on the Land Bill. I think those are fair assumptions for me to make. It does not mean to say it will make the other place impotent, but the noble Lord's Motion says, "without…challenging the House of Commons", and I say that this House does that now and it can very effectively challenge the other place in the final year of a Government's term of office. Does the noble Lord, Lord Alport, by incorporating that clause, suggest that it should surrender such power as it at present has to challenge the House of Commons?—because if that is the case —and I cannot see that the phrase can mean anything else—we shall not disagree very strongly with him. But are noble Lords on the other side of the House prepared to back the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in that point of view?
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, if we may not even challenge the other place or, to use a probably more appropriate term, advise the other place, what is the purpose of the Second Chamber at all?
LORD LEATHERLAND: That is a highly intelligent remark, if I may say so, but I am not putting forward this proposal that we should not challenge the other place. It is the noble Lord, Lord Alport, who is suggesting that; and I am saying that he is "ratting" on the powers which this House at present employs, and I am inviting noble Lords opposite to say whether they agree with him on surrendering the present powers of this House. If they do not, they will probably vote against his Motion.
The noble Lord's Motion goes on to say that this House could be made a more effective forum for the discussion of public policy. That is excellent. I find myself marching alongside him here, our hearts beating in unison—and note, my Lords, he is talking about discussion

769
not about legislation. That is the dividing line between the two points of view on the whole question of the activities of this House. I feel that this House is superbly fitted to be a grand forum for the discussion of public affairs. It has Members of long experience, of long service to the State, Members representative of the law, the sciences, medicine and all the professions. In fact, one can hardly mention a single question in this House but some noble Lord gets up and is acclaimed to be a first-rate expert on that particular subject. I am quite sure of that, no matter how wide one takes the sweep, whether it is from constitutional law to contraception, as we had demonstrated here only a few nights ago. I am sure that if I were to get up and address your Lordships on affairs in the Virgin Islands, some noble Lord would get up and say, "Oh, but in 1906 I was Governor there", and would proceed to address us out of the wealth of his experience.
The noble Lord's Motion then goes on to say that there should be an "independent examination of defects in the apparatus of national administration". I am reminded of the days, forty years ago, when I used to dine each night with Professor Joad in the 1917 Club in Soho, when he so often said, "It all depends upon what you mean by…". What is meant by that word "independent" in the noble Lord's Motion? My dictionary says the word means "not subject to bias". I wonder whether the examination which the noble Lord wants to make into the affairs of the National Coal Board, the British Railways Board and the welfare services would really be without bias? I am wondering whether we are probably in danger here of begging the whole question. He says, "independent examination". Independent of what? Of the House of Commons? In such an event, we might be setting ourselves up over and above the House of Commons, and that would not be a good constitutional precedent. The noble Lord has mentioned national boards and the welfare services. The House of Commons already has its machinery for investigating this matter. It has its Select Committee on Public Accounts, its Select Committee on Estimates. Are we to set up a body to
770
duplicate that work? Would it be possible for this House to investigate something like our electoral system?
Then, on the general question of "national administration", which is the core of the phrase, all national administration involves expenditure, and ought this House to be taking upon itself a greater power to deal with national expenditure than it possesses at this moment? There is a sum of £400 million paid in subsidies to farmers, there are many millions of pounds paid in subsidies to council house tenants, many more millions of pounds in tax subsidies to people buying their houses with the aid of mortgages. Is this House going to be entitled to probe deeply, albeit independently, into big financial matters like that? Admittedly, it could probably do a good job probing such matters as the Ferranti affair, the wasted war contracts, and so on; but the House of Commons already has its watchdogs. Are we to become another watchdog to watch the other place's watchdogs? I feel we are running up the wrong street. We are also heading for a possible clash with the other place, and we should be doing a job twice instead of being content with doing it once.
The noble Lord also included in his Motion the phrase "within the framework of the present-day British Parliamentary system". That is too vague. It is not a real guarantee. The frame could remain unaltered but the picture inside the frame might be altered very drastically. There is nothing very static about our affairs. No doubt reform of this House will be discussed some time. This is not the time to discuss it. Personally, I do not think the reform need be very fundamental, but there is an immediate need—and this is the point that matters—for the Queen's Government to be carried on in accordance with the express will of the people, and the position of this House at this moment is unique inasmuch as the Government have not got a majority. One would normally expect, if we were setting up a new Second Chamber, to ensure that the Government of the day not only had a majority in one place but in the other place, also.
That leads me to say that we are living in a very complex, high-speed society where the passage of legislation, to deal

771
with the current evil which has immediately shown itself, is sometimes a very urgent matter. This House can delay a Bill for twelve months, and, as I said, in certain given circumstances it can kill a Bill altogether. In the interests of good will I should like to see this House, of its own volition, putting forward a proposal that its delaying period should be reduced to three months. That would give ample time for second thought; it would give time for negotiation between the two Houses, and it would show that this House was accommodating itself to the new outlook on political affairs that we have—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am loth to interrupt the noble Lord, but, practically speaking, the period is at present three months. It is a year from the first Second Reading in the House of Commons. As a contested Bill takes nearly nine months to come through both Houses, by the time the conflict arises there are only three months left. We could hardly have less than that.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I did not ask for less than that; I asked for three months. Twelve months is wrong and has within it the seeds of mischief, if one calls the destruction of Government legislation mischief. I do not think it right that this House should have power to circumvent the will of the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to keep interfering, but I think we are now right bang on the question of power, and I feel that that must be outside this discussion.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, all right then. We will pass now to the precise proposals which I, as a newcomer, would very humbly put before your Lordships for the amendment of procedure in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that this House was justified in putting its delaying powers into operation, if the Government of the day brought forward a Bill which had not been an issue at the preceding Election and for which it therefore had no mandate. I want to present to this House the reverse side of that picture. If a Government brought in a Bill which had been a big issue at
772
an Election, for which they had a mandate from the people, then I suggest that the Speaker of the House of Commons might be entitled to treat that as he treats a Money Bill, and to say that a particular major, operative clause in the Bill is as sacred to the House of Commons as is the operative clause in a Money Bill.
As the second point, I would endorse what has already been suggested from various parts of the House (it is strange that four or five of us should have hit upon it independently) and that is that the Lord Chancellor should not be compelled to sit here, hour after hour, listening to speeches which he could no doubt make much better himself, when he has the affairs of the Judiciary to look after; when he has legislation to attend to: when he has Cabinet meetings to attend, and when, as with the present occupant of the Woolsack, he has the gigantic work of the Law Commissions to which to devote his time. I think we should have a Chairman of the House who would rule out of order those of us who were transgressing the rules, and thus save my noble friend the Leader of the House any embarrassment which he might feel in doing the job at the present moment.
Another of the suggestions which I had intended to put before your Lordships. but which has already been mentioned, is that there should be Standing Committees to which we refer some of our legislation. I would not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and suggest that all Public Bills should be referred there. I think there are some Public Bills which ought to be taken on the Floor of the House. Steel is one; Land will be another, and War Damage, obviously, was one. But I agree that many of the minor Bills could be disposed of in Committee, with the result that the time of the full House would be saved.
I suggest that after Questions on Tuesday the House should adjourn itself into five or six Committees, which would sit simultaneously on five or six different Bills. An enormous amount of time could then be saved. I would also suggest that there should be a longer period of time for Questions, and that the limit of four should be expanded so that

773
our Question Time could go on for, perhaps, an hour. That would enable noble Lords to ventilate in this House, in the full glare of publicity, many public questions which really require ventilation. It would enable noble Lords to criticise the Government—and I am not against criticising the Government—in a non-legislative way. I think that the time saved by the Committees would give us the extra time for the longer Question Hour. We should then be able to entertain ourselves with more debates on urgent, important public affairs. Those are the positive suggestions that I make. I suggest that their adoption would be in the interests of this House itself and of the country at large.
5.55 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I, for one, welcome the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and congratulate him on his presentation of it. As to its timing, I am satisfied, as the debate has developed under the keen eye of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, that it is well-timed and that we should consider the matters which the noble Lord has raised. In that respect, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, who has just sat down, because I feel that the proper course is without delay to adjust our procedures so that they are in accordance with the needs of to-day.
To that end, it would seem that the early review for which the noble Lord asks is a satisfactory proposal, and I am glad that it has been welcomed by other speakers this afternoon. I say "this afternoon", because one reference which has been made to procedures has been in regard to long speeches, and a number of noble Lords speaking to-day have said that they were going to make short ones. I, my Lords, am going to make a long one. I seldom have the chance to do so, coming generally at the end of the list, but it seems to me that we are very much ahead of schedule and a great deal of interesting matter has arisen with which I wish to deal.
Regarding procedure, I feel that we must always remember a point which has been made by a number of speakers: that the system seems to work, and largely due to the efficiency of what goes on behind the scenes. The work which is done at the Table and in Com
774
mittees contributes beyond belief to the facility and speed with which matters are dealt with in your Lordships' House. The actual business capacity could, I am sure, be improved as other noble Lords have said.
I turn again to the question of long speeches. When I say "long speeches", I refer to the ones which come early in debates and which are often read. Of course, there are occasions—and we must all admit it, as I should be the first to do—when, from the Dispatch Box, complex and heavy matters of policy have to be dealt with, when some written statement must be the basis of a speech to your Lordships' House. But I sometimes feel that some of them contain redundant material, and it would be proper that speakers from the Front Benches watched their writers, so that redundant material was ruthlessly cut out.
Again, is it necessary that matters dealt with on Second Reading should be tackled again absolutely de novo in Committee, with a possible repetition, very largely, of a speech that has been used on Second Reading? I believe that that talks down a little to your Lordships' House; and though it is proper to realise that there are sometimes a number of noble Lords present in Committee who are not present on Second Reading, generally that is not the case. And may I add that, though some of us may look rather simple, it does not follow that in fact we are.
My Lords, I have another worry in regard to the length and the repetitive nature of some of the longer speeches, and it is one which has already been mentioned in the debate. It is that of speakers who speak early, often at some length, and do not stay to the end of the debate. It is all very well for them to say that they have to go home; but, speaking as one who, when I come to this House, comes, like many other noble Lords, from what we used to call when we were in India "up-country", if I have to come then I come for three days or more. I will return to that point later, but I believe it is a discourtesy to this House to make a speech here and then to leave before the end of the debate, without having listened to the reply. In the same way—and this also is a point that has been made

775
already in this debate—I think it is a discourtesy to speak late in a debate without having heard the opening speeches. I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made that point. If the House —and it has the power, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said—were to make it quite clear to the speakers that, if they are going to speak in a debate, they must come and stay until the end of that debate, then we might not have such a long list of speakers as we sometimes have.
I trust, my Lords, that you will forgive my reference to people who come from a distance, but the second point I want to make in that connection is that when pressure of business upon the House makes it impossible for that business to be dealt with within the present hours, I beg of you to remember that, rather than have a Sitting on a Monday and/or a Friday, some of us would much prefer to sit far into the night on the Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, because it means a larger sacrifice for those people who come from afar if the Sittings of this House, which many of us like to attend regularly, extend practically throughout the week.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, in case he has had to go before I come to reply? I may have come a little late into the debate, but I wonder whether the other side of what he has just been saying has occurred to him and to other Members of the House. There seems a general condemnation of speakers who do not hear the earlier speakers; but one thing which always strikes me here is the very regrettable absence from our debates of so many of our business leaders, and leading industrialists. I think that perhaps half of the most famous industrialists and financial leaders of this country are Members of this House, but they play very little part in the debates, partly because they feel they cannot give the whole day to it. I think we must bear in mind that other side of the question.
LORD FERRIER: There is much in what the noble Earl says, I agree. The noble Earl's reference to my having to go before he replied was perhaps a reference to the other day when, unfortunately
776
I had to catch an aeroplane. To-day, I expected the debate to go on so late, and perhaps that is why I am making a longer speech. I am flying back to-morrow morning. But the point the noble Earl makes is perfectly correct. Nevertheless, if I may talk theoretically, theoretically it is one way to concentrate the debate in the Chamber if you can get people to come early and stay late, as most of us who come from far off have to do. That is my point, although I agree that an insistence of that nature might rob the House of the attendance of people who live and work in the City and who, when they do come, contribute very importantly to our proceedings.
My Lords, let me now turn to the question of Introductions, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, mentioned. Personally, I grudge the time sometimes given to Introductions, though I would not for one moment suggest that the pageantry should in any way be trimmed. But when I became a Member of your Lordships' House a special Sitting (there were two of three of them, I think) was held at 12 noon when the first batch (if I may so call it) of Life Peers was introduced, and a number of noble Lords had the courtesy to attend. I suggest that is a practical proposal which might save us a number of precious quarters of an hour in our working time.
I hesitate a little about my next point, especially as at this particular moment of time the Front Benches are sitting absolutely still and silent. But I have a feeling that, in terms of the proceedings of the House, we are not quite so strict as we might be about movements during speeches in the Chamber. I recognise, again, that some movement is unavoidable and necessary, but I think it should be kept to the minimum limit.
Now I turn to what the noble Lord says in his Motion about this House continuing to fulfil a constructive role. Here, I refer to the image of the House in the country. This point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in his speech. It was his third point, and I believe it to be of paramount importance. Indeed, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, dotted many of the i's and crossed the t's of what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said and what I am going to say. In my view, my Lords, both the Press and the radio are failing

777
the public and Parliament in their reporting of the proceedings of Parliament. The Press, which is concentrated mainly in large groups—and these groups are dominated by individuals who wield tremendous dictatorial powers—is an important factor. These men at the head of the Press groups may deny that they wield dictatorial powers. My Lords, they may not do so by deliberate policy, but they do hold the purse strings.
This is a matter which, from personal knowledge, I have reason to regard as most important. I do not think that editorial and writing staffs are paid sufficiently in relation to what is paid to technicians in that industry; and this tends (and I refer very largely to the Press in the Provinces) to concentrate the best talent either in London or in freelancing. There seems to be some levelling down here. Sensation seems to be the paramount influence behind the Press at the moment. This, of course, is sales promotion, but sensation is inclined to take the place of genuine news and comment. One thing I would say is that I think Sunday newspapers are far too bulky and far too expensive. There is page after page of rubbish, so far as I can see, and advertisements; and I find it impossible to warrant the expenditure of what they cost. Weeklies, with few exceptions, seem to hunt individual Party lines; and they are expensive.
My Lords, I believe—and I am coming round to the point in the noble Lord's Motion about a review of procedures—that one of our problems is that provincial papers report your Lordships' Proceedings, or any proceedings in Parliament, in much too cursory a fashion. They go to press early in the evening, not having taken the trouble to include the latest news from Parliament in their pages. Take the matter of the War Damage Bill, to which reference has been made. It concerned, in many respects, a Scottish company, and, of course, in a major respect, the decision of a Scottish court.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment to ask him what on earth the way in which this House is reported in Provincial papers has to do with the procedure of the House? Surely, Standing Order No. 26 ought to be invoked.
LORD FERRIER: It was for that reason that I referred to the Motion. I am coming to what I believe to be a necessary committee or movement in this House, because (and I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has gone) this, to my mind, is of great importance, in view of these particular words in the noble Lord's Motion, where he says it should "fulfil a constructive role as an Upper House of Parliament". It cannot do it if, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, its image in the country is what it is to-day.
What I was saying about the Scottish papers was that the Scottish public were not informed that the noble Lord who has just intervened and the noble Lord, Lord Guest, who made a most important speech in the debate, had even spoken. In broadcasting it is different; it is not so much what is not said as what is said. It seems to me that a little snigger from Cliff Michelmore or a barbed shaft from Robert McKenzie—
LORD HOBSON: Do not advertise them.
LORD FERRIER: That is a fair remark. Nevertheless, a ponderous contention by James Mossman or Kenneth Alisop, goes into every home.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me, but, once started, this habit of interruption grows on one. I must say that I have never heard a speech that passed further from any possible aspect of the Motion than the speech of the noble Lord. I know that he told us that he was going to make a long speech. Surely that is not an absolute obligation on him.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I am reaching the point which I trust will go home. It is that the public, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, have no knowledge of our proceedings. Noble Lords have said that the Press do not report them. I have said it. The public see the antics, sometimes, of journalistic entertainers like Malcolm Muggeridge and Bernard Levin. It is for this reason that I suggest we are too complacent. The very fact that the noble Earl has interrupted me leads me to take the view that we are too complacent in our belief that the people understand us aright.

779
One noble Lord who spoke to-day mentioned that he had been impressed by the statement of a newcomer that he did not realise how much work was done in this House. I suggest that one of the things that should be done under the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is to create some sort of "watchdog" organisation whereby the image of this House should be kept in proper proportion, if it is possible, in the present publicity arrangements. To illustrate my point, I may say that I was motoring on the M.6 the other day, and turned on my wireless, and I heard some dictation about the House of Lords, read at 80 words a minute, which was taken from the Anatomy of Britain. I will not weary your Lordships with it; but I looked up the current edition of this book, and I find that the same thing appears, except that for "three guineas" they write "four and a half guineas". There was also a reference to the fact that one matter in which the House of Lords have taken a notable part was when Lord Milford, the first Communist Peer, made his maiden speech, calling for the abolition of the House of Lords, in 1963 and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mildly pointed out that there were many anomalies in this country, and one curious one was that the voice of the Communist Party can be heard only in this House. That is the advantage of hereditary representation, Lord Attlee said.
To bring this back to the Motion before the House: how did this extract come to be broadcast at 11.20 on a Saturday morning at 80 words a minute? There was nothing deliberately mischievous about it, but the fact remains that this is what happened. It seems to me that we should be well advised to be less complacent in the matter and not be happy to sit back and say that the image of the House of Lords is bad among the people. And that is the case at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to Members being able to put down Questions, both Starred and Unstarred, without restriction, or of asking supplementary questions without restriction. But surely the restrictions rest with this House. Talking of Starred Questions, I felt to-day, when those multitudinous supplementaries came forward, that the
780
Minister was extremely patient. It struck me as odd that, although the noble Lords who asked the supplementaries had not been present on the debate on road accidents in November of last year, nearly every question asked as a supplementary had been asked at that time and dealt with then by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren. It might have been made a shorter session of questions had the Minister been brusque enough to point out that if the noble Lords had attended the debate in November they would have heard the answers.
In other words, on what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, I do not see the need for any individual with power to direct our procedures if we are more strict about directing them ourselves. After all, we have already referred to the length of speeches. I have heard many prolix ones but not a really irrelevant one; although a number of noble Lords, I imagine, regard mine at this moment as being such. The Procedure Committee is available—
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The difficulty is that the only way to stop the noble Lord in his irrelevancy would be for me to move "That he be no longer heard." I have much too much respect for him to want to do that. But that is the proper and correct procedure at the present time.
LORD FERRIER: This is rather interesting, in that I am trying to make a debating point. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested one thing and I am suggesting another. I am not reading a prepared speech; though I noticed that the House permitted a prepared speech, which was not a debating one, this afternoon. If it is not your Lordships' wish that my view should be expressed in some respect in contradiction of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, then I will not continue.
However, I should not like to sit down without referring to the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, which all of us found interesting to hear. I cannot help looking back to my own appearance in this House some six years' ago, when I was of the same opinion as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford; but, it did not take long for me to come to the contrary view. It will be interesting to see whether, as the years go on, the noble

781
Lord also may change his views. Incidentally, in talking of the spread of age in the House, it is interesting to note that one Question asked to-day was by a noble Lord in his nineties, and a maiden speech was made by a noble Lord in his early twenties.
So far as the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is concerned, although I am devoted to "Dixon of Dock Green", I would not agree with a great deal of what he said. The fact was that it was a splendid piece; but it was read; and it was read in a way which was not so much a contribution to a debate as an address. It is for this sort of reason that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is prefectly right in saying that the proceedings in this House have so little publicity. He said that if the House sunk this day, it would not make a ripple. Perhaps not, but it might make a ripple which would conceal from the people that a bastion had gone between the people and tyranny, either from above or below, as this House has been in the past.
I agree with the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, about the advantages which might accrue from the House having more power to help with the stewardship of nationalised industries. It seems to me also that the point which he made about the reduction of Committee work is something which could be discussed early in the review, which presumably will follow from the consideration of this debate. I agree also with the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that we are much concerned with the importance of public opinion and should not set this aside. I support the Motion, and if the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has the surprise I had the other day of having my Motion for Papers accepted, I can inform him that he can get out of any embarrassment by telling the Clerk what Papers he wants—and he need not specify a load of five pantechnicons.
6.23 p.m.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrers, will forgive me for saying that during the course of his speech I felt myself irresistibly reminded of a poem by G. K. Chesterton, which had the refrain:
"The night we went to Bannockburn by way of Beachy Head".
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord in order to get the record quite clear? I did not in fact open my mouth.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: I am so sorry. I apologise to the noble Earl. I meant, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier.
In the matter of the Motion, I approach it rather as, one might say, a radical conservative or conservative radical—in both instances in lower case. In other words, I believe that this House requires radical reforms in its powers and composition. I will not say anything more about these, however, because I do not wish to bring my noble friend the Leader of the House to his feet. He frowns so rarely that when he does, it tears one's heart. While I believe that radical changes in the composition and powers of this House are necessary, I do not believe—and in this I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—that any very great or radical changes are necessary in its procedures. Indeed, I would see—perhaps the noble Lord would not —some disadvantages in any such changes, at any rate until the more radical alterations in the structure of this House were made. I do not want the House to put on the white sheet of what is not yet an entirely blameless life.
I have arrived in your Lordships' House in middle age, perhaps late middle age, against my expectations and, indeed, against my natural inclinations. I am bound to tell your Lordships that I have found it, on the whole, a very enjoyable experience. I could borrow in regard to it a phrase used by my noble friend Lord Attlee, with his customary modesty, in regard to much greater matters, in the final words of his autobiography, where he remarks that he had enjoyed serving in a state of life to which he had never expected to be called. I feel a little the same. I well remember, when I first arrived in your Lordships' House, that as I walked through the Lobby I felt a rather martial clap on my shoulder. I turned and saw the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, who said, "My boy"—which, in view of my age, I thought was rather civil of him—"It is nice to see you here, and I am sure you will enjoy it because they are all decent

783
chaps here". So far as my acquaintance goes, I would agree with him.
Like many of your Lordships—perhaps an increasing number—although politically concerned, I do not regard myself as a politician or as in any sense a Parliamentarian. I like to believe that I have a small record in that I refused no fewer than 26 invitations to stand for constituencies in 1945 and some six or seven "safes". I never wanted to be a politician. And, having entered Parliament by a side door, although a very ornate one, I do not believe that I should assume—or, indeed, if I may say so, that the House itself should assume—any of the responsibilities, duties or privileges of an elected person.
It is in relation to what I believe to be the proper function of a non-elected assembly that I look at the procedures of this House. We are not, as has been said, considering in any way the composition of the House, but I think it probably would be agreed that, whatever happens to it in future, it will always remain a nominated and not a popularly elected body, and as such (and in this I again agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington) it should exercise influence rather than power, and its procedures should be devised to that end. So far as I can see, in future, as now, this House, even if it should become a wholly nominated body, will fall, as to some degree it does at present, into two parts—those who have come here after on active Parliamentary life, with a good deal of experience of and interest in legislative matters and with a good deal to contribute on that side of our affairs as well as on other matters of political concern, and those who, like myself and many others much more distinguished than I, have no Parliamentary experience and cannot claim any particular competence in legislative matters, except perhaps in some particular field in which they have special knowledge. Those in the latter group may not themselves quite know why they come here, but possibly it is because they are believed to possess some special experience or knowledge in particular fields such as business, industry, science, education, medicine, the social services or the Arts, which it is considered may be of some
784
value to your Lordships' more general debates.
I suggest that our procedures ought to be directed to taking the fullest possible advantage of what I may perhaps describe as these two main streams which feed, and are likely in the future to feed, your Lordships' House, while, as I say, remembering always that we are not an elected body, and therefore ought not to seek to exercise power, but only, in so far as our judgment or special knowledge allows it, to exercise influence.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask the noble Lord one point? How does one show influence unless there is some sort of vote to show the conclusion of the people who have not spoken?
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: I do not yet quite understand the point the noble Lord is making, since I have not been discussing voting. I have not suggested that Members of your Lordships' House should be prohibited from voting on a particular issue. I am not clear what the noble Lord's point is.
LORD HAWKE: I understand the noble Lord to be adumbrating the point that this House ought not to be able to exercise power, but should exercise influence. Many people would agree with him. But the great problem is how to show in what direction the House wishes to exercise its influence unless at the same time it has some method of exercising power by voting.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: I would agree with the noble Lord on that. I have not suggested, and did not intend to suggest, that on matters on which it was felt desirable that a view of this House should be expressed which might have influence, a vote should not be taken in order to show what that view is. But I think, with other speakers (I do not want to venture too far into it, because of the rather self-denying ordinance that we have placed upon ourselves not at this stage to go too far into our powers), that such votes should be taken only on matters not of major political substance, and the results should be sent to another place, as an indication of a view, without any intent to restrict or delay further the decisions of that House. But, as I say, we have a sort of self-denying ordinance not to go too

785
deeply at this time into those questions of powers.
All I want to suggest, therefore, is that our procedures should be devoted to facilitating a more efficient amending and revising function, though, as I believe, with Amendments of form, of drafting and of clarification—technical Amendments, if you like—on which I think this House is often extremely competent, rather than Amendments of substance. I agree that it is extremely difficult to devise procedures which can particularly stipulate what Amendments are properly to be regarded as of clarification or drafting and what fall over to the other side and are to be regarded as Amendments of substance. But I feel that, if this matter is to be considered further, that is the kind of thing on which it might be interesting for us to bend our minds.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I have been listening with great interest to what he has said. What he suggests, as I understand it, is that we should confine ourselves to Amendments of technicality and detail. Does he imagine that, if that were the case, noble Lords, with the experience they have, busy as they are and distinguished in many walks of life, would bother to come down to this House to move technical Amendments?
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: In answer to the noble Lord, whose views I obviously take with great seriousness, since he has a great deal of experience, I believe that, because this House, as I tried to suggest earlier, is increasingly being fed by two streams—those with Parliamentary experience who are interested in the legislative processes, and those who come from another stream who have no Parliamentary and legislative background and are not concerned with this—at any rate the Parliamentary stream side can have important and valuable legislative functions. But I would believe it to be completely wrong that a nonelected House—an appointed or hereditary House—should have the right, or should consider itself as having the right, to amend in points of major substance legislation passed by an elected Assembly.
I believe that this House has the right—and it is a great advantage for it—to bring its corporate mind to bear on seeing whether such legislation is clear, and
786
whether there are points of amendment which would ensure that what is intended by the elected House is carried out efficiently and well. And I would suggest, without going too far into these aspects of power and function, that that should be the proper legislative role of your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am reluctant to interrupt the noble Lord again, but do I understand him to mean that in all matters of substance this country should have single-Chamber government? That is what it sounds like.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: I would certainly and absolutely say that I believe that in all matters of substance this country should have government by an elected Assembly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But only by one Chamber—because the noble Lord has already said that there would only be one elected Chamber.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: If it is decided, as I believe it will be decided, that there should only be one elected Chamber; that the present elected Chamber would not be prepared, in any reform of your Lordships' powers and so on, to consider a second elected Chamber, then I would certainly agree that on matters of substance decisions should rest—and I would say properly and rightly rest—with an elected and not a non-elected Assembly.
LORD CARRINGTON: The noble Lord is very patient in giving way, and I apologise for interrupting again. But does he not draw a distinction between this House making an Amendment of substance as a proposal and sending it back to the other place for their consideration, or perhaps reconsideration (after all, new circumstances may have arisen, and new arguments may be used), and the House insisting upon the Amendment at a later stage?
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: Yes; I see a substantial difference. I should hope that that is what would happen. But I also believe that only in very exceptional circumstances should this House regard it as its duty and responsibility to seek to delay legislation, even by a small period of time, on Amendments of

787
substance. As I say I believe it has a valuable work to do, with Amendments of another kind. I should certainly agree with the noble Lord (perhaps this is going further than he intended) that in no circumstances whatever ought this House, if the other place sends back a Bill with our Amendment not accepted, continue to resist. I believe that only on rare occasions should it regard as its business dabbling in matters of substance in legislation coming from another place. I apologise to my noble Leader for being egged on or drawn into these discussions, much as I should enjoy an even fuller discussion of them.
The point I was trying to make is that it seems to me that the House should recognise—and I quite appreciate that Members on the other side whose opinion, judgment and experience I fully accept will not go all the way with me—what I think our legislative functions should be. But we are fed now, and increasingly are likely to be, by two quite different streams from the public life—by those with Parliamentary and legislative experience, and by those who have no Parliamentary experience, who have come here for very different reasons and have been invited here for very different purposes. As other noble Lords have suggested, I believe that, in furtherance of the influence of this House, and particularly perhaps in view of this second stream of what I would roughly call in shorthand non-legislative persons, though persons of special knowledge and experience, there would be some advantage in our extending the Question period in your Lordships' House. I think it is often the case that people drawn into the House from outside because of a special experience or knowledge would be able to raise questions of importance to the Government, and that this could, if extended, provide an even more important part than it now does in the influence-forming functions of this House. It must be the case that any Member of your Lordships' House who has gained some reputation, however small, in some particular line or area of experience finds himself approached by all sorts of people who are concerned in that area of experience, much as a Member of another place is approached by constituents for the discussion and raising of matters
788
which seem important. Therefore, I believe that there is a great body of inquiry as to what is happening which could be used more purposefully if we sought to extend our Question period.
I would not agree with those Members of your Lordships' House who suggest that we could release the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, and have a chairman with powers somewhat comparable to those of the Speaker. While I appreciate that it may sometimes be tedious for the noble and learned Lord to sit listening to us, he is, in addition to being the Lord Chairman of our House, a senior Cabinet Minister, and we have not so many senior Cabinet Ministers in this House that we can easily dispense with any of them. I think it is desirable on many grounds that there should be, at any rate, one or two senior Cabinet Ministers around who, in pursuit of what I have described as the influence of this House, are in a position to confide in the Cabinet the general feeling in your Lordships' House on important matters. Therefore, if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will forgive me for seeking in this way to lay down what the pattern of his life should be, I hope that he will remain with us.
I should, however, if possible, like to see a little more flexibility in debates such as we are now having. The present position seems to be that only those who have submitted their names beforehand speak, and a sort of batting order is drawn up. I am never quite clear by whom and on what principle the batting order is devised, except that I always seem to come on after the tea interval when the light is fading.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not know much about the management of cricket teams, but I am told that you put in a very hard-hitting batsman somewhere near the end.
LORD FRANCIS - WILLIAMS: I thank my noble Leader. I feel that, although speaking to a prepared pattern, when one has said one wants to take part in a debate, has a great advantage, it sometimes takes the edge and excitement off our debates. I sometimes feel that the most customary phrase heard in your Lordships' House is, "I was very interested in the observations of the

789
noble Lord who preceded me, but I do not intend to follow his arguments." I feel it a pity that more arguments are not followed more often, more vigorously, and I should like us to consider whether there could not be some possible combination of these two procedures: speaking by having given notice before, but with some possibility of intervention by those who were particularly excited or otherwise moved by a speech in the debate who had not previously intended to speak. I believe that this is to some extent possible, but I should like it to become a much more general practice. I believe it would add to your Lordships' interest, and perhaps even to that public image which we were told it was so necessary to improve.
In conclusion, I should like to suggest that in this debate on our procedures we should not allow ourselves to be influenced too much by the procedures in another place, admirable though they may be—or, for that matter, may not be—for its purposes. I always think that in many ways your Lordships' House has some of the distinction and charm of a vintage motor car, for which I have a great feeling. But nobody would suggest that one should seek to drive vintage motor cars by the same methods and procedures as those for more up-to-date models. I do not think that, in concerning ourselves with our image, we should now regard ourselves as very much a part of the mainstream of British political life. I would rather see us as fitting a little into the great tradition of the English eccentrics who had their value and their variety in British life. Certainly l would suggest very strongly that we should not in any way try to turn ourselves into a carbon copy of another place, or seek to model our procedures on those of perhaps more practical, more democratic and less esoteric assemblies.
6.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for putting down this Motion, but I am rather critical of his speech on one ground: that it was much too short. The noble Lord introduced a number of exceedingly interesting points and I could wish that he had developed them at greater length. As it is, I shall have to sit down to-morrow morning and
790
consider very carefully the points that the noble Lord has made, but I much prefer other people to do my thinking for me. I have not made up my mind—he has not yet convinced me—that the Standing Committee procedure would be of advantage in our present circumstances.
I am rather surprised that nobody has mentioned the Select Committee procedure. In the 'twenties and 'thirties it was the custom of your Lordships quite frequently to refer minor Public Bills to Select Committees, which had the power to call evidence. I remember when I was a very young peer sitting on a Committee to decide the age of marriage. We called a great deal of evidence and we had some interesting discussions, and we set the age at 16 for girls; and it remains at that age to-day. I believe we came to wiser conclusions in the Select Committee than we would have reached had the Bill been discussed in the House. We have still the power to appoint Committees of Inquiry and I served on a Committee of Inquiry into road accidents. We heard at Question Time that Her Majesty's Government have no fewer than sixty-three Committees going at the moment. If some of those sixty-three Committees had been Committees of your Lordships' House a certain amount of money would have been saved, because we get our expenses whatever happens, and we might just as well be usefully employed in inquiring into some subject which Her Majesty's Government think needs probing.
A great many Peers have mentioned the possibility of relieving the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack of part of his duties. May I say that we have in the present Lord Chancellor a singularly conscientious one who devotes a greater part of his time to those duties than other Lord Chancellors I have known. Before expressing any final opinion on that matter I should like the opinion of the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees and the noble Lords who are so good as to act as Deputy Chairmen and who are too seldom thanked for their work, because they, of course, may have to work harder.
Now I come, though he is no longer here, to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, whom I congratulate on his maiden speech, and I should like to say how glad

791
we are to hear a Gifford again taking part in our debates, for we regarded his father with a very real affection. His speech made me feel a little nostalgic, because when I was a young Peer I, too, made an analysis of the speakers and voting in the House of Lords, very much on the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. I have quite forgotten the result, but I know that the created Peers did most of the speaking and, in those days, too, the hereditary Peers did most of the voting. But my conclusions are buried in the files of the Nineteenth Century Magazine, somewhere around 1930, and I do not suppose anybody will dig them up.
I succeeded to the Peerage when I was the same age as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and I, too, at that time shared his opinion that the hereditary element of the Peerage really could not last much longer. At that time Mr. Baldwin was bringing forward some proposals for House of Lords reform, and I hurried back from Africa, where I was then working, thinking it would be a great privilege to sit once in the House of Lords before its hereditary character was abolished or curtailed. I thought, "I shall pass down into history as the last Peer to sit there by pure right of heredity". When the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has reached my age he will no doubt, I strongly suspect, be making the same speech as I am now making. I succeeded in 1927.
I want to say a word, if I may, about a subject which has not yet been broached, and that is the working of the provisions for granting Peers leave of absence from your Lordships' House. When those provisions were introduced, some nine years ago I think, we hoped that they would largely deal with the problem of what is sometimes called, I think a little unfairly, the "Backwoodsmen". There was another object: we hoped that Peers having a copy of the Writ of Summons before their eyes would realise its importance and pay more deference to what is, after all, a Royal Command of the most strict character. How far have those Leave of Absence provisions been effective? I understand that over 200 Peers have in the present Parliament asked for, and of
792
course obtained, leave of absence. If that were the beginning I should say it was a good beginning and we hoped for better results in the future. But it is not a beginning, and I do not think we can feel at all satisfied that all the Peers who should have asked for leave of absence have in fact done so. The problem is not solved.
There are, I believe, just over 60 Peers who have received their Writ of Summons and who have not applied for leave of absence, and who in the six months that this Parliament has lasted have not come up and taken the Oath. There are always circumstances that influence the conduct of any particular person, and I am not naming any names; I cannot do so. But I feel that the position, at any rate of those 60 Peers, deserves some consideration and possibly a certain amount of action.
Why do not Peers pay more attention to the very imperative Writ of Summons? I imagine because it is a mediaeval document written for those times when Parliament met irregularly for a few weeks at a time at the most, and that therefore the language of the Writ is unsuitable for the present day. Perhaps some Peers feel, "Oh this is a mere mediæval formality", and do not, for that reason, pay as much deference to it as they should. I have wondered whether that position could be remedied, either by re-writing the Writ of Summons—but perhaps that would be a rather drastic course, in view of its venerable antiquity—on at least issuing with the Writ of Summons an authoritative explanation in modem terms of what it means to-day.
I have attempted to consider what I should write, roughly, if I were re-writing the Writ of Summons, and I came to the conclusion that it might run something like this:
"We, strictly enjoining, command you, upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to Us, that you be personally and regularly present at the Sittings of Our aforesaid Parliament, except in case of sickness or other necessity, in so far as other duties imposed upon you by Us or by Our Ministers shall permit, unless you be duly excused from attendance."
I should explain the phrases I have introduced. No provision is made in the present Writ for cases of sickness or other

793
impediment of the kind. I have taken the phrase
"except in the case of sickness or other necessity",
from an allocution first delivered by the then Lord Chancellor to the House of Lords on the command of the King in the year 1610. It is a most interesting allocution. You will find it in the Report of the Select Committee of 1955.
Turning to "other duties", I would say that of course to-day many Peers are in the service of the Crown, and the Crown does not expect a man to be in two places at once. We do not ask an officer to fall out from parade in order to attend the House of Lords. That covers a great many Peers whom we should welcome in the House on the few occasions when their special subject is being discussed. Most of the scientific Peers hold some important positions in the D.S.I.R. or other scientific bodies. Many of the academic Peers are Vice-Chancellors, which is an office under the Crown. These Peers would not be expected to take leave of absence; they would automatically be excused from regular attendance by the actual terms of the Writ. As for the reference to excuses—
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I am not quite clear why the phraseology that the noble Earl has chosen gives such permission, or presumes such permission, only for those employed in some way by Her Majesty or by the Government. Surely in a modern age there are a great many people who are engaged on work of various kinds of equal national significance and importance, who ought to be included in this?
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am coming to that. I phrased it in that way because my powers of draftsmanship to cover all the cases failed me. But I am coming to those other noble Lords, whose importance I fully recognise. I have brought in a reference to the excuses. It seems to me rather anomalous that the Writ should say: "waiving all excuses", when your Lordships set up a Committee to excuse Peers from attendance. We had better bring in some reference to the excuses which are received.
Then comes the word "regularly", which is a most controversial word. What
794
does the House mean by "regularly"? It may have some bearing on the matter if I point out that in the regulation regarding Peers' travelling expenses, we read as follows:
"Claims for travelling will be accepted only for those Peers who have attended not less than one-third of the Sittings during the month in which a claim is made. A special relaxation of this condition is made for those who live in Scotland, by applying it to Scottish business only."
Those phrases show the mind of the House with regard to the meaning of regular attendance, although, of course, provision will always have to be made for Peers who are abroad on Parliamentary delegations or similar proper business. The matter is one for consideration.
I come now to the question of the other Peers alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams. I am grateful to him. I am thinking particularly of the case of the medical Peers. I should like to draft something that would cover their case, but it is rather difficult. But, after all, we need not worry much about this matter. If they have applied for leave of absence and do not wish to take it, it can be rescinded extremely easily. They give a month's notice to rescind their application for leave of absence; they have it cancelled. But if there is no time for that, if they do not receive sufficient notice of some debate in which they want to take part, then they can apply to the Leave of Absence Committee to terminate at once. That can be done, and undoubtedly would be done in the case of a distinguished Peer if he were in business or in medicine, whom the House wanted to hear. And if all else failed, and if some Peer came down to this House and forgot that he had taken leave of absence, and put his name down to speak, the difficulty is still easy to resolve, because the House has power to cancel the leave of absence. It would be a matter for the Government Chief Whip to move a brief Motion in the House that would go through "on the nod". But the leave of absence would do something to prevent voting by noble Lords who are not, so to speak, in politics—
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg the noble Earl's pardon for interrupting him, but I think it was agreed during the debate on that matter that, whatever was done in the way of leave of absence,

795
the House could not stop any Peer, even though he had asked for leave of absence, from attending, and even voting. I think that was agreed. It was only held that probably they would not do so.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am quite aware that the constitutional correctness of our regulations has been held in question and that possibly no action could be taken against the Peer. But, after all, we are dealing with people who have a considerable respect for convention; we are a conventional House, and, though we are not gentlemen here, we generally try to behave like them.
For those reasons, I think that some steps might be taken to render the leave of absence provisions rather more effective than they are at present. For example, it would perhaps be possible for the Leaders of the Parties to write privately to some of the 60-odd Peers who have not taken the Oath, pointing out that it would be nice if they either came or applied for leave of absence. If their advice were ignored there would be a great many other steps, graduating in severity from a warning or publication of names to an admonition or a fine, which the House is empowered to take. In the past, the House has imposed very considerable fines on Peers who have not been in attendance. In the year 1515 a fine of £10 was imposed on such Peers, and I suppose that £10 at that time represents something like £150 in present-day terms—with which dreadful warning I will conclude my speech. I hope that others with a greater position in the House than I have and with more responsibilities will take this matter into consideration and see whether the Rules can be made more effective and whether the credit of the House is not to some extent involved in their being made effective.
7.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if, with the permission of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, I may intervene in the debate for a moment, I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for having given us this opportunity to consider the procedure of your Lordships' House. Secondly, I would say how sorry I am that, through no fault of mine, I have
796
had to miss so much of the debate. I can assure all noble Lords who have taken part in it that over the week-end I will read, with interest and I am sure profit, every word they have said, as I take particular interest in the procedure of the House. I feel that as I have missed so much of the debate it would be an impertinence on my part to express any opinions.
Accordingly, I intervene only in order to make a short statement of my personal position, which I am sure I shall have the indulgence of the House to make. During the Easter period there appeared on the front page of a national newspaper, I think with a photograph alongside, a statement that I was either the head or chairman of some group or committee of Ministers which had been considering various methods of reducing the powers of your Lordships' House. I trust, therefore, I may have the indulgence of the House to say that, so far as I know, no such group exists or has existed, and I have certainly taken no part whatever in any such discussion.
7.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I intervene briefly. I fear that inevitably I shall be rather repetitious, but I hope not vainly so. I intervene because I think that, however skilfully disguised, the terms of this Motion seem to indicate that we are on trial, that we have something to apologise for, and that to justify our survival we must put our House in order. Personally, I see no such need. If either House cries out for reform it is surely the other place. There discussion becomes more sterile, the interchanges remind one more and more of a teenage debating society, and the main anxiety seems to be whether old So-and-So will be well enough to vote. No, my Lords, so far as this House is concerned as compared with the other place, I see no cause for shame. Nevertheless, since seemingly we have put ourselves in a position in which we are called upon to defend ourselves, may I, as an ordinary backwoods, Back-Bench Peer, put once again the arguments for our continuing procedures and activities—and unchanged?
What do we do here? We do the nation's business, and on the whole we do it pretty well. We are an effective and useful institution. We are an important

797
part of the Legislature, and over 60 years no one has thought of anything better. Many people criticise us, but the truth, as has been said before to-day is that most of our critics have not the faintest idea of what we do or even why we do it. Their dislike, their prejudice, is an a priori prejudice. They just do not like the sound of it. "An hereditary system? How unjust, how utterly disgusting! Is not every man and woman born equal? Am I not as good as you? What right have youæ", et cetera.
What do we do in this terrible place? We discuss proposed legislation calmly and without passion, for very few of us have any axe to grind? We examine Government Bills and amend them, not for Party reasons but because we think that the Bill might be better another way. We ask Parliamentary Questions and, because our House has more time, we get them answered almost immediately. We vote—sometimes no doubt unwisely. Indeed, in the weeks before Easter I felt that noble Lords on this side of the House had been inspired by the death-wish. We do all these things in almost every case without a political motive. True, we are officially divided into Parties, but our debates are rarely conducted on Party lines. What we do is to speak and vote according to our personal principles, according to what we think best. We represent nobody but ourselves. We have no constituents except our own consciences.
The advice given me by one of my political chiefs when I became a Peer —I am officially a National Liberal—was "Vote against the Government whenever you feel you possibly can". I have followed his Lordship's instructions to the letter, and the Whips have long since given me up. It is surely in these things, in our unwillingness to toe the line, in our contempt for the Party machine, above all in our independence of thinking, enjoyed by no other body, that our strength lies. The power rests, and rightly, with the elected House of Commons. The objective, critical, corrective functions and procedures are ours.
But these, of course, are legislative functions and are only a part of our duties and, to my mind, the small part. What we also do, and what the other place rarely does, and what I believe is the basic justification for our existence,
798
is to discuss the great issues of life and to discuss them with a knowledge and experience unparalleled elsewhere. This has been said before to-day, but I want to say it again. I say, quite definitely, that I believe the House of Lords to be the most brilliant debating Chamber in the world. It is generally accepted that the standard of debate is far higher than in the other place. What one should also realise is that the Peers—I am not, obviously, speaking so much of the hereditary Peers, though some of them are no fools either—are a cleverer bunch of men than the Members of the other place. This is not a wide statement, but the truth.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I have said the same sort of thing myself, but in this exercise does one take the average of all Peers or those who attend?
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, there is no ultimate criterion of brilliance or virtue. One can only give a personal opinion; and I feel that the noble Earl the Leader of the House probably shares my view in this. If I may elaborate on the point, the House of Lords has among its Members the most outstanding of the elder statesmen—your Lordships know all these things but they are worth the saying. It has the greatest Judges in the land; it has the Bishops—and you cannot be a Bishop unless you are clever as well as godly; it has the cream of the ex-diplomats; it has the greatest soldiers, sailors and airmen whom the country has thrown up in fifty years of almost uninterrupted war; it has the trade union leaders, the great doctors, the scientists and the schoolmasters.
In our midst often—though, alas!, not often enough, one will find the biggest assembly of talent to be found anywhere. This is why our discussions are infinitely more worth while than anything to be heard elsewhere. I am afraid I keep repeating myself, but it is more or less inevitable. We alone have talked, for example, about Christian Unity and subjects such as leisure—long-term matters for which there is no time in the House of Commons. True, those debates do not get so well reported as our little sallies into such things as Lady Chatterley's Lover, or what to do with the prostitutes. They are, however, recorded in Hansard

799
and make their impact upon those who read the more serious newspapers, magazines and publications.
But inevitably people will say that all the true things I have mentioned about the talent in the House of Lords applies only to the Life Peers and those who have been elevated because of the great things they have done. Where do the hereditary Peers come in? This is a difficult question to answer. One is immediately upon dangerous ground. In theory and in fact, no man or woman has a right to authority because of the accident of his or her birth. It cannot possibly be justified. But, again, the plain fact is that it seems to work. Some people may think us hereditary Peers a pretty mediocre lot; but whether they like it or not, we do from time to time—and not so rarely as all that—throw up someone quite outstanding, such as Lord Home or Lord Salisbury. In addition to the top-notchers, we also seem to produce some pretty competent second eleven men—men who make good junior Ministers and know what Government means. I am afraid I shall not have support on this, but I honestly believe that government is very largely an art and a tradition and it is a fact that where there is a tradition of government, as in the great Whig and Tory families, like the Cecils, the Stanleys or the Cavendishes, the knowledge and the know-how is carried on from father to son and to son again. It is all wrong, if you like, but it is still true.
Now to go to extremes, I do not expect your Lordships to go very far with me on this, but I honestly believe that the House of Lords is a no less democratic place than the House of Commons. True, we are not elected. But, as I have said, the country has in us an utterly independently-minded cross-section of the whole population—some of us clever, some of us stupid; some of us rich, some of us poor; some who have done well in life, others who have done badly; some of us great, some of us very small indeed; some of us who have amassed great fortunes, others who have gone bankrupt; some who are Knights of the Garter, others who have been in prison. We are simply men and women whose names have been drawn out of the hat in some divine lottery, and the only thing
800
that could remotely justify our presence here is that we are average British human beings.
My Lords, that is very briefly and superficially, as I see it, our dear House of Lords. Do we really need to change it? It works; it is a place of contrasts; it comprises a cross-section of the community of a kind to be found nowhere else in the world. It has no constituents, it represents nobody but the consciences of its Members. It says what it thinks and does not give a damn. It is a very British institution. I, for one, am proud to be a Member of it, and I hope it will continue.
7.28 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am here only through the silver tongue of the noble Earl who leads the House, and I hope I shall not detain your Lordships long. I shall commence with a confession which has some bearing on what has been said, and also some bearing on procedure. When the Parliament Act was passed in 1911 I was in your Lordships' House during the concluding stages of that Bill because, although I was not a Member, I was standing as the guest of Black Rod—and in those days male guests of Black Rod had to stand throughout the whole debate; they had no chairs. After the passage of that Bill the Leaders on both sides of the House were very busy trying to reconstruct a Second Chamber to which greater powers could be entrusted than were given to your Lordships' House under the Parliament Act. I had to devil a lot of that work and in my heart I never believed in it. I always said to myself that the House of Commons had the whole power in the State and it would never consider giving greater powers than it had left your Lordships' House, to any artificial Second Chamber, and I had a private opinion that probably the best thing that could happen to this country would be for the House of Lords, if it were possible, by a resolution, to abolish itself.
My reason was that a Chamber like the House of Commons, which has absolute power, should have the responsibility of that power and should not have to share that responsibility with a body that had no power. I believe that if that had happened at that time it might have been better for the country than what did

801
happen. However, I had a personal feeling there, because of course as soon as the Parliament Act was passed I, who was likely at no very distant time to be clothed in the sepulchral integuments of a British Peerage, realised that, like Cromwell, I must fling away ambition—and as a young man I naturally was ambitious.
My Lords, I have gone into all that detail for two reasons. The first is this. Your Lordships will notice that I have referred to "the House of Commons". I believe that noble Lords are mistaken in thinking that our procedure enjoins us always to refer to "another place". That is very inconvenient and it mars the English language. The fact is that you should refer to the House of Commons as "another place" only when you are referring to something which has happened in the current Session. It is a courtesy, to prevent any clash over what is going on and which both Houses are interested in at the moment.
The second point concerns something I had from Lord Donoughmore who was a Member of the House of Lords at that time and very much interested in everything going on. He was one of the greatest of our great Chairmen of the past and he died only after the last war. He told me that at that time the Leaders of the Parties on both sides met together and came to the following conclusions: there was nothing in the Parliament Act to limit the action of the House of Lords on any subject on which it wished to express an opinion; it was not prevented from amending a Finance Bill; it was not prevented from passing a Financial Resolution. What happened was that if it did so then the Parliament Act was invoked and brought into action when the Bill went back to the House of Commons; and it was always realised that the House of Commons might—and I believe on occasion it has done—endorse an Amendment made in your Lordships' House. I make that point for two reasons. One is that Lord Silkin, in his very interesting speech about your Lordships' House, talked about people putting down Motions and Amendments which were not proper. I believe that that cannot arise, because a Member may put down any Motion he wishes to. Whether it will pass is quite another matter.
802
I want to discuss procedure points because they are what interest me. There is one rule that we used to have, and I think the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and I are the only two Peers who have taken part in the debate this evening who remember the House of the 'thirties. It was always laid down by our elders and betters, as soon as we joined the House, that one must never repeat anything that anybody else had said. One could adhere to it or adopt it, but a speaker should never repeat an argument. That tended to shorten the debate considerably and also made it much more interesting.
There are several other points on procedure to which I would draw attention. As has emerged from many of the speeches, and from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, there has been a very large increase in the number of new Peers in your Lordships' House. In the old days, when new Peers came rather infrequently, they were put through the mill, they had to learn all the rules, and they were expected to observe them; and the whole House was the judge. I remember the very heated debates that took place before 1909, when the Lord Carrington of that day, in winding up a debate, said something, by accident, which was quite un-Parliamentary. Both sides of your Lordships' House called him to order, but he was so quick in correcting himself that it would hardly have been noticed. And in the House of the 'thirties, both sides were equally vigilant to keep order. If somebody got up and made a speech when putting a supplementary question, cries of "Order, Order!" would come from both sides of the House. It is far more compelling when both sides are calling one to order than when it becomes, as it might be, a Party matter. That is very important.
We are greatly indebted to Mr. Henry Burrows for the immense trouble to which he put himself in producing the Parliamentary Companion, and I should like to pay a tribute to many noble Lords on my left who, when they came to this House, got the Parliamentary Companion and studied it and know it very well. That is most valuable. We always used to say that we have no written Rules. But we have Rules, and people used to take the trouble to learn them. And

803
when we have people who will learn the Rules, then it is important to put them into practice.
There is something which I have never heard done but which we ought always to be ready to do. It is always in order to ask the Clerk at the Table to read Standing Order No. 28, with respect to "Asperity of Speech". I believe that it is always in order to ask the Clerk at the Table to read any Standing Order which it is thought is being infringed. I half-suggested it to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, this evening; and I think it would have been perfectly proper if I had asked the Clerk at the Table to read Standing Order No. 26, which says that a Peer must confine himself to the matter before the House.
There is another point of procedure which it would be of advantage to observe; that is, that if there is a list of speakers a noble Lord has an opportunity of correcting a speaker whom he is to follow, and it is not necessary to interrupt him. If one goes on interrupting, it is like a footballer dribbling a football down a field; for every kick you give you make him go further. It lengthens the debate in the House, and is very unfair to the speaker.
I do not feel that I want to discuss what most people have discussed, the composition of your Lordships' House. It seems to me that that is not really before us, as we are supposed to be discussing procedure. But I should just like to tell your Lordships a story. A good long time ago I was lunching in an officers' mess with a Member of the House of Commons (I think he is dead now) who was a very strong supporter of the Party of the present Government. For some reason or other—I do not know what gave rise to it; it was not anything I did—he started saying what he thought of the hereditary principle, and he was listened to with great attention by the mess. Then I discovered that they all backed horses, and the one thing which they did was to follow the breeding of their horses in backing them. Of course, I kept my mouth as tightly shut as I could, but it occurred to me that the real trouble with the hereditary principle is not so much the hereditary nature of it, as the way we pick our sires—and our sires are mostly politicians.
804
I give that to your Lordships, as a possible reflection when you are feeling very bad about the hereditary principle.
I do not think I have anything else to say which bears on the subject. I will wind up by saying that we do not need to create a Speaker; we do not need to alter the House, if we will learn the Rules and join together, as a House —not just as Parties—to put them into operation. The matter will then be perfectly simple, and we can do almost anything we like—and do it politely.
7.37 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for intervening as a nameless speaker. I did have my name on the Order Paper, but I withdrew it because I decided that I was too ignorant of the procedure of this House and I was more interested in practice than in theory. I have only two brief points, and I hope that by now I have established my claim to be a very brief speaker in this House.
Many references have been made today to the length of speeches, and I should like to stress this from a very different standpoint. This is not an elected Chamber, but noble Lords can elect to speak at any time they wish by putting their names down. There is absolutely no competition about speaking, and I believe that this is the greatest privilege that we have in this House. Because of this privilege, I think that we need a certain self-discipline. A long speech is so often a matter of self-indulgence. On this matter exhortation is not enough. There should be an unwritten law, or a gentlemen's agreement, about the length of speeches, and I suggest, perhaps, 35 minutes from the Front Bench and 15 minutes from the Back Benches. This would speed procedure and it would add variety and interest to our debates. People say that debates in this House are much more brilliant than debates in the other place. I am not sure that this is not like a piece of public relations, in the same category as "Gentlemen prefer Blondes"; but no one has really put it to the test.
My second and last point refers to the speech of my noble friend Lord Willis. He has a very stringent test about the abolition of this noble Chamber. He said that it would cause no ripple on the

805
earth's surface. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he would apply this same test to other institutions in which, say, journalists, scriptwriters and playwrights are involved, and whether abolition in those fields would cause a tidal wave.
As for the contempt of the public for this House, they have the same contempt, very often, for the House of Commons: they have the same contempt for an kinds of institutions, even certain religious and social institutions. I think, my Lords, that the most valuable function of this House is in educating and changing public opinion, and I believe that it has done this on many and very serious occasions. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for initiating this discussion, and I should hope that any improvement we can make in procedure would be valuable for this House.
7.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I should like to join all those who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for initiating this debate, which I am sure must, in the long run, prove of value to our House. As he knows, I was not a great enthusiast when he suggested a debate along these lines, although I believe that any Member of the House who has some subject near his heart should be given the opportunity of raising it here. But, as things have turned out, starting with that wise and dispassionate opening speech by the noble Lord, I feel that nothing but good can result from our debate this afternoon. Listening to the noble Lord, it was difficult to believe that once, apparently, he had been a militant king of propaganda —or, at any rate, that he lay for a long time very close to the heart of Conservative propaganda. But I know that it is possible to survive these experiences. I myself once worked in the Conservative Research Department, but one thrives on it and, with the passing of the years, one mellows—and the noble Lord is certainly well calculated to instruct us in a dispassionate approach.
I should like to join all those who have paid special tribute to, and congratulate, with even more than usual warmth, the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, the son of an old friend of so many of us here. I must not say that I agreed with all his con
806
clusions if only because I have myself advocated views of that kind in other places, and on this occasion I am supposed to be debarred, having preached to so many others, from offering any views on powers and composition. But I felt, if I may say so, that the noble Lord brought forward a very compelling argument at the end of his speech, and addressed us in an altogether most delightful way.
A number of noble Lords have found it difficult—and I daresay that I shall find it difficult before I close—to keep clear of powers and composition. I gather that I am allowed 35 minutes, even by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, but I do not think I shall take so long, because I have to speak in honour of the Lord Mayor at the Mansion House in about ten minutes' time—I am rather late for that engagement, I am afraid. As I was saying, noble Lords have found it difficult, and I myself may find it difficult, to keep quite clear of powers and composition.
Some of my noble friends spoke with a great deal of style and audacity, such as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and also the noble Lords, Lord Leatherland and Lord Francis-Williams, all of whom stimulated the House. They at times managed, so to speak, to wander a little far from what was perhaps intended to be the strait and narrow way. Even the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oak-ridge, whom I always regard as an absolute arbiter of correct conduct, found it necessary at times, I thought, to delve into fundamental things when he talked in a most interesting way about the necessary attitudes here. Obviously, it is most difficult to keep these things apart, and I apologise to all noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, whom I interrupted, if I put them off their speeches in any way at all, though I do not think they were, in fact, in any way deterred by my interventions.
LORD REA: My Lords, as the noble Earl has referred to me, may I make good an omission of thanks to him for his unerring instinct in interrupting me just at the point when I had finished that part of my speech?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, is the only speaker who can be described as commendably brief, and he had finished with that subject when most of the rest of us would have been, as it were, clearing our throats. I did not realise that he had come to the end of that part of his remarks.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me, I congratulate him on making my speech more brief than it would otherwise have been, but I would not agree with him that I was not put off.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I apologise humbly to the noble Lord. The noble Lord rather frightened us by saying that he had decided to make a long speech. In all the years that I have been in this House I have heard many long speeches, but I have never heard anybody announce in advance that he was going to make a long speech, and make a virtue out of speaking at some length; but we all, of course, enjoyed the noble Lord's remarks very much.
My Lords, I will try to keep clear of powers and composition, but, of course, one cannot talk about the House of Lords as though it were an abstract body, just a Second Chamber, without any particular composition at all. Therefore, when discussing whether the composition could be improved, I think that, to some extent, for the benefit of those who may be following our debate, it is perhaps right to put on record what the composition of the House is at the present time, analysed in this way. The total number of Peers is 1,006. The difficulty of these figures, at any rate from my point of view, is that they change almost from hour to hour, as Peers come in and take their seats and, I suppose, occasionally die—because even Peers meet that fate: they are human, as the noble Lord reminds me. The figures change, but up to the moment they stand like this.
The total number of Peers is 1,006. Then one must deduct 90 Peers who are without Writs of Summons. These are
808
described as "minors, bankrupts, et cetera". I feel that the 90 must include a good many others, besides minors and bankrupts, because when I last looked at the figures there were only 10 minors, and I cannot think that there are 80 bankrupts among the 90 who have in fact not yet obtained their Writs of Summons. But one must take out that 90.
Then one must leave out the Peers who have been granted leave of absence, about whom the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, spoke in a very telling way. He did not speak in such a critical way about them, perhaps: I think he was speaking about noble Lords who might have added themselves to their number; but he spoke from a great deal of experience about that side of the Peerage. At any rate, there are 198 Peers who have been granted leave of absence. That brings down the number of Peers entitled to attend to 723. One must then deduct 63 Peers who are entitled to attend but who have not yet taken the Oath—and they also were referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. This brings the present effective strength of the House down to 660. Here, the figures are not quite complete, but according to my information 382 are receiving the Conservative Whip and a nominal 80 are receiving the Labour Whip, although I am afraid that quite a number of our people are too old and too sick to come.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: So are ours.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am glad that age and sickness are not the monopoly of any one Party. There are also 41 who receive the Liberal Whip. That gives us, roughly, 500, leaving approximately 150 to 160 who are attending the House, so far as one can judge, and are Independents.
I make one further point. I do not wish to say any more about it, but I think it would be wrong to treat the strength of the Parties exactly as reflected here, because undoubtedly there are a great many Peers on the Conservative side who would come here, I think, if they felt that their presence was necessary. At any rate, there is this large Conservative majority, as all the world knows. I am not going to argue whether that is a good or a bad thing, but, if one is talking about the House of Lords, one must take it as it is.

809
My Lords, there is one topic which inevitably has come up to-day and about which I am extremely anxious to be uncontroversial. I think it is one I can hardly avoid, if only because people outside will probably expect a few words from me on this subject. I mean what might be called the proper functioning or the proper conduct of the House and, in particular, its relations with another place. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who spoke so well, as he always does, touched on it lightly. I feel bound to say a few words. You cannot call it particularly "composition"; it is "functioning" and it comes close to the subject we have discussed to-day.
There is the question running through these discussions to-day of when it would be prudent—and I am not talking of morality or constitutional rights, for those are fairly clear—and statesmanlike for this House to differ from the House of Commons and when, if ever, it would be prudent to press that difference to the point of insistence. There is that underlying question. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, laid down certain doctrines on that matter. I will not argue with him about them; but he drew a distinction between what was proper in the case of a Bill for which there was a mandate from the people and what was proper where there was not a mandate, and he touched on that subject lightly. I must not he thought to agree with him in what lie said, but I do not want to argue it now. That is his doctrine and not ours. We must make up our own minds on it.
All this is concerned with certain hypothetical situations which one hopes will not arise. But I will say plainly, speaking not only for myself as the Leader of the House but for the Government, that there is no disposition on the part of the present Government to seek a quarrel with the House of Lords; there is no disposition to try to use the House of Lords for some electoral purpose; there is no intention of that sort. As I explained when this Government took office, we have a duty, a solemn duty as we conceive it, to see our legislation through; but we hope that can be done unprovocatively and without that kind of collision. That would not be to the benefit of this House or of the Government or of anyone. The Government and the House of Lords have a mutual
810
interest in harmonious relations, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, have shown us how well on their side this task can be accomplished up to the present.
I must say a word about the procedural questions that have been raised, and it would be trifling with the House, in view of the serious approach of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oak-ridge, and my own colleagues if I came here with some pronouncement drawn up in advance about the issues raised. That is not the spirit in which I am trying to reply to this debate. I will take a few items and at the end say how I feel that we must pursue our studies further.
There is the very important issue of whether we ought to have a more effective Chairman, somebody whose position would be equivalent to that of the Speaker. This was looked at from more than one point of view. There was a desire to save the Lord Chancellor from the horror of listening to our speeches; and, as he is so good tempered, I feel we shall never know quite what pain he suffers, what pains he has to bear. I feel that that is a matter entirely for him. He has been exceptionally industrious. In these few months he has already, as it were, a credit in the bank in the last few months, and the question of how far he conceives it his duty to be here all the time is something he can work out with those whose opinions he values. There is the other side, the fact that, as the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said is a slightly different connection, we are the most democratic Chamber in the world in one important sense. I do not know of any other Chamber which has no Speaker or effective Chairman. We are self-governing. It was interesting to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, explaining how this tradition should be worked. When I first came to your Lordships' House, soon after the First World War—
A NOBLE LORD: The Second World War.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I can go back some way, I agree, but not all the way back to the First World War, although it seems a long time ago. When I first came here, soon after the Second

811
World War, I remember speaking as a young Minister from a similar Dispatch Box to this one, when I was interrupted by some Peer. I stood there, anxious to oblige, but not conforming to the Rules. The late Lord Salisbury roared out: "Order! Order!". I dropped, as though shot. There is that tradition which I hope will be restored. For as long as I am Leader, it makes my task easier if noble Lords will follow the excellent example of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and play that particular part. It is a strange situation that there is nobody who can call anybody to order. Although I do not in fact favour this—I am speaking personally because I think it must be looked at thoroughly and I do not want to talk as though the Government or my colleagues have any special views—or exactly approach a change with a bias in its favour, because I have already got stuck in the ways of this House, I must say that if I were absolutely neutral and had walked into your Lordships' House this afternoon I should have been rather biased by my experiences in favour of an effective Speaker. I feel that the role of Leader is rather difficult on occasions like this, when a number of speakers have felt it their duty to travel very widely.
But that is not conclusive. Taking the matter as a whole, I personally do not approach a change with prejudice in its favour; but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will agree that this is a matter that must be looked at by the House as a whole very carefully, and that these other matters must be studied through the usual channels and, of course, also in the Procedure Committee. Perhaps later on, in relation to this and the other matters, the noble Lord, Lord Alport, may put down a Question regarding their progress, or may in some form of other be part of these studies. I am quite certain that the matter cannot just be disposed of; but, equally, I do not want to commit anybody to any form of investigation. I do not think I am in a position to do so. I have not the authority from the Government or from the House as a whole: but it is an important issue and one must see how it all turns out.
812
There was also the question of Standing Committees. As is known, this use of Standing Committees for Bills was tried between 1889 and 1910 and it was regarded, by and large, as having failed. That, of course, is not the final proof that it would fail if it was used to-day. There are many more Peers, perhaps, who would be available for work of this kind now than when the experiment was tried, although a number of Life Peers must earn their living and may not be better situated to attend the House than were some of the hereditary Peers when it was being tried. Nevertheless it is not something which can be disposed of, and it must be looked at with care by all those who have the responsibility.
Then there is the subject of Questions which was raised by various Members of the House—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. This takes various forms. It has been suggested that there ought to be more opportunity to bring in Unstarred Questions earlier. I do not quite know how to bring an improvement there. But we shall see. On supplementaries, I am bound to say this matter of the extent to which supplementaries are to be carried is a little worrying. Perhaps a firmer Leader of the House would find a way to stop that, or perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, leading the Back-Benchers as a whole, will find his own remedy. But, in my opinion, there is no doubt that it can be carried too far, and on occasion the House does sigh for somebody who can say, "We had better move on." As I say, perhaps a strong leadership may avoid that, but certain difficulties remain.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, the simplest way is just to bring it up at the Procedure Committee. They have recently made an extension in the number of days on which Starred Questions can be asked and increased the number from three to four, and they might wish to reverse the process. A supplementary, if it is an honest supplementary, ought not to be stifled, I think.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, what the noble Lord says will be studied, but I doubt whether there will be a general desire to reverse the process.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested that there should be a fixed time for

813
Questions. That is an interesting suggestion. I am not saying that it is the right one but, at any rate, it could be studied. In the case of all these proposals. I do not want to begin to seem to commit anybody this evening. Again, on the length of speeches, I cannot preach to others on that subject, though I should be well within the 35 minutes this evening. The simplest way of realising how long we speak is to ask the attendants downstairs, who mark one in advance, and it is always much more than expected. Seriously, I think that we should be justified in trying one experimental debate, in which a kind of vow would be taken that nobody would speak for longer than the fifteen minutes, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, with those speaking from the Front Bench being allowed a little more, though not necessarily 35 minutes.
When I came to your Lordships' House, our Leader was the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, who was very keen on short speeches. On one occasion I remember him kicking me on the back of my calf, saying, "Sit down now. You have got the House with you and you will only lose them if you go on any longer." He was a wonderful man.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will make an exception for those moving a Motion, even though it be not from the Front Bench.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Certainly, my Lords. If I may speak for myself, I believe that every Motion could be moved, whether from the Front Bench or anywhere else, unless it is on a very complicated Bill or something which has to be explained in detail, within 30 minutes. My noble friend Lord Shepherd says, "War Damage excluded". I am not quite sure what he has in mind there. The point of Leave of Absence, dealt with by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, needs looking into.
So I come to my conclusion. I should like to say how much I have enjoyed all the speeches.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves the various issues, I raised the question of starting Bills earlier, and I hope this will be looked at by the Government, because I think it is important.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I think it is very important. I assure the noble Lord, without giving away any secrets, that my noble friend Lord Shepherd has worked day and night during the last few months to achieve something here. It is very difficult, not only for this House but for another place, after a Government comes in after a long time in Opposition, to get Bills ready. Perhaps this is something on which the Opposition are fully entitled to criticise the Government, if they do not comply with reasonable expectations. It is certainly important.
I think the only speaker I have not mentioned is the noble Earl, Lord Arran. He has one special claim that many of us can envy. He has initiated debates in your Lordships' House which have gone far to substantiate his own claim that hereditary Peers, if no better than anybody else, are at least as good. In my recollection, he has initiated debates on leisure, on the Press and on Christian unity; and now he is to open a debate on the Wolfenden Report. If we take the example of the noble Earl, we have to realise that many noble Lords have been able to make contributions in this House that they could not have made anywhere else, either in the House of Commons or elsewhere outside this House. Therefore, I feel that the years one spends here are fruitful, if one chooses to make them fruitful. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said about our attitude. It is nobody's fault but our own if we do not achieve something, given the tremendous opportunity of being Members of this House, whatever we may think of it, of its composition and power or anything else. It is a House of deep seriousness, of rather beautiful courtesy and consideration, particularly for older Members and for everyone who is one of us. I feel, therefore, that, whatever the future of this House—and I hope that so far I have within my powers been a good custodian during my short time as Leader—when we think of all that has been accomplished and of all that we are still trying to accomplish, we have every right to be proud and feel deeply privileged to be Members of your Lordships' House in this day and age. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for enabling us to discuss

815
this matter, I hope not in a complacent manner, but in a spirit of optimism about what lies within our powers to do.
8.7 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, this is literally a late hour, and I will not keep your Lordships for more than one or two minutes. My purpose in rising, apart from the formal conclusion of my remarks, is, in the first place, to thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been one to which a large number of speakers have contributed, all of them without any prompting or suggestion from me; and for that reason I am particularly in their debt. I should not like to miss the opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, on what was a brave speech to make in addressing your Lordships' Chamber for the first time: we greatly appreciated it.
At the end of this debate I am in two minds as to whether the impression that I have personally, that there is a sickness in the Parliamentary institution, is right, or whether the impression that the majority of your Lordships have, that things are going along on a fairly even keel and along traditional lines, is correct. When I say that it is my impression that there is a sickness in Parliament as an institution, I am not referring to your Lordships' House alone, or indeed primarily because the balance of power, or authority and of activity lies in the House of Commons. I am worried as to how, not in the immediate future but over a period of time, quite apart from political differences, and quite apart from the policies that may be followed by any particular Party or Government, the Parliamentary institution is going to cope successfully with the pressures of the circumstances and times in which we live, and how far we in this House, with the very special privileges to which your Lordships have referred, can help in maintaining the good health of the Parliamentary institution.
I have sought in this Motion to draw your Lordships' attention, to encourage la debate, only upon those things over
816
which we have ourselves power to do something. Perhaps the answer is not in our hands. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, that, although II have been and may be again fully implicated in controversial politics, on this particular occasion the origin of the Motion is one that is quite irrespective of the membership of any Party or any Party point of view. It is concern for a Parliamentary institution here in Britain which is labouring, I think, under very heavy weather now, and which in so many countries in the Commonwealth has failed and disappeared. I do not think we can afford to be complacent; and I do not think your Lordships are.
I am glad, therefore, that the noble Earl the Leader of the House was good enough to say in his closing remarks that these matters which have been raised from a number of quarters in the many speeches we have heard, and covering many aspects of your Lordships' procedures, should be considered through the usual channels by the Committee on Procedure, and, if necessary, by some other instrument to decide what should be done. This must take time; it must have thought. This is merely an opening phase, so to speak, in order to see what ideas are available, and to give the opportunity for further thought. As I say, I am very grateful indeed for the way in which your Lordships have supported this Motion, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SAINT ANNE, SOHO BILL
Reported, without amendment.

SAINT LAURENCE, CATFORD BILL [H.L.l
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eight o'clock.