Sitting of 29 July 1965

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

    Stocks and Work in Progress (Book Value)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the value of the stock in hand and work in progress for the latest available period.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): The book value of all stocks and work in progress in the United Kingdom, at the end of March, 1965, was approximately £12,200 million.
    Mr. Shepherd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of this total, which he will appreciate is extremely large, represented imported goods?
    Mr. Jay: No, I could not say that without notice.

    Woolwich Arsenal Estate
    Mr. Hamlingasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will give details of the discussions he has had on the relocation of factories displaced by development in various parts of London; with whom these discussions took place; and what proposals have been made to relocate the factories on the Woolwich Arsenal estate;
    (2) what further steps have been taken to plan the development of an industrial estate on the site of the Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich.
    Mr. Jay: The Government have decided that the primary use of the land released at Woolwich shall be for housing, but I am prepared to consider
    658
    a limited number of suitable industrial projects for location there.
    My officials are in touch with the Greater London Council about the industrial development of the Arsenal site, but no proposals to relocate any factories have been received as yet.
    Mr. Hamling: Would my right hon. Friend agree that certain factories which are at present in the inner parts of London, in the very congested area, might be suitable for relocation in an area like Woolwich Arsenal estate? Secondly, would he also consider that if we have a very large number of people occupying houses there it would be reasonable for there to be industrial opportunities nearer where they live rather than at a distance?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, I agree with both those propositions. I think that the most suitable work for this area is probably nonconforming industries moving from other parts of London.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would the use of part of that site for factories prejudice or modify in any way the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on 5th April that 65,000 people would have homes found for them on this site?
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir.

    Coke
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the practice of retail distributors of coke of putting a water hose on their coke at depots; and what legislative or other steps he intends to take to protect the consumer from this form of exploitation.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that after this week fraudulent or deceptive damping of solid fuel will after 31st July be an offence under the Weights and Measures Act, 1963. This part of the Act comes into force on Saturday.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the House will welcome that decision? Does he realise that I myself have seen a tradesman actually on top of a coke pile watering the coke like I water the garden, and can he tell me

    659
    what steps the housewife has got to take to protect herself if she feels that the coke contains an undue proportion of water?
    Mr. Darling: If the coal merchant from whom she gets the coke belongs to the approved coal merchants' scheme, I think she will be able to get redress straight away from the coal merchant himself, but if that fails to get her satisfaction, she should ask the assistance of the local weights and measures authority which has responsibility in this matter.
    Mr. John Hall: While everyone would deplore deliberate attempts to defraud the consumer, would not the Minister agree that there are many cases where local authorities ask coal merchants to damp down in order to keep down the dust? They do it on instructions.
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Would not the Minister agree that the next step in this very desirable progress is the encouragement of the covering of stocks in coal merchants' yards? Would not this lead to the housewife getting a fairer deal?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir. Discussions are going on within the trade itself to get better depots with covering and all the other modern facilities for weighing, and so on, which will be for the benefit of the consumer.

    Small Boats (Safety)
    Dr. Wyndham Daviesasked the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy regarding safety in small boats; and how many such boats were involved in inshore casualties in United Kingdom waters in 1964.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): Small boats which ply for hire are already subject to control by the Board of Trade or by local authorities and I am satisfied with these arrangements. The Board of Trade's regulations requiring the provision of safety appliances do not apply at present to private craft under 45 ft. in length but my right hon. Friend is considering whether they should be extended to cover smaller vessels.
    Inshore casualties reported to Her Majesty's Coastguard in 1964 involved
    660
    658 small boats; of these casualties 21 resulted in loss of life.
    Dr. Davies: Would the Minister bear in mind that the figures I have for Her Majesty's Coastguard reports in 1964 are over 1,000? This is a large increase on the year before. I think it is important for the Minister to bring in some regulations before long on buoyancy in small craft of this type and also to deal with the whole problem of life jackets. Would the Minister examine the report of the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention which came out this week and dealt with these points?
    Mr. Mason: I have noted the report and I do not think I can go further than that. The Board is already in touch with yachting and other associations with a view first to deciding on the range of vessels under 45 ft. in length which should be covered and a meeting about this should take place in the autumn.
    Sir B. Janner: Will the Minister say what support he is prepared to give to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and its pamphlet, "Safety Afloat", so that publicity on safety measures may be effectively carried out?
    Mr. Mason: As my hon. Friend says, there is available a booklet on "Safety Afloat" published by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents which has my full support. Much useful work in this field has already been done by yachting and sailing clubs and the more that can be done in this way the better.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Will he and the Government do everything they can to encourage propaganda to tell people what is available to them from the point of view of rescue services and so on? Will they do everything they can to try to stop people going to sea in unseaworthy craft? We saw a report only last week about someone who went out to sea in a ship which turned over to fetch in his daughter who had gone out in a boat. Education is required. We cannot make people wear life-jackets all the time. What is needed is education about the dangers at sea for these people before they go out to sea.
    Mr. Mason: I agree that we cannot legislate for stupidity and that many of

    661
    these accidents at sea are due to amateur sailors who have never bothered to read such documents as the one I mentioned, "Safety Afloat".

    Imports
    Mr. Barberasked the President of the Boa rd of Trade whether he will give the figures for the importation of goods covered by the 15 per cent. or 10 per cent. import surcharge over the last available seven months of 1964–65 compared with the same period of 1954–55, 1958–59, 1961–62 and 1963–64.
    Mr. Jay: As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Barber: In view of the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday about limiting imports of manufactured goods, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what he now considers to be the prospects for reducing and eventually abandoning the import surcharge?
    Mr. Jay: No. I can tell the hon. Member that the figures show that so far this year those imports not subject to the surcharge have increased, whereas those subject to the surcharge have markedly decreased. Therefore, we can say with confidence that the surcharge is being effective.
    Mr. Barber: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? I asked what prospects there were of reducing and eventually abandoning the surcharge? The right hon. Gentleman has made observations about this in the past. I should like to know, in view of the Chancellor's statement, whether there is any change in those prospects.
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir. We shall reduce the surcharge as soon as the balance of payments position makes it possible.
    Mr. William Clark: In view of the fact that when it was introduced the Government said that it would result in a saving of £300 million in imports, and as we have had it for eight months, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that will be obtained or not?
    Mr. Jay: The Government did not say £300 million, but so far the saving has been rather greater than we expected.
    Following is the answer:

    UNITED KINGDOM IMPORTS

    Goods liable to the Temporary Charge on Imports*

    Period

    £ million

    Percentage of total Imports

    November-May, 1954–55

    333

    15

    November-May, 1958–59

    432

    19

    November-May, 1961–62

    681

    26

    November-May, 1963–64

    926

    30

    November-May, 1964–65

    917

    29

    * The figures given do not exactly correspond to the categories liable to the charge, but represent a close approximation to them.

    Film Industry
    Mr. Hopkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends to take to assist the British film industry.
    Mr. Jay: British film production already receives a wide measure of assistance and the studios are well occupied.
    Mr. Hopkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some very fine films have been produced recently by the independent producers? Is he satisfied that the arrangements are working to the benefit of independent producers as a whole?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. From my information, the producers of a large number of successful films recently made have had independent control over scripts and production arrangements.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to give every assistance to this industry, particularly that part of the industry concerned with television films? Will he bear in mind that many of us are sick and tired of the importation of American films for T.V. and it is high time that British films had a fair share in T.V. programmes?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir, we shall do all we reasonably can to encourage British films.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that those who have studied the problem will consider his first Answer very complacent and not reflecting the true position in Britain?
    Mr. Jay: That is not my information from the industry, but if the hon. Member wants to make special representations I shall be delighted to listen to them.
    Mr. Peter Emery: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that the Government will do all they reasonably can? The complaint of the film industry is that not enough is being done and a great deal more needs to be done by the Board of Trade on this matter to encourage the British film industry to make films so that we do not have to import American rubbish for television.
    Mr. Jay: The hon. Member must know of the things which are being done. There is a quota in force and there is the National Film Finance Corporation and the special levy introduced by the previous Labour Government.

    Tariff Reductions (Kennedy Round)
    Mr. Huntasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about the present position of the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions.
    Mr. Hordernasked the President of the Board of Trade what recent initiative has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in order to seek a solution to the negotiations on the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions.
    Mr. Jay: As the statement is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for sending me an advance copy of that statement. Is he aware that there will be some disappointment that the British Government are not proposing to take any new initiative in this matter? Will he agree that in the interests of world trade in general and the increase in British exports in particular it is important that Britain should be seen to be making a positive lead in this field?
    Mr. Jay: I think everyone knows that we are. We put in our exceptions lists last winter on the due date and we are trying to push the negotiations forward. We have to complete them before the middle of 1967. I hope that all countries will realise as well as us that if we lose the chance of achieving the result by then, we shall have missed a great opportunity.
    Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a developing body of opinion which does not think that fiscal
    664
    and monetary inducements for exports are the only answers and that more means must be found to get our goods on display at minimum cost to the manufacturer?
    Mr. Jay: I think that refers to the next Question rather than to this one.
    Following is the statement:
    Since industrial exceptions lists were tabled in Geneva in November, 1964, the main activity in the Kennedy Round negotiations has been the unspectacular but essential work of examining, both in bilateral discussions and in wider groups, the scope for limiting the effects of exceptions and other problems on the proposed linear reductions in tariffs, particularly in key industrial sectors such as chemicals. Useful exploratory work has also been done on non-tariff barriers to trade and on problems of interest to the developing countries in the negotiations.
    The Working Group on cereals has met on a number of occasions since offers were tabled in April and progress has been made. It has been agreed that offers relating to other agricultural products should be tabled on 16th September; but there is bound to be doubt whether this will be possible unless the European Economic Community as we should all hope, can resolve their present difficulties in time.
    The time taken by these negotiations is mainly a matter of their wide scope and complexity. The present powers of the United States Administration to cut tariffs under the Trade Expansion Act run until June, 1967, and it has long been recognised that the stage of substantive negotiation towards a balanced package deal, covering industrial tariffs, non-tariff barriers and barriers to trade in agriculture, would probably not be reached until 1966.
    No new initiative by the Government would be likely to affect this timetable and what is required is steady progress towards a comprehensive settlement. The policy of the Government is to continue to work in every way possible for a successful outcome of these negotiations.

    Exports
    Mr. Higginsasked the President of the Board of Trade what new action or initiative he has taken within the last six weeks to stimulate exports.
    Mr. Jay: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th July. In addition to these measures I am pressing on with the policies which I announced on 27th January and the supplementary measures that I described to the House on 8th April, 1st June and 23rd June. I am sending him copies of my statements for his information.
    Mr. Higgins: The President is no doubt fully aware of the importance of exports in the fulfilment of the national plan being prepared by the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. Can he confirm that he is being consulted on this plan at every stage and can he tell the House what changes have been made in the figures for exports in that plan as a result of the measures which he has announced?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir, I am being fully consulted. I can assure the hon. Member that the further measures announced yesterday will help to ensure that we will achieve the target for exports foreshadowed in the plan.
    Mr. Barber: In view of the fact that since February exports have fallen each month—in March, April, May and June—will not the right hon. Gentleman now admit that the Government's policies in this respect have failed? What else does he propose to do? Does he realise that merely tinkering with the problem as he has been doing so far will not solve it?
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir. As a result of the whole series of measures we have introduced—all of which were said by the previous Government to be impossible—exports are now running at a level of 4 per cent. higher than a year ago. The reason the increase has not been still greater is due to the present very high level of home demand and that is exactly why the Chancellor announced the measures on Tuesday.
    Mr. Dell: In view of the fact that under the Chancellor's statement the rate of interest to cover short terms of credit may vary and may still be higher than those paid by foreign competitors, are the Government considering what more can be done in the case of short-term credits?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. We have produced a regular series of improvements and we intend to go on doing so.

    Resale Price Maintenance
    Mr. Hopkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade how many groups of cases, covering how many individual cases, seeking exemption from the ban on Resale Price Maintenance have been brought by the Registrar of Restrictive Practices before the court; and how many groups of cases, covering how many
    666
    individual cases, still await consideration by the court.
    Mr. Darling: I am informed by the Registrar that proceedings under the Resale Prices Act have been started in respect of 32 cases, covering about 140 whole classes of registered goods and parts of a further 20 classes. The Registrar is not able to estimate the number of court cases that will be necessary to cover the other parts of these 20 classes, and the remaining 350 classes of registered goods.
    Mr. Hopkins: Could the Minister of State give any indication of how long he expects this process to take?
    Mr. Darling: At this stage I think that would be extremely difficult. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the beginning of proceedings in these matters takes some considerable time. The Registrar must get the cases prepared. I am afraid that it would be impossible at this stage to give any indication of the timetable.
    Mr. Hogg: When are the first cases expected to be heard?
    Mr. Darling: I am afraid I cannot say without notice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know more about these proceedings than I do. I understand that in about 10 cases the indications have been given to those concerned. They are preparing for their appearances before the court.

    E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. (Trade and Tariffs)
    Mr. Peter Emeryasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to stimulate further agreements on trade and tariff problems between the nations of the European Economic Community and the countries in the European Free Trade Association.
    Mr. Jay: Following the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the recent meeting of the E.F.T.A. Ministers in Vienna, we are examining with our E.F.T.A. partners what suggestions might be put forward for discussion between the two groups with a view to promoting closer co-operation in Europe. We are continuing to work towards the success of the Kennedy Round which was agreed at that meeting to be of paramount importance as the principal means

    667
    of lowering barriers to trade both worldwide and in Europe.
    Mr. Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the amount of trade being done by E.F.T.A. with the E.E.C. is decreasing in ratio at the moment? It is still greater than it was last year, but in ratio it is decreasing. Therefore, there is a need for something other than just consultation. Many of our E.F.T.A. partners expect Great Britain to take the lead in obtaining some definite results with the E.E.C.
    Mr. Jay: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's practical proposals. It is true that the ratio is decreasing. The striking fact is that total trade between E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C. and indeed between the U.K. and the E.E.C., has more than doubled since the Rome Treaty was signed.

    Monopolies Commission
    Captain W. Elliotasked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to appoint new members to the Monopolies Commission; how many cases are waiting to be heard by the Commission; and how many reports by the Commission have been issued this year.
    Mr. Jay: I intend to make further appointments to the Monopolies Commission this autumn. I cannot say in advance what further cases will be referred to the enlarged Commission. The answer to the third part of the Question is, one.
    Captain Elliot: As the Bill is very soon to become law, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should hurry up these appointments? Could he give some idea of the type of individual he will ask to serve on the Commission?
    Mr. Jay: I cannot make the appointments until the Bill has received the Royal Assent, but I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that as soon as it has received it we shall proceed with the appointments.
    Captain Orr: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects the report from the Commission on the film industry?
    Mr. Jay: No.
    Mr. William HamiltonWhat action does my right hon. Friend intend to take on the report the Commission has produced?
    Mr. Jay: I have already said that we accept the main conclusions of the report—I think my hon. Friend means on the distribution of petrol. I hope shortly, after consultation with the industry concerned, that we shall be able to formulate precise proposals.

    Pin-Table and Fruit Machines
    Mr. Murrayasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the total number of pin-table and fruit machines imported in the last five years;
    (2) what was the cost in dollars in each of the last five years for the import of pin-table and fruit machines.
    Mr. Jay: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT those figures which are available.
    Mr. Murray: I should like my right hon. Friend to give us a total figure at some time and to consider whether the import of pin-table and fruit machines is of any value whatsoever in our present economic circumstances.
    Mr. Jay: I presume that those who purchase them and import them consider that they are of some value to them. As to the general question, the previous Government removed import quotas from all these sorts of goods, and it is very much more difficult to re-establish them once they are removed than to keep them there.
    Mr. Bagier: Would my right hon. Friend, having allowed the import of these machines, refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the possibility of taxing the income from them, because that way he would hit a considerable jackpot?
    Mr. Jay: I will certainly pass that suggestion on to my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend may be glad to know that these machines bear both a 20 per cent. import duty and a 10 per cent. surcharge.
    Sir R. Thompson: Are not these machines available and manufactured in this country? Before the right hon. Gentleman takes any drastic steps about

    669
    them, will he realise that a large percentage of the income of both political parties comes from these machines?
    Mr. Jay: I have no official information about the latter point. I understand that manufacture in this country is on a small scale.
    Following are the available figures:

    IMPORTS OF ALL COIN AND DISC-OPERATED AMUSEMFNT MACHINES

    (£'000 c.i.f.)

    Year

    Total Imports

    Imports from U.S.A.

    1960

    1,312

    873

    1961

    1,084

    774

    1962

    1,664

    1,070

    1963

    2,722

    1,338

    1964

    3,393

    1,470

    The dollar cost of these imports is not known.

    Motor Insurance
    Mr. Charles R. Morrisasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to prevent insurance companies rejecting proposals for motor insurance from individuals with British parents on the grounds that they were born outside the British Isles.
    Mr. Darling: No, Sir. I understand that in so far as any insurance companies are less ready to accept proposals for motor insurance from persons born outside the British Isles, any such differential treatment is based on an assessment of the risks involved.
    Mr. Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he not aware that this sort of action makes the individuals concerned feel that it is a form of racial discrimination?
    Mr. Darling: As I understand it from this case, that does not arise. It is, as I said in my Answer, a question of basing the assessment on the risks involved for the person who wants to be insured. My hon. Friend should bear in mind that there are about 200 insurers in this country catering for motor business. It is a very competitive market. I should imagine that any competent driver, whatever his origin, whether born in this country or not, should be able to find an insurer prepared to offer him reasonable terms.

    Peru (Sale of Arms)
    Mr. Freesonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to stop the sale of arms to Peru.
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir.
    Mr. Freeson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be of assistance to the reformist Government established in Peru if we were to seek to replace this kind of trade with trade which would be of greater assistance to the economic development in this territory, as indeed applies in other territories in this part of the world?
    Mr. Jay: I am all in favour of peaceful trade with Peru, but I am not satisfied that there is a case for the ban which my hon. Friend is arguing for.
    Mr. A. Royle: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist pressure from his hon. Friends for this sort of ban? Is he aware that we have traded very successfully with Peru for many years and that it is very important that these friendly relations should continue?
    Mr. Jay: I will resist pressure from both sides of the House as necessary.

    Shipping Industry
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received for the nationalisation of the shipping industry and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mason: None, Sir.
    Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman has received no representations as such, would he agree that it is not for the want of proposals along these lines by the more outrageous Left-wing organisations? Will he give a firm assurance that he will not seek to solve the problems of this industry by the sterile formula of nationalisation?
    Mr. Mason: That supplementary question is quite irrelevant because I have received no representations on this topic.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has my hon. Friend received any representations from Right-wing elements calling for the denationalisation of our oldest nationalised industry—the British Navy?
    Mr. Mason: Not yet.

    Technicians, Merseyside (Employment)
    Mr. Hefferasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he will take to ensure employment for technicians in the Merseyside area; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jay: I am not aware of any problem of employment for technicians on Merseyside requiring special action by me at the present time.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Automatic Telephone Co. is proposing to take a section of its works to Poole? Does not this cut across the declared policy of the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]—to expand work on Merseyside, which is a development area? Would my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]—would my right hon. Friend look into this matter to ensure that something is done to overcome this difficulty, because certain Government contracts may well be affected as a result of the uncertainty?
    Mr. Jay: I shall be very glad to look into this, but I understand that telephone manufacturing activity in Liverpool as a whole is increasing. Unemployment on Merseyside is now lower than for a very long time, but I will certainly examine what my hon. Friend had said.
    Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During my supplementary question, there was constant interruption from the opposite side of the House which prevented hon. Members hearing what was being said. Is this the usual practice in the House?
    Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Members on both sides will remember (a) to speak audibly and (b) to listen quietly. In that way we shall get on better.
    Mr. Tilney: Will the President of the Board of Trade bear in mind that what is really wanted on Merseyside is a large number of small factories to be let, and that it is these which are most likely to require technicians?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir, I agree; and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the particulars about certain factories which he has sent to us.

    Export Statistics
    Mr. Wallaceasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for export statistics, other than those normally supplied by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, to be available to manufacturers free of charge.
    Mr. Jay: I am not convinced that the present charges are excessive.
    Mr. Wallace: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in our drive for exports, we should give the maximum information in the shortest possible time, without fiddling about with questions of cost?
    Mr. Jay: I agree with that in general, but in this case I cannot see any reason why firms should not pay a reasonable charge, like everyone else, for this sort of publication.
    Dr. Bray: Will my right hon. Friend consider making rather fuller information about imports available so that, when a firm is failing even to meet home market demand, its competitors can see this and get into the market quickly?
    Mr. Jay: There is a good deal of information available already, but if my hon. Friend has any further particulars in mind, I shall consider them.

    Industrial Investment (Tax Incentives)
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewingasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the use of investment reserve certificates, similar to tax reserve certificates, in order to stimulate a level growth of industrial investment; and what official discussions he has had with industrial leaders on the subject.
    Mr. Jay: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated in his Budget statement, it is the Government's intention to review the present tax incentives to industrial investment. The hon. Member's suggestion will be borne in mind in this review. My right hon. Friend and I would welcome the views of industrial leaders on this whole subject.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that there is a good deal of anxiety that the whole modernisation of Britain, which featured

    673
    so largely at the last General Election, will come to a shuddering halt, and there is, therefore, particular merit in schemes of this sort, notably in relation to the machine tool industry which has a cyclical tendency? Would it not be a great advantage if some incentives of this kind were introduced?
    Mr. Jay: I see no evidence whatever of a shuddering halt. Industry and employment are now running at an all-time record level. But I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is very important, and we are examining it carefully.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the cyclical pattern of industrial investment? Will he not agree that we seem at the moment to be at the top of a very slippery slope from which we may come down very quickly, and, if this be so, would not the remedy be to introduce these industrial investment certificates in the autumn? How far have his conversations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer got on this subject?
    Mr. Jay: If we are at the top, then, obviously, we are not in the dire condition suggested by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing). But we are examining this, and I imagine that even the hon Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) does not want us to introduce another Finance Bill next week.

    Machine Tools (Imports)
    Mr. Harold Walkerasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish or make available a fully-detailed and comprehensive breakdown of machine tool imports, further to the information provided in the Overseas Trade Accounts.
    Mr. Jay: Fuller details by type and by country of consignment are available from the Statistical Office of H.M. Customs and Excise. Figures for the year 1964 and the period January to May, 1965, have been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Walker: Is my right hon Friend aware that some of us on this side have recently had discussions with the machine tool trade association—
    Hon. Members: Speak up.
    Mr. Heffer: Hon. Members opposite should get themselves hearing aids.
    Mr. Walker:—at which representatives of the trade complained that the available information was not sufficiently detailed for its members to be able to make an assessment of the potential home market, using the absence of this detailed breakdown as justification for the trade's failure to reduce the level of machine tool imports? Does not this indicate a need for closer co-operation between the Board of Trade and machine tool manufacturers in this country?
    Mr. Jay: As my hon. Friend knows, there has just been a very thorough report on this industry by one of the "little Neddies" and its proposals are now being put into force. Perhaps my Answer will have made clear that very detailed figures of this kind are, in fact, available.
    Mr. Gurden: Why does not the President of the Board of Trade publish monthly figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]—of our home machine tool industry rather than create delay by keeping them for three months?
    Mr. Jay: I am not sure that I heard the hon. Gentleman aright, but I shall study what he said in the OFFICIAL REPORT to see what can be done to help him.
    Mr. Speaker: On the supposition that hon. Members desire to hear the questions, might I drop the hint that, if they are addressed to the Chair, then the machine tools which we have available can operate?

    Home Tuition Courses (Sales Technique)
    Mr. Bostonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to prohibit the type of sales technique in which a customer is persuaded to pay for a home tuition course for which the necessary equipment is provided, only to find after entering into an agreement that the purpose of the arrangement is to sell the equipment.
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend has at present no evidence that such steps are necessary, but he is, of course, prepared to consider any specific complaints that my hon. Friend or others may send him.
    Mr. Boston: Will my hon. Friend investigate the activities of a certain typewriting school or firm, details of which I have sent to him, which is causing some anxiety in various parts of the country? Second, will he bear in mind cases of the other type, details of which also I have sent to him, in which one of my constituents invested in a course, was involved in considerable expense, and had to withdraw from the course in order to avoid further expense?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir; we are investigating both the cases on the basis of the information which my hon. Friend has sent to us.

    Industrial Development Certificates (South-East)
    Mr. Bostonasked the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on granting industrial development certificates for those parts of the South-East which do not enjoy the prosperity of the region as a whole.
    Mr. Jay: Industrial development certificates are granted in these places for projects which cannot go to the development districts and whose employment demands are not beyond local resources.
    Mr. Boston: My right hon. Friend's Answer will be warmly welcomed. Will he continue to give the same sort of consideration as he has in the past to those parts of the South-East, like the Isle of Sheppey, for instance, which have previously been suffering hardship?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir.

    Cotton Textiles (Imports)
    Mr. Mappasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the negotiations in respect of the import of cotton textiles for 1966 onwards; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. A. Royleasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Hong Kong textile quota, in order to relieve the uncertainty which is damaging the Colony's trade.
    Mr. Jay: I hope shortly to put formal proposals on the arrangements to be applied to imports of cotton textiles after
    676
    the end of 1965 to exporting countries including Hong Kong. I shall make a statement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Mapp: Does my right hon. Friend recall the statement of the chairman of Courtaulds recently in which this modern capitalised industry, as it is becoming, sought a clear and forthright statement of policy such as I hope he will be able to give to the textile industry in the next week or so?
    Mr. Jay: Yes Sir. We hope to achieve a limitation of total imports into this country from the end of this year onwards in order to give reasonable stability to the industry.
    Mr. A. Royle: Why is the President of the Board of Trade taking so long to come to a conclusion in this matter? The delay is causing great damage to the Colony of Hong Kong's trade at present. Secondly, will he give an assurance that, in any action he proposes, he will maintain the individual quota for each territory and not institute a global quota?
    Mr. Jay: The reason why it is taking some time is that there are several countries involved in the negotiation and not all of their views exactly coincide with ours.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: While fully realising the importance of this aspect of our import problem for Lancashire, will my right hon. Friend consider, since a large part of our present serious international economic situation is due to the excess of imports generally, not only textiles, whether it is time that the Government devised a planned economic import policy as a whole?
    Mr. Jay: We are devising precisely a plan for cotton textile imports over the years following the end of this year, and I fully agree that the present balance of payments prospect is an additional argument for our setting some limit on these imports.
    Mr. Barber: Have these proposals the full backing of the Cotton Board?
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir. I would not say that they had the full backing of the Cotton Board. This is a controversy in which any solution is bound to displease most of the parties concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is bound to. We had

    677
    all better recognise that frankly. I am trying to achieve the most equitable possible compromise.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: What other authorities and expert bodies besides the Cotton. Board is the right hon. Gentleman consulting?
    Mr. Jay: I have consulted both sides of industry, and I have met a number of hon. Members who put their views to me as well as the cotton trade unions.

    Waste Paper
    Mr. Ennalsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the supply of waste paper is barely sufficient to maintain reasonable stocks at the Mills; and what action the Government is now taking to encourage the collection of waste paper for use within the paper and board industry.
    Mr. Jay: I know that the amount of waste paper at present being received by paper and board mills is less than their requirements. The action being taken to increase waste paper collection, was described in the reply which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) on 15th July.
    Mr. Ennals: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is a good deal of concern in the paper industry about this shortage? Is there anything that he can do to make it more widely known and to stimulate local authorities and other bodies in the collection of waste paper?
    Mr. Jay: The "little Neddy" for this industry has set up a working party to make proposals, and we hope that we shall have some proposals shortly.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the saving to our balance of payments from the collection of waste paper is a very considerable sum, running into millions of pounds per annum? Would he, therefore, have consultations with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to ascertain what further assistance can be given to local authorities to encourage them to increase their collections?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. I have already been doing that for some time past.
    Mr. John Hall: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government themselves have been making a very considerable contribution towards solving the shortage of waste paper?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir, and so have the Opposition.

    Trade with Denmark
    Mr. Wallasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present imbalance of British trade with Denmark; and what is being done to step up British exports, particularly of coal.
    Mr. Jay: The figures for our trade with Denmark can be obtained from Table IV of the Overseas Trade Accounts. A wide range of Government services is available to help British exporters to Denmark, as to other markets. The excellent results of last autumn's British Week are being energetically followed up by British exporters with the assistance of the Board of Trade and the Export Council for Europe. We are giving vigorous support to the National Coal Board's efforts to improve coal exports, and are in close touch with the Danish Government on this subject.
    Mr. Wall: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these measures will lead to a balance of trade between this country and Denmark, and, if so, how long it will take?
    Mr. Jay: We are trying to achieve that result. At the moment our exports to Denmark are increasing.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many of the highly efficient firms in this country are too small to maintain export organisations in foreign countries? Would it be possible for the Board of Trade to set up a collective selling organisation so that small firms could be enlisted in the export drive?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. As my right hon. Friend knows, we are investigating that, and we hope to have a report sooner or later.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the excessive quantities of cheap Danish poultry meat which

    679
    are coming to this country—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We had better get on with exporting.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would not the stopping of these imports be a great help in correcting our imbalance of trade with Denmark? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Jay: While welcoming the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), I must say that I do not see any specially good reason for resisting these poultry imports more than any other type of imports.

    Consumer Protection
    Mr. Ioan L. Evansasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it a general practice of his Department to issue leaflets on any legislation and regulations concerning consumer protection.
    Mr. Darling: I sympathise with this suggestion but each case must be considered on its merits.

  SHIPPING POLICY (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
  Mr. McMasterasked the Prime Minister what representations he has now made to the President of the United States of America with a view to persuading that country to subscribe to a more liberal shipping policy; and what progress has been made by Her Majesty's Government in securing more co-operation and a better understanding between these two countries in this field.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): None, Sir, though there are, of course, frequent exchanges of view at official level which have, I think, had a beneficial effect.
  Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strength of the American shipping lobby and the success that it has had in the field of flag discrimination and flag reservation and more recently in objecting to the purchase of warships constructed in British shipyards? Yet Her Majesty's Government seem intent on buying all their weapons and aircraft from the United States. Will the right hon. Gentleman
  680
  try to secure a better balance in this trade?
  The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks, but I most certainly agree with what he said about the strength of the American shipping lobby, both now and for very many years past. But we have made quite clear, as the previous Government did, our determination on the question of flag discrimination and the other matters raised by American shipping policy.
  Sir C. Osborne: On the wider issue of Anglo-American trade, will the right hon. Gentleman look at the fact that the Americans sold to us last year £250 million more than they bought from us? Could not something be done to readjust that trade to help our balance of payments problem?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the figure actually was £257 million, but I am speaking from memory. I remember that in the 1959 Conservative manifesto it was claimed that the Government had a surplus of trade with America and were going to increase it. It is, therefore, £270 million out on that, and I agree with the urgency of the point as put by the hon. Member.

  GOVERNMENT PAPERS (CLASSIFICATION)
  Viscount Lambtonasked the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have for the reclassification of secret Government papers.
  The Prime Minister: Review of the classification of Government papers is a continuing process.
  Viscount Lambton: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply—[Interruption.]—the right hon. Member, I should say—may I ask him to bring the fact that there has not been a reclassification of papers to the notice of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who seems to act as if there has been one?
  The Prime Minister: I would ask the hon. Member not to blame me; I voted "Powell". As to the second part of the supplementary question, the hon. Member will remember that we have

  681
  had a very full exchange across the Floor of the House on the very question which I think he has in mind. It does not raise the question of the classification of documents, which is, in fact, going on all the time.
  Mr. Thorpe: Does the reclassification mean that it might be possible for the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who expressed great interest last week in the paper which my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) had received on the breeding habits of lobsters, to receive it having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, seems to share with lobsters one particular characteristic—namely, going in perpetual fear of being boiled alive?
  The Prime Minister: I am not sure what that has to do with breeding habits. But when I have had time to study this important State paper I will consider whether it might not be made available more widely to hon. Members.

  LAND (USE)
  Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for determining whether land should be used for agriculture, housing or the construction of reservoirs.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government are responsible for individual planning decisions in Scotland, Wales and England, respectively, Sir.
  Mr. Griffiths: Might I ask the Prime Minister two questions arising out of that illuminating reply? First, is it not a fact that our increasing population and our need for housing are posing a growing threat to both the beauty and the capacity to produce food of our countryside, and is it not, therefore, of the utmost importance that the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources should work effectively? Secondly, is it not also a fact that the present Minister of Land and Natural Resources is not able to work effectively because his functions have largely been usurped or hived off by two other Ministers?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, of course, about the continuing problem of the requirements of land for housing and industry and what this means in farm production and amenity. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources is responsible for general land planning in the country as a whole, but individual planning decisions and appeals from local authorities are a matter for my three right hon. Friends as stated in my original Answer.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But how can the Minister of Land and Natural Resources be effectively responsible for the planning of land use when he is not responsible for and has no control over individual planning decisions which, in sum total, make up the working of a land policy?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is, in general, responsible for seeing that, taking the country as a whole, we have the right allocation of land between agriculture, national parks, forestry, provision for water supply and the rest. It would prevent him from doing this and burden him too much if he had to handle also individual planning decisions which arise from the functioning of local government, for which my three other right hon. Friends are responsible.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: But surely the Prime Minister will agree that it is not only a matter of individual decisions on planning applications but that the Minister has no responsibility or jurisdiction in regard to the consideration and confirmation of development plans of local planning authorities?
  The Prime Minister: That was my point. These are local authority responsibilities and it is right that the Departments in charge of housing and local government should have these decisions.

  FAR EAST
  Mr. Jacksonasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for keeping the House informed of developments in the Far Eastern situation in so far as Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities are involved during the Summer Recess.
  The Prime Minister: The usual channels of communication will be employed and Standing Order 117 is available for use if required.
  Mr. Jackson: In view of the worsening situation in the Far East and Vietnam in particular, and since there is genuine anxiety in the country about the crisis, will my right hon. Friend consider, short of recalling Parliament, reporting to the nation either on television or through major Press conferences at least once or twice during the Recess?
  The Prime Minister: The Government, like all previous Governments, will respect not only the letter but the spirit of Standing Order No. 117. If a really grave development occurred which required the recall of Parliament, then we should immediately recall it. Keeping the public informed of developments can be done easily without necessarily holding a Press conference.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since the Government intend drastically to cut defence expenditure, may we be assured that, during the Recess and after, British troops east of Suez will not be denied on financial considerations the facilities and reinforcements they may need for the defence of Malaysia and other British interests?
  The Prime Minister: Our record in this matter, both continuing and extending the policy of the previous Government towards Malaysia, is sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman. There is no question whatever of denying our troops the facilities and reinforcements they need if, unhappily, this confrontation is to continue. One of the aims of the general defence review is to save expenditure and foreign exchange costs and we shall report to the House when that review is ready.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Following the very important statement made yesterday by President Johnson concerning the desirability of United Nations intervention in the Vietnam conflict with a view to bringing it to an end, may we take it that Her Majesty's Government will support or even take any initiative during the Recess to ensure that the matter is brought before the Security Council?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, if we think that will be helpful. I have previously
  684
  explained our hope and intention about initiating action in the Security Council, but after taking soundings we were not convinced that this would be most helpful towards getting initiatives going.
  I may add, in view of the strictures of right hon. and hon. Members opposite about the mission to Hanoi by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and about the Commonwealth Peace Mission, and their claim that these might upset the Americans, that I was glad to see that President Johnson yesterday not merely paid tribute for the second time to the idea of the Commonwealth Mission but went out of his way to pay tribute to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister agree that, during the Recess, in the very serious situation which now exists, it is of the utmost importance that he should keep open the channels of the co-Chairmanship which can, through diplomatic means, be used effectively in this situation, as indeed it was used during the difficulties in Laos? As the right hon. Gentleman has sometimes shown some reluctance to use this means, will he assure us that he will take the utmost steps through diplomatic channels to keep these lines open?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have made clear in repeated foreign affairs debates our desire to use the co-Chairmanship machinery. I gave lengthy details in last week's debate of the approaches we have made to Mr. Gromyko in London, Vienna and Moscow. It has been an almost continuous process since the beginning of the year.
  The trouble is that the Russian co-Chairman so far is not agreeable to joining in the reactivating of the Geneva Conference. One of the main aims of the Commonwealth Peace Mission is to create the conditions in which the two Chairmen could act. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise that, if it is not possible to get the Soviet Union to move because it thinks that this is a matter for Hanoi and nothing to do with the Soviet Union, all we can do is keep on trying—which is what we shall do.

  POSTMASTER-GENERAL (SPEECH)
  Mr. Boxasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Postmaster General in Cardiff on 19th June on rising prices represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Box: Is the Prime Minister aware that the speech contained the statement that the Government do not raise prices but that they are raised by the business community, often without justification? Does not the Prime Minister agree that this was an extraordinary statement from a Minister who, only a few weeks ago, gave an unprecedented rise to postal workers and increased the cost of stamps by 33⅓ per cent.? Will the Prime Minister now refute this irresponsible and stupid statement of Government policy?
  The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend said about the business community is in many respects justified and that is why we have set up the Prices and Incomes Board to which we can refer cases when prices are put up irresponsibly. Postal charges were increased only after the most careful scrutiny and after very full collective consideration. The hon. Gentleman really should not raise this matter, because he knows perfectly well that the last Government knew that there was a deficit of £100 million on the Post Office account but did not tell the country. They did not put up the charges. They left it for us to do after the election.

  MILITARY EXPENDITURE
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure co-ordination of the efforts of the Ministers of Defence, Aviation and the Treasury, in securing reductions in miliary commitments overseas and in expenditure on the purchase of military equipment with foreign currency.
  The Prime Minister: Those necessary, Sir.
  Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is now more necessary than ever to cut military expenditure overseas
  686
  and in particular where we are using foreign currency? Is he further aware that he would get virtually unanimous support on this side of the House if he were to announce now that the Government will not buy the F111A from the United States?
  The Prime Minister: As I have made clear, we are having a very thorough defence review—the most thorough review of its kind probably since the war. One of the main elements must be to get reasonable economy in budgetary expenditure and, perhaps above all, in overseas expenditure. When the review is completed we shall report to the House. Part of the review will, of course, cover not merely bases and commitments but also the question of weapons and aircraft. Until the review is completed we cannot take decisions on that. No decision has been taken yet to buy the F111A.
  Mr. Marten: In view of the financial overseas difficulties, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was absurd to cancel the TSR flying programme? Will he not reconsider this?
  The Prime Minister: The cutting out of a programme costing in all £750 million—
  Mr. Marten: I referred to the flying programme.
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry. I thought the hon. Gentleman meant the original cancellation. I do not think that the testing and flying programme would have made very much difference to overseas expenditure. I would remind him that, when our balance of payments deficit last year was far worse than it is now, it was the Government of which he was a member who embarked on the purchase of American Phantom aircraft.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Question No. Q6 holds the master key to nearly all the pressing problems facing the country? Does he also agree that the £400 million a year reduction by 1969–70, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday, does not mean a reduction from £2,100 million to £1,700 million a year, but is really a reduction in the projected expenditure if the previous Government's military programme had been carried out

  687
  unchecked and that it means not a reduction in estimates, but an increase?
  The Prime Minister: I agree that if not this Question at any rate the Answer to it holds at any rate part of the key to the solution of not only our general economic difficulties but the balance of payments problem, because the whole of our projected deficit this year is less than our estimated total overseas Government expenditure, of which military expenditure is the greatest part. But I would not want my hon. Friend to think that it is easy to cut these totals in the way he has in mind. The natural increase, the natural escalation, in the cost per man in the Services and also the fact that such a high proportion of the total cost is represented by Service pay and is therefore a direct function of the numbers in the Services make it very difficult to make the kind of cut my hon. Friend has in mind. What our review—and it will be a painful review—involves is stopping the automatic increase in total expenditure which would have occurred year by year if we had continued the previous Government's programme unchecked.
  Mr. Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the statement by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he said that the intention was to reduce defence expenditure by £400 million by 1969–70, did not mean £400 million off this year's defence bill, but £400 million off the present estimates of the bill for five years ahead?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, I made that plain at Question Time a couple of weeks ago. As I said, the programme which we inherited—and I am not underestimating the difficulties of cutting it or the problems which arise—is the one to which my right hon. Friend referred and it is that which we wish to bring down by £400 million. I agree that, although we would like to do so, it is inconceivable and impossible to cut this year's programme by that amount.
  Mr. Hooson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for example, the budgeted expenditure on land and buildings alone in Aden for 1965–66 is £7 million and that this is a continuing running cost on the country? Is it not
  688
  necessary for the Government some day to contemplate the cutting down of our obligations overseas?
  The Prime Minister: As I have made clear, the review will cover questions of bases and the commitments and obligations which relate to those bases. Our first decision in this programme was substantially to reduce costly elements of expenditure. I refer to the two aircraft cuts when members of the hon. and learned Gentleman's own party, led by him on that occasion, insisted on voting against the Government's cuts in military expenditure.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Edward Heath: 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, 2ND AUGUST—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, which it will be proposed should be taken formally to allow a debate on the Opposition Censure Motion.
Lords Amendments to the Monopolies and Mergers Bill.
Remaining stages of the Consolidation Measures, which were read a Second time on Wednesday, 28th July, and Second Reading of two further consolidation Bills:
Hire Purchase Bill [Lords]
Hire Purchase (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]
Afterwards, the Motion on the Prayer Book (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.
TUESDAY, 3RD AUGUST—Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Debate on Roads until seven o'clock, to be followed by subjects which hon. Members may wish to raise.
WEDNESDAY, 4TH AUGUST—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Annual Report and Accounts of the Electricity Council and of the Central Electricity Generating Board.
Remaining stages of the Hire Purchase Bill [Lords], and the Hire Purchase

689
(Scotland) Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.
Afterwards, we propose to facilitate consideration of the following Private Members' Bills:
Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill [Lords] and Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Bill.
THURSDAY, 5TH AUGUST—It Will be proposed that the House should meet at 11 a.m., take Questions until 12 noon and adjourn at 5 p.m.
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House three questions? First, can he assure the House that the Prime Minister himself will be present to take part in the debate on the Opposition Motion of Censure on Monday? Secondly, can he tell us when the Motion for the Adjournment for the Recess will be taken? Thirdly, can he tell us the date on which the House will resume after the Recess in order to complete the Government's business, which still remains uncompleted as a result of their mismanagement of our affairs?
Mr. Bowden: On the first question, I should like to ask the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) whether he will be in his place on Monday to take part in the debate. I can assure him that he need have no worries and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be in his place on Monday to reply to the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten one of his former occupations. He has forgotten that it is usual to announce the date of the Recess and the date of resuming and the date of Prorogation and the date of the next Session of Parliament on a day in the week before the Adjournment of the House.
As to when the Motion for the Adjournment will be taken, I refer him to a reply given by a famous predecessor of his at this Box who said, "One day in the week before it actually happens".
Mr. Grimond: When will the promised statement on the negotiations with Rhodesia be made? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that during the Recess no agreement with Rhodesia will be made contrary to the statements by the Government in the House?
Mr. Bowden: The statement will be made tomorrow, but we ought to await the statement before making up our minds about what is likely to happen during the Recess.
Mr. Charles Morris: In any consideration which my right hon. Friend gives to the allocation of parliamentary time, will he bear in mind the desirability of finding time to discuss the important North-West Study?
Mr. Bowden: All these things will be borne in mind, but very little Parliamentary time is now left in this Session.
Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that during the life of the present Government there has been a Budget every 95 days? In view of that, and as the next is due on 30th October, will he ensure that the House meets before then?
Mr. Bowden: I take note of the fact that the hon. Gentleman objects.
Mr. Mendelson: In view of the very serious announcement by President Johnson last night on the extension of the war in Vietnam and the general worsening of the international situation, will the Leader of the House consult the Foreign Secretary and ask him to make a statement before the House goes into the long Recess, so that we can have at least a brief review of this very dangerous situation, with all its implications for the people of this country?
Mr. Bowden: I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but there will be an opportunity to discuss this matter by raising it on the Adjournment on Thursday of next week, or on the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in a statement yesterday the Minister of Transport referred in passing to the Report of the Devlin Committee. We had previously expected the publication of this Report in May and later at the beginning of July. Can he now give an assurance that that important Report will be out before the House rises next week?
Mr. Bowden: I understand that that is to be the position, but I cannot absolutely be sure.
Mr. Popplewell: Can my right hon. Friend announce what steps he has taken to meet the request, made to him some few weeks ago, to arrange for some type of proxy voting for sick Members? Is he aware that now Members are being brought to the House and put to bed in the House? This is very serious indeed and beneath the dignity of this assembly. Can he say whether the Select Committee on Procedure has yet given consideration to this very important matter, and, if so, with what result?
Mr. Bowden: This is an extremely serious matter, as I think both sides of the House would agree. I promised to refer this to the Select Committee on Procedure and that has been done. I am not quite sure how far it has got with its deliberations.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government will be able to provide time before the end of this Session to discuss the Hunter Committee Report on salmon fisheries in Scotland?
Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. I do not think so. Not before the end of the Session.
Dr. David Kerr: Can my right hon. Friend now say when the House will have an opportunity to debate the recent Report of the Select Committee on Procedure dealing with the Finance Bill?
Mr. Bowden: During the present Session, Sir. I hope to have a full day's debate, a debate on the three Reports and any recommendations which the Government may make.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us when the White Paper on land policy, about which he has been answering questions regularly since Easter, will appear, or will he now say that it will not appear and has been scrapped, together with the bulk of the Queen's Speech?
Mr. Bowden: The answer is precisely the same as the one I have been making since Easter.
Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the debate on electricity on Wednesday will include Scottish electricity? I understand that he has given time for certain Private Members' Bills on Wednesday. Can he
692
tell me why he is not giving time to my own Parliament Bill, which seeks to give a courteous smack in the eye to the House of Lords?
Mr. Bowden: I am not absolutely sure whether the Scottish Generating Board will be included in Wednesday's debate. I would have to have notice of that question. The Private Members' Bills down for next Wednesday are the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill, Third Reading, which has been through all stages in the House of Lords, and is non-controversial, and the Lords Amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Bill, which is also non-controversial. I very much doubt whether my hon. Friend's Bill on Parliament is non-controversial.
Mr. Hooson: Is the Leader of the House aware that this is the first year for many years that there has not been a debate on Welsh affairs on the Floor of the House? Is he aware that we in the Principality take a very poor view of the Government not finding time for such a debate?
Mr. Bowden: I know of no reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman should imagine there will not be a debate on Welsh affairs this year.
Sir Knox Cunningham: At the specific request of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, may I ask the Leader of the House whether there will be time for the Steel Bill to be introduced this Session?
Mr. Bowden: There would be time if the Session were extended, but I do not anticipate that that will now happen.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Has my right hon. Friend noticed Motion No. 220, on Public Service and Armed Forces Pensions—
[That this House, recognising the hardship of public service pensioners and those retired from the armed forces, and especially of the older pensioners in these groups whose pensions bear no relation to similar pensions now obtaining in the public service and the armed forces, urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce special provisions to improve such pensions.]

693
which has been signed by a number of his hon. Friends, and the Amendment to it—
[Line 5, at end add "and to make a statement before the end of this Parliamentary session".]
asking for a statement to be made before the end of this Session? Will my right hon. Friend say whether such a statement can be made?
Mr. Bowden: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour dealt with this point in his winding-up speech last night. I do not know that I can add to it.
Mr. Chataway: In view of Press reports today that the Education Department is unable to give any details about the stop on university building, on college education building and on technical college building, will the Leader of the House say that we may have a statement on the subject, to clear up the confusion?
Mr. Bowden: I will certainly communicate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. It would be an appropriate subject for the Consolidated Fund Bill debate, if the hon. Gentleman so wishes.
Mr. Snow: Would my right hon. Friend consider, in connection with Monday's business, the publication of the popular edition of the O.E.C.D. Report, which shows quite clearly where the blame lies for our present economic difficulties?
Mr. Bowden: I have read this very interesting Report and I understand that copies ate available, by signing a green form in the Vote Office, for hon. Members who desire them.
Mr. Sandys: Can the Leader of the House say, whether before the Recess, a further statement will be made about the serious situation in Cyprus, about which concern was expressed on both sides of the House yesterday?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot say anything finally, but I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend about it.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I think that we must go on now.

RESERVE ARMY (REORGANISATION)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): With the permission of the House, I will make a statement about the Government's plans to reorganise the Reserve Army.
It has become clear that the tasks of the Reserve Army have changed so radically as to require a reorganisation no less comprehensive than that introduced by Lord Haldane nearly 60 years ago. It is no longer realistic to think in terms of the Territorial Army as a force for the defence of the United Kingdom itself or as providing a framework on which general preparations can be made for a major conventional war abroad. This leaves the rôle of aid to the civil Power after a nuclear attack as the sole remaining commitment for some 60 per cent. of Reserve Army manpower. The Government have decided, in the course of the current review of home defence, that this cannot of itself justify the retention of the Territorial Army in its present form.
The future rôle of the reserves will be to provide, first, some individuals and a few units to be called out at any time to reinforce the Regular Army; secondly, the reinforcements needed to support the Regular Army in limited war; and, thirdly, such reinforcements for N.A.T.O. as our commitments require.
To meet these requirements, the Government propose a force of about 50,000 volunteer reservists. It will incorporate both the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve; and it might be called the Territorial Reserve. Volunteers of the Territorial Army have served this country well in two world wars. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I pay tribute to what they and members of the Army Emergency Reserve have done in the past and hope that the same spirit of service can be maintained in the future.
Most of the units of the new Territorial Reserve will be based on areas of the country like the present Territorial Army units; and some, like the present Army Emergency Reserve, will be recruited, trained and administered by central headquarters. A substantial proportion of the force will consist of logistic units, as the

695
Regular Army has the greatest need for reserves of this kind.
In order that the liability of the reorganised Reserve may be more closely related to the tasks to be performed, it must be similar to that of the present Army Emergency Reserve (Category I). This liability for service will be recognised by a bounty of £60 a year. Those volunteers who accept a T.A.E.R. "Ever-ready" type liability will receive a bounty of £150 a year. We foresee a need for about 8,500 of these volunteers, and we intend to give ex-Regular soldiers on the Reserve the opportunity of volunteering for the "Ever-ready" liability on the same terms as Territorial reservists. We also propose that Regulars enlisting in future should, when serving in the Regular Reserve, have call-out liabilities similar to those of the Territorial reservists. The higher state of readiness which we shall expect will be reflected in training and equipment.
It is estimated that this reorganisation will ultimately produce a saving of the order of £20 million a year.
Legislation will be needed to give effect to the changes we propose. Meanwhile, the Government hope that all existing Reserve Army units will continue to function. Training will continue in 1966–67 as planned and we have under consideration some interim increase in the rates of training bounty for next year. We shall now consult with representatives of the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations about the means by which our proposals should be given effect.
The reduction we shall be making in the size of the Reserve Army will mean that a much smaller number of Regular Army officers and men will be needed to help in its training and administration. Officers and soldiers who are required to retire prematurely will be given fair compensation.
The majority of the civilians employed by the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association and some Army Department employees will become redundant. So far as we can, we shall offer them alternative employment; but, failing this, the normal superannuation arrangements will apply to Ministry of Defence (Army Department) employees and compensation will
696
be provided for T.A. Association employees.
It is the intention to publish details of our proposals in a White Paper in the late autumn, but I thought it important that the House should be told their main outline now.
Mr. Soames: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the comparison which he has made of the reforms that he has announced with those of Lord Haldane is totally false inasmuch as Lord Haldane created a Reserve Army and the right hon. Gentleman is destroying it? The reduction of the order which he announced spells effectively the end of the Territorial Army as we have known it and of the safeguards which it provides for the nation to meet any unforeseen eventuality. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we will wish to study the statement, with all its ramifications, and the White Paper which he mentioned? Meanwhile, may I ask him three questions?
First, how many of the 50,000 which he mentioned will be from the Territorial Army? Secondly, the present establishment of the Territorial Army is 86 infantry battalions, 20 armoured regiments and 45 gunnery regiments. How many of these will remain under his plan, and how many of the total 50,000 will be in these arms? Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was withdrawing from the Territorial Army the rôle of aid to the civil Power after a nuclear attack. Does this mean that the Government intend to abandon all further expenditure on civil defence?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we deplore the fact that this decision, with all its far-reaching effects, should have been taken partly to relieve the economic pressure which has been created by the Government's policies and partly as a sop to the Left wing of his party, whose avowed desire is to reduce the country's defences?
Mr. Healey: I think that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that those last remarks were totally unworthy of him in the responsible position which he now holds. He asked a number of questions, and I shall seek to answer them, although of necessity my answers may be as long as the questions which provoked them.

697
First, on the Lord Haldane analogy, the situation of Britain and of Britain's defence problems has changed very substantially in the last 60 years, as they changed in the 60 years preceding Lord Haldane's reforms. Any Government would be failing in their duty to the nation if they did not tailor their defence forces to the real needs of the present time.
The present Reserve Army system, for which the right hon. Gentleman is personally responsible—he introduced it in 1960—costs us £38 million a year and it wastes a lot of men and money on forces which we do not need and fails to provide forces which we do need. Two-thirds of the members of the Territorial Army are committed to a home defence rôle which is not justified and has little to do with what most of them volunteered for. The other one-third cannot easily be used for the purposes for which they are really needed and for which they joined because they have the wrong sort of liability and inadequate training and equipment. We are proposing, instead, a streamlined force specifically tailored to meet the real military needs of the nation. We shall also save the nation £20 million a year.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me how many of the 50,000 new reservists will come from the Territorial Army. I would estimate about 80 per cent. He asked me about the units and the proportion of teeth to tail in the new reserve. Half of the new reserve will be teeth arms, and, of those, half will be armoured units, artillery and infantry, and half engineers and signals. The other half of the total will be logistic units. Some of the units which we are proposing to keep in combatant teeth arms will be an armoured "recce" regiment, four artillery regiments, two S.A.S. battalions, one "para" battalion and 13 infantry battalions corresponding to the brigades of infantry in the Regular Army and not to the present county basis on which the Territorial Army is organised.
Finally, on the home defence rôle, it is certainly not the Government's intention that expenditure on home defence shall cease. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be putting proposals in ibis field to the House in the near future. However, I must say to the
698
right hon. Gentleman that it is quite clear, as a result of the studies which we have made, that there is no case for spending £20 million a year of the defence budget to provide support for the civil authorities in the post-nuclear phase of a nuclear war. In the first place, if we try to prepare for every single contingency, we will bankrupt ourselves. This is an unlikely contingency. Moreover, if it came about, conditions of unimaginable horror would supervene, and it is entirely speculative whether the Territorial Army would be of great value in such a situation.
What is clear as a result of the inquiries which we have made is that to provide an adequate force along these lines for civil defence in the post-nuclear phase would cost a great deal more than the £20 million at present allocated to this purpose by the previous Government.
Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the decision which the Government have reached in no way detracts from the valuable services rendered by the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations in the past, but that a drastic change is required in our reserve forces? Does he know that for several years past many high-ranking military officers and experts have advocated a substantial and drastic change in the reserve forces and that it has been argued effectively that our reserve forces, whatever name may be given to them and however they are designated, should be closely allied to the regular force of the Army? Further, is he aware that we welcome the decision which the Government have taken?
Mr. Healey: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I should like to pay a personal tribute to the service provided to the Territorial Army by many Members of the House, including, I think, the new Leader of the Opposition. But situations change, but what has not changed is the need for men of public spirit to serve in a volunteer capacity as a reserve in the country's forces. This opportunity is provided by the new structure which we have in mind. I hope and believe that the existing Territorial Army Associations and the Territorial Council will co-operate with us in working out the details of the scheme which will preserve in the new organisation which we propose as much

699
as is humanly possible of the existing Territorial Army organisation and spirit.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: The House must be somewhat amazed by the dogmatism which the right hon. Gentleman has displayed about the likely future pattern of war. I hope that he has read what Lord Montgomery said, namely, that only one thing is certain about war and that is its uncertainty. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look again at this question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the question of the need for a territorial basis for civil defence and help to the civil Powers? This seems to be entirely lacking as far as we can see.
Finally, when he comes to review home defence as a whole—and I agree that the cutting back of some aspects of civil defence would be quite right—would he consider whether there should be some form of home defence on a Territorial or Reserve Army basis, which is, I believe, essential to this country?
Mr. Healey: I am deeply aware that decisions in this respect are bound to be based on inadequate evidence and to require a large element of judgment. But the plain fact is that we cannot shirk our responsibility to the nation to use our judgment in taking the best decision which we believe possible on the evidence available. If we attempted to prepare for every conceivable contingency, we should be bankrupt. Moreover, we would fail to be properly prepared for contingencies which seem most likely. The Government have not taken this decision without the most careful thought about its implications and consequences.
On the other question which the right hon. Gentleman asked, as I said, the Home Secretary will be putting forward proposals for the reorganisation of home defence as a whole, taking account of the decision already taken by the Government that further expenditure on the Territorial Army in this rôle is not justified.
Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, however strong our sentimental and emotional ties may be with the old units, I, at any rate, recognise that their rôle is wholly incredible in the modern context and that it is certainly not only
700
from the Left wing of the party that my right hon. Friend can look for support in attempts to readjust our defences to the realities of our situation?
Mr. Healey: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I would point out that nobody who knows the problems of the Territorial Army believes that it should and could continue as at present. The Territorial Army Council itself has put forward proposals which we considered before making up our minds. I think that the Bow Group also made proposals very much on the lines which I have put to the House this afternoon.
Sir Richard Glyn: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what, if any, organisation will take over the vital third echelon rôle hitherto carried out by the T.A., without which the civil defence could never cope with any emergency, should one arise? Who will be responsible for the defence of this country against invasion should a conventional enemy force ever reach the Channel ports? Are not the Government wagering the future safety of the country in the supposition and assumption that there will never again be a major war of any kind in Europe?
Mr. Healey: No, Sir. As I pointed out, one important rôle for the new Reserve Army will be to provide reinforcements to N.A.T.O., to which we are committed by our present obligations. We have to consider what contingencies are likely. We do not believe that it is likely that we shall have to meet a major land invasion of these islands by conventional forces or that this is a contingency which it is right for us to spend the taxpayers' money on preparing for. Even if we did think that, we certainly could not hope that the Territorial Army, in its present form, would meet that need.
Mr. Bellenger: It must be obvious to the House from the complexity of my right hon. Friend's statement, and the technical questions put to him from the Front Bench opposite, that the House needs an opportunity to examine the details of his statement and then debate it. Therefore, I have only one question to ask him and that is about the county associations. In all that he has explained to us, is it not essential that we should keep the county associations and try to bring the reserves within their orbit,

701
because they are and have been for a long time in touch with the trade unions and the employers and are best able to recruit the volunteer reserve forces which we need?
Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. First of all, the Territorial Associations will remain, carrying exactly their present responsibilities, until the reorganisation is complete, some time in 1968. We hope that they will remain after that, though, necessarily, their responsibilities will then be different, because we intend that the administration of the new Reserve Army shall be the responsibility of the Regular Army. But one of the matters on which we want the closest consultation with the Territorial Council and with the County Associations is on what is the most useful rôle which the Associations can play when the new Reserve Army is fully formed.
Mr. Hooson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was an overwhelming case for the reorganisation of the Reserve Army, that this has to take place, and that any responsible Government would have to take this step unless the country were prepared to run at some time the risk of bankruptcy? This applies to all Government Departments. Bearing this in mind, would he say what he means, in this context, by saying that "ultimately" there will be a saving of £20 million per annum? In how many years can we look forward to this saving?
Mr. Healey: It is the Government's intention to introduce legislation next year, following the publication of the White Paper giving the details of our proposals. This will mean that the reorganisation can begin to take effect in 1967 and I hope that the physical side of the reorganisation will be completed by the end of 1968. The full saving of £20 million a year may not be achieved until 1969.
Mr. Goodhart: Is the Secretary of State aware that this cut, which apparently involves the elimination of 80 per cent. of the Territorial Army's present infantry strength, will mean that the Territorial Army will cease to operate in large areas, particularly in country districts? Will he bear in mind that the cut will also have a very serious effect on the Regular Army itself? Apart from the possible damage to recruiting, it is
702
also true that this will affect the careers structures of every senior officer and, particularly, every senior N.C.O. Is he looking at this question?
Mr. Healey: I am fully aware that this decision will come as a bitter blow to many members of the Territorial Army. I regret this as much as they do, but I believe the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) was right to say that a Government who failed to take this step would have been irresponsible in their duty to the taxpayer and in their duty to provide the Regular forces with the sort of reserves which they need and can use.
On the question of some county areas being so sparse in volunteers that it will be impossible to form units there, this will, unfortunately, be true, though it will be possible, even in those areas, for men to volunteer for that part of the new reserve forces which consists primarily of individual reinforcements for Regular Army units.
On the other question, about the careers structure, a large number of officers and senior N.C.O.s will become surplus to the Reserve Army as a result of the reorganisation. If we attempted to reabsorb those men in the normal Regular Army there would be a total collapse of the careers structure and no promotion in many branches for many years. For that reason, we decided that it would be right to allow an equivalent number of officers and senior N.C.O.s to retire prematurely with suitable and fair compensation in order to preserve regular forces which have a careers structure sufficient to attract the necessary recruits.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock and, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), Mr. Speaker shall this day, in the case of every Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [26TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  REPORT [28th July]

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1965–66; DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1965–66; NAVY EXPENDITURE, ARMY EXPENDITURE, AIR SERVICES EXPENDITURE, 1963–64
    Resolutions reported,
    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1956–66
    CLASS I
    VOTE 3. TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS
    1. That a sum, not exceeding £3,196,000, 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 Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments and of the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and two Ministers without Portfolio.
    VOTE 4. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
    2. That a sum, not exceeding £984,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £215,000), 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 Department of Her Majesty's First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, of the National Economic Development Council, and of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and for certain grants in aid.
    CLASS I
    3. That a sum, not exceeding £68,149,250, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. House of Lords

    247,000

    2. House of Commons

    1,955,000

    5. Privy Council Office

    38,000

    6. Post Office Ministers

    7,250

    7. Customs and Excise

    17,750,000

    8. Inland Revenue

    46,761,000

    9. Exchequer and Audit Department

    480,000

    10. Civil Service Commission

    547,000

    11. Royal Commissions, etc.

    364,000

    £68,149,250

    CLASS II
    4. That a sum not exceeding £127,576,000, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Diplomatic Service

    20,811,000

    2. Foreign Services (including a Supplementary sum of £768,000)

    12,870,000

    3. British Council

    3,862,000

    4. Commonwealth Services (including a Supplementary sum of £232,000)

    15,805,000

    5. Colonial Office (including a Supplementary sum of £145,000)

    4,822,000

    6. Colonial Grants and Loans (including a Supplementary sum of £5,000)

    7,114,000

    7. Ministry of Overseas Development

    1,541,000

    8. Overseas Aid (Multilateral)

    3,613,000

    9. Overseas Aid (Bilateral) (including a Supplementary sum of £4,210,000)

    35,355,000

    10. Overseas Aid (General Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000)

    14,367,000

    11. Overseas Aid (Colonial Development and Welfare)

    6,500,000

    12. Commonwealth War Graves Commission

    916,000

    127,576,000

    CLASS III
    5. That a sum, not exceeding £118,261,000, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Home Office

    11,050,000

    2. Scottish Home and Health Department

    1,815,000

    3. Home Office (Civil Defence Services)

    9,250,000

    4. Scottish Home and Health Department (Civil Defence Services)

    1,393,000

    5. Police, England and Wales

    57,740,000

    6. Police, Scotland

    8,968,000

    7. Prisons, England and Wales

    15,805,000

    8. Prisons, Scotland

    2,166,000

    9. Child Care, England and Wales

    3,230,000

    10. Child Care, Scotland

    780,000

    11. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc. (including a Supplementary sum of £2,000)

    53,000

    12. County Courts

    680,000

    13. Legal Aid Fund

    4,194,000

    705

    £

    14. Law Charges

    693,000

    15. Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland

    375,000

    16. Supreme Court of Judicature, &c., Northern Ireland

    69,000

    118,261,000

    CLASS IV
    6. That a sum, not exceeding £511,830,600, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Board of Trade

    5,740,000

    2. Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports, &c., and Shipping and Other Services)

    5,043,000

    3. Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment)

    27,961,000

    4. Export Credits

    900

    5. Export Credits (Special Guarantees, &c.)

    900

    6. Ministry of Labour

    23,646,000

    7. Ministry of Aviation

    172,200,000

    8. Ministry of Aviation (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)

    900

    9. Ministry of Aviation (Special Materials)

    28,300,000

    10. Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services

    7,866,000

    11. Ministry of Transport

    3,090,000

    12. Roads, &c., England

    124,998,000

    13. Roads, &c., Scotland

    19,881,000

    14. Roads, &c., Wales

    12,430,000

    15. Transport Services

    4,372,000

    16. Transport (Railways Waterways Boards)

    55,682,000

    17. Ministry of Power

    2,432,000

    18. Ministry of Technology

    8,761,000

    19. Atomic Energy

    9,425,000

    20. Atomic Energy (Trading Fund Services)

    900

    511,830,600

    CLASS V
    7. That a sum, not exceeding £216,579,900, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

    16,374,000

    2. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (including a Supplementary sum of £151,000)

    6,417,000

    706

    £

    3. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies) (including a Supplementary sum of £550,000)

    55,771,000

    4. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies) (including a Supplementary sum of £265,000)

    11,277,000

    5. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Price Guarantees)

    104,833,000

    6. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Price Guarantees)

    9,704,000

    7. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural and Food Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £26,000)

    7,130,000

    8. Food (Strategic Reserves)

    900

    9. Fishery Grants and Services

    3,316,000

    10. Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry

    1,757,000

    216,579,900

    CLASS VI
    8. That a sum, not exceeding £1,929,690,800, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (including a Supplementary sum of £200,000)

    16,682,000

    2. Scottish Development Department

    2,705,000

    3. Welsh Office

    1,352,000

    4. Housing, England

    51,736,000

    5. Housing, Scotland

    10,947,000

    6. Housing, Wales

    3,376,000

    7. General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

    457,240,000

    8. General Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland

    46,530,000

    9. Rate Deficiency Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

    113,870,000

    10. Equalisation and Transitional Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland

    16,330,000

    11. Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (including a Supplementary sum of £125,000)

    600,000

    12. Forestry Commission

    8,694,000

    13. Ministry of Health

    3,706,000

    707

    £

    14. National Health Service &c. (Hospital Services, &c.). England and Wales

    371,178,000

    15. National Health Service (Executive Councils' Services), England and Wales including a Supplementary sum of £5,218,000)

    158,558,000

    16. Miscellaneous Health and Welfare Services, England and Wales

    32,171,000

    17. National Health Service (Superannuation, &c.), England and Wales

    900

    18. National Health Service, &c, Scotland (including a Supplementary sum of £590,000)

    72,003,000

    19 National Health Service (Superannuation, &c), Scotland

    900

    20. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance

    5,716,000

    21. National Insurance

    205,600,000

    22. Family Allowances

    95,975,000

    23. National Assistance Board

    175,168,000

    24. War Pensions, &c.

    79,552,000

    1,929,690,800

    CLASS VII
    9. That a sum, not exceeding, £269,269,900, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, viz:—

    £

    1. Department of Education Science

    3,341,000

    2. Education: Departmental (England and Wales) (including a Supplementary sum of £185,000)

    84,854,000

    3. Awards to Students (England and Wales)

    1,308,000

    4. Scottish Education Department

    17,403,000

    5. Teachers' Superannuation (England and Wales)

    900

    6. Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland)

    113,000

    7. Universities and Colleges, &c, Great Britain

    128,074,000

    8. Science Research Council

    18,090,000

    9. Natural Environment Research Services (Revised sum)

    -757,000

    9A. Natural Environment Research Council

    3,457,000

    10. Medical Research Council

    6,852,000

    11. Agricultural Research Council

    6,208,000

    12. Grants for Science

    326,000

    269,269,900

    CLASS VIII
    10. That a sum, not exceeding £5,529,000, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. British Museum

    907,000

    2. British Museum (Natural History)

    589,000

    3. Science Museum

    298,000

    4. Victoria and Albert Museum

    529,000

    5. Imperial War Museum

    91,000

    6. London Museum

    50,000

    7. National Gallery

    114,000

    8. National Maritime Museum

    103,000

    9. National Portrait Gallery

    45,000

    10. Tate Gallery

    91,000

    11. Wallace Collection

    44,000

    12. Royal Scottish Museum, &c. (Revised sum)

    102,000

    13. National Galleries of Scotland

    55,000

    14. National Library of Scotland

    89,000

    15. National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland

    25,000

    15A. National Museum of Wales and National Library of Wales

    497,000

    16. Grants for the Arts (Revised sum)

    1,900,000

    5,529,000

    CLASS IX
    11 That a sum, not exceeding £235,316,800, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Ministry of Public Building and Works

    21,100,000

    2. Public Buildings, &c, United Kingdom

    39,785,000

    3. Public Buildings Overseas

    5,811,000

    4. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Navy Department)

    20,837,000

    5. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Army Department)

    41,415,000

    6. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Air Force Department)

    29,078,000

    7. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Aviation

    6,965,000

    8. Works and Buildings for Royal Ordnance Factories

    868,000

    9. Houses of Parliament Buildings (including a Supplementary sum of £90,000)

    583,000

    10. Royal Palaces

    580,000

    11. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    965,000

    709

    £

    12. Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments

    1,009,000

    13. Rates on Government Property (including a Supplementary sum of £2,103,000)

    15,045,000

    14. Stationery and Printing

    13,775,000

    15. Central Office of Information

    6,200,000

    16. Government Actuary

    29,000

    17. Government Hospitality

    100,000

    18. Civil Superannuation, etc.

    31,170,000

    19. Post Office Superannuation, etc.

    900

    20. Additional Married Quarters for the Ministry of Defence

    900

    235,316,800

    CLASS X
    12. That a sum, not exceeding £5,376,400, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Charity Commission

    250,000

    2. Crown Estate Office

    133,000

    3. Friendly Societies Registry

    99,000

    4. Royal Mint

    900

    5. National Debt Office

    900

    6. Publics Works Loan Commission

    900

    7. Public Trustee

    900

    8. Land Registry

    900

    9. Office of the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements

    132,000

    10. Ordnance Survey

    2,729,000

    11. Public Record Office

    157,000

    12. Scottish Record Office

    51,000

    13. Registrar General's Office

    615,000

    14. Registrar General's Office, Scotland

    96,000

    15. Department of the Registers of Scotland

    900

    16. National Savings Committee

    1,109,000

    5,376,400

    CLASS XI
    13. That a sum, not exceeding £71,129,800, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class XI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Broadcasting (including a Supplementary sum of £11,600,000)

    56,497,000

    2. Carlisle State Management District

    900

    710

    £

    3. State Management Districts, Scotland

    900

    4. Pensions, etc. (India, Pakistan and Burma)

    3,991,000

    5. Supplements to Pensions, etc. (Overseas Services)

    1,232,000

    6. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.

    641,000

    7. Irish Land Purchase Services

    495,000

    8. Development Fund

    451,000

    9. Secret Service

    6,000,000

    10. President Kennedy Memorial Appeal

    500,000

    11. Miscellaneous Expenses (including a Supplementary sum of £19,000)

    781,000

    12. Winston Churchill Memorial Fund

    500,000

    13. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

    40,000

    71,129,800

    DEFENCE (CENTRAL) ESTIMATES, 1965–66
    14. That a sum, not exceeding £19,059,000, 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 Central Defence Staffs, the Defence Secretariat and the Central Defence Scientific Staff and of certain Joint Service Establishments; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, includinig international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.
    DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1965–66
    15. That a sum, not exceeding £391,737,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.:—

    £

    2. Royal Naval Reserves

    1,377,000

    3. Navy Department Headquarters

    11,856,000

    6. Naval Stores, Armament, Victualling and other Material Supply Services

    191,120,000

    7. H.M. Ships, Aircraft and Weapons, New Construction and Repairs

    177,993,000

    8. Miscellaneous Effective Services

    9,391,000

    391,737,000

    DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1965–66
    16. That a sum, not exceeding £322,720,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz.:—

    £

    3. Army Department Headquarters

    6,600,000

    4. Civilians at Outstations

    117,140,000

    711

    £

    5. Movements

    23,320,000

    6. Supplies

    45,960,000

    7. Stores and Equipment

    115,000,000

    10. Defence Lands and Buildings

    14,700,000

    322,720,000

    DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1965–66
    17. That a sum, not exceeding £138,560,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:—

    £

    3. Air Force Department Headquarters

    4,780,000

    4. Civilians at Outstations and the Meteorological Office

    45,820,000

    5. Movements

    19,600,000

    6. Supplies

    50,750,000

    9. Non-effective Services

    17,610,000

    138,560,000

    NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1963–64
    18. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £3,187,789 12s. 2d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March 1964, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes, as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 1st February 1965 (H.C. 81) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 224).
    ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1963–64
    19. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £1,161,976 4s. 11d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March 1964, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to one Vote for those Services and to meet a deficit in receipts on the same Vote not offset by a saving in expenditure, as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 29th January 1965 (H.C. 96) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 224).
    AIR SERVICES EXPENDITURE, 1963–64
    20. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £656,417 16s. 11d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March 1964, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes, as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 15th February 1965 (H.C. 104) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 224).
    Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order, to put forthwith with respect to each Resolution the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
    Resolutions agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS [28th July]
  Resolution reported,
  That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, the sum of £4,434,965,450 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. MacDermot.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)
  Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1966, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

  LABOUR PARTY (ELECTION PLEDGES)
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Barber: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the Government's failure to honour their election pledges.
  As we approach the day when we rise for the Summer Recess, I think that both sides of the House will agree that it is not inappropriate to take stock of the events of this first Session of the Labour Government and, in particular, in this debate today, to ponder the contrast between promise and performance which, in a democracy, is rightly one of the most influential criteria governing the decisions of the electorate.
  In the main, I propose to concern myself not with the casual proposals and promises of those Labour Members of little significance in their party, but with the specific election pledges made in the Labour Party's General Election manifesto and with pledges made by those who are now members of the Labour Government.
  We are concerned in this debate not merely with a profusion of broken promises, which I shall show is on a scale unparalleled in modern times, but also—and I think that this is of more fundamental importance—with the effect of electoral deceit on the status of political life in this country. I say that because although politics in a free society is bound inevitably to throw up some men who command little respect, we have hitherto been fortunate, unlike many other countries, in attracting into Parliament, in the main, men and women of sincere convictions and high purpose.
  But we shall not continue to do so if politics is thought of merely as a game in which one party is prepared to outbid the other with cynical disregard for the implementation of the pledges which they give. It is no good the First Secretary putting his hand on his forehead like that. I shall refer to him in a few minutes and to some of the things which he said during the General Election.
  I believe that when the history of these times comes to be written the apposite chapter heading for last October's Socialist victory will be, "The Great Deception". The Government, in their
  714
  first Session, have dissipated virtually every ounce of good will with which they came to office, and they have done so not merely because they have exhibited a degree of incompetence which I think must have surprised even the Prime Minister at times; they have done so not merely because they have failed to fulfil the expectations of last October; they have lost the good will of the nation primarily because it is now clear to those who voted Socialist last October that they were the victims of a political swindle.
  Let me turn to some of the specific promises made by Labour leaders. If I start with taxation I do so for three reasons. First, there were no promises made by the Leaders of the Labour Party at the last election which had wider coverage than those concerning taxation. Secondly, because Socialism has always been associated, I believe quite rightly, with high and rising taxation, a specific promise not to increase taxation was calculated to have, and did have, a profound effect on the uncommitted voter. Thirdly, there is no more blatent example of political deception than this particular promise.
  Let me remind the House of the record—and I am pleased that the Prime Minister is to reply to the debate, because I want, first, to remind the House once again of the words used by the right hon. Gentleman himself when he appeared before millions of television viewers on 15th September. This is what he said:
  we can"
  carry out our programme
  "without any general increase in taxation."
  Does the right hon. Gentleman still stand by that statement? If he does will he now endorse that pledge by promising that during the lifetime of this Parliament taxation will be reduced by £500 million a year, the amount by which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already increased it, for there is no other way of redeeming that pledge? I will willingly give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to intervene now.
  Hon. Members: Get on.
  Mr. Barber: In that case I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer this question when he replies to the debate.
  It was not only the Prime Minister. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who, for years, as we all know,

  715
  had been the architect of the Labour Party's taxation policy—and I am pleased to see him in his place this afternoon—made this misguided promise, that Labour
  "will not need to increase the general level of taxation to pay for its programme."
  And, finally, the unequivocal undertaking of the man who it was known at the time would be the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the event of the Labour Party gaining power—and who is today, in fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could hardly have made himself clearer when he said in his speech on the eve of the poll:
  "The whole basis of our case is that increased social expenditure will be financed out of the growing expansion of British industry."
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Barber: Before hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer, there is a little more of that quotation. As if to make doubly sure that he got the votes he was seeking, he rammed home the point with these words:
  "As far as we are concerned, the fulfilment of our social programme depends upon the achievement of a faster rate of growth in the economy."
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Barber: I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will cheer the next sentence which was uttered by the Chancellor:
  "We shall not cash cheques until the money is in the bank."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): Hear, hear.
  Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear", but what is the simple truth? What has actually happened? Within six months of taking office the right hon. Gentleman had increased taxation by no less than £500 million a year.
  Hon. Members: Why?
  Mr. Barber: Hon. Gentlemen opposite need not worry. I will be coming to the economic situation in a few moments. There is not an hon. Member in the House who would pretend that if the country had known last October what was in store for it the Labour Party would have won the three crucial marginal seats
  716
  which now give the Government their only authority to govern. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are all in favour of joy, but it cannot be wholly unconfined otherwise we cannot make progress. It is much easier to listen to one speech than to several speeches simultaneously.
  Mr. Barber: As I was saying, every hon. Member knows perfectly well that the Labour Party would not have won the last election if it had been known that when in government hon. Gentlemen opposite would increase taxation by no less than £500 million a year. The fact is that the nation was duped, and every hon. Gentleman opposite knows it. If they do not accept my words let them put both their sincerity and their record to the test by going to the country this autumn.
  Mr. Robert Maxwell rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Maxwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that had his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and all his other colleagues in the former Administration "come clean" with the nation about the £800 million deficit there would now be less than half the present number of hon. Members sitting on the benches opposite?
  Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I am saying.
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Barber: A moment ago I said that I would deal with the economic position of last October shortly.
  The tuth is that the Prime Minister dare not go to the country this autumn because he knows that not only will the nation note the contrast between their Government's promises and their performance, but that the nation will also note the contrast between the Labour Government's immediate taxation increases of £500 million a year and previous Conservative Governments' taxation cuts totalling more than £2,000 million a year.
  It is as well to remember, when considering what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has done, that during the

  717
  13 years of Conservative administration we five times reduced taxation for all taxpayers. Now, in one fell swoop, the Labour Government, running true to form, are back on the old familiar Socialist road of high and rising taxation.
  What of that other form of taxation, rates? I hope that the Prime Minister will deal with the pledges that were made concerning rates. What is preventing the Government now from honouring their pledge to give relief from rates? Why is it that the Minister of Housing and Local Government and other Ministers associated with this matter have been so coy? I remind the Prime Minister of the pledge made in the General Election manifesto of the Labour Party, a pledge to give relief to the ratepayer which was in no way qualified by reference to reviews or investigations.
  These words appeared in that manifesto:
  "We shall also seek to lighten the burden of rates which today falls heavily on those with low incomes. While the reform of the rate system and investigation of alternative forms of local government finance may take some time to accomplish, we shall seek to give early relief to ratepayers by transferring a larger part of the burden of public expenditure from the local authorities to the Exchequer."
  The people really are entitled to know why nothing has been done. We all realise that the Government, as promised, have set up an inquiry, but during the election campaign the right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Bench opposite, sniggering next to the Prime Minister, the First Secretary, went out of his way to deal with this very point. I hope that the First Secretary will take note of what he said. Perhaps he does not remember.
  Hon. Members: Get on.
  Mr. Barber: I will. The First Secretary referred to the inquiry which is now in progress and asked this simple question:
  "What are we going to do while we are waiting?"
  Then he answered his question in these words:
  "Labour will transfer some of the burden of the local ratepayers to the Government."
  What does the right hon. Gentleman say about that today? That was a clear
  718
  promise to the electors at that time and they took him at his word. They will not do so next time, and then he will have to wipe the smile from his face. I have no doubt that the First Secretary was eminently successful in securing a few thousand more votes for the Labour Party, but what a sordid way of proceeding.
  Why have the Government done nothing to help? Certainly, they cannot rely on the hackneyed excuse that they have not had enough parliamentary time, because the Minister of Housing and Local Government was presented with an ideal opportunity in December, when he had to fix the general grant to be given to local authorities for the next two years. If the right hon. Gentleman had meant to keep his promise all he had to do was simply to increase the proportion to be paid by the Exchequer. Nothing could have been more simple. But no. He chose not to do it. He deliberately acted in breach of the pledge which had been given, which was formally set out in the manifesto and endorsed by the First Secretary.
  What is even worse is that the increases in rates this year under the Labour Government have soared beyond all expectations. If the House doubts my words I will, once again, give the figures of the percentage increases in recent years. In 1960–61 the increase was 7·3 per cent.; 1961–62, 7·3 per cent.; 1962–63, 8·8 per cent.; 1963–64, 10·5 per cent.; 1964–65, 8 per cent. And now, in this first year of Socialism, the rates are going up on average by no less than 14 per cent. The Prime Minister, the First Secretary and the Minister of Housing and Local Government may all have forgotten the ratepayers, but I assure the House that the ratepayers will not so easily forget the three right hon. Gentlemen.
  As to the cost of living, I do not propose to add to the compelling evidence adduced by my hon. and right hon. Friends in yesterday's debate. I would only say that there is not a man or woman in Britain who does not now regard with unmitigated cynicism the First Secretary's election boast that the rise in the cost of living
  "… can, must and will be halted."
  For all the Labour Party's talk about co-operation with the trade unions, there is

  719
  no one, from the most humble elector to the Minister of Technology himself, who any more seriously pretends that the First Secretary's incomes policy is other than a monumental flop.
  On top of the increased taxation and the increased rates there come the increased mortgage interest rates, which are also somewhat the concern of the First Secretary of State, in view of what he said during the election. If I were to retail to the House the innumerable promises made by almost every member of the Government and every Labour candidate concerning lower interest rates for the would-be home owner, I doubt very much whether we should rise for the Summer Recess next week.
  They all stem, however, from the unequivocal promise to introduce specially favourable rates for "intending owner-occupiers", which was set out in the Labour Party's election manifesto. Of course, the masterly inactivity of the Minister of Housing and Local Government over these past few months has been common knowledge amongst those who are now having to pay the unprecedented rate of 6¾ per cent.—and, in some cases, 7 per cent.—for their mortgages.
  But only last Thursday there was a gleam of hope. It then seemed that at last something might be done to help the owner-occupier, for there appeared the following newspaper report:
  "'Exploratory talks about a possible plan for subsidising house mortgages have been taking place between the Minister of Housing and his advisers and the council of the Building Societies Associaton.'
  This was said yesterday by Mr. Donald Gould, the association's chairman. He said that an attempt was being made to find out how to implement the Government's election manifesto promises."
  That was last Thursday. By Tuesday, only five days later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had found the answer—the whole promised scheme was to be deferred indefinitely. It is no exaggeration to say that of the whole tarnished record of this Government, the unfufilled pledge to the owner-occupier is the most callous.
  I say that because—and I am sure that every hon. and right hon. Member opposite knows this, also—those who are buying their own homes are frequently, and we see this in our constituencies, among
  720
  the most over-stretched financially of our middle-class society—
  Mr. William Hamilton: What does the right hon. Gentleman know about that?
  Mr. Barber: Those people switched to the Labour Party in their tens of thousands on the promise that they were to get a better deal. The Government have had every opportunity to redeem that pledge. They have not done so.
  What reasons have been advanced for this lack of action? First, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that there was no time, but the whole world knows that but for the courageous action of a handful of hon. Members opposite the Prime Minister certainly took the view that there was time in this Session to nationalise the steel industry, and certainly there was time for a Finance Bill, which most people now agree was largely irrelevant to the difficulties we face—[Interruption.]
  The second reason put forward is that the economic situation does not permit of the promised relief, but where is the Prime Minister's conviction which he so expressly and forcefully revealed in opposition? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not so vain as to read his own speeches, but perhaps I can remind him of this one—
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): At least I write my own speeches.
  Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman will be telling us that he writes his own teleprompters soon.
  This is what the right hon. Gentleman said when in opposition:
  "As a result of the Government's monetary policies … the householder is already paying what many people will consider to be an excessive rate of interest to the building societies though, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon made clear, that cannot be laid at the doors of the building societies. It must be laid at the door of the Government's monetary policies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1957; Vol. 472, c. 948–9.]
  The right hon. Gentleman was right—let no one doubt now where the responsibility lies.
  But perhaps the most blatant breach of faith of all concerns the specific promise of an income guarantee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member

  721
  for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) for having drawn my attention to certain facts which I believe the whole House will, in view of what the Chancellor said two days ago, consider to be highly relevant. I want the House to be under no illusion as to the calculated electoral appeal of the way in which this pledge was given—and it is no good the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary of State mumbling there. This, for many people who took the Labour Party at its word, is a very serious matter indeed.
  I should also like the House to be under no illusion as to the significance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement two days ago, as I understood him to say, that there can be no question of introducing the income guarantee scheme for at least another year, and there was no hint of an undertaking that it might be introduced even after that. But, of course, even had the Chancellor of the Exchequer given such an undertaking, in view of what has happened during the past few months the whole nation would have received it as just another worthless Labour pledge.
  If anyone doubts the electoral appeal of the income guarantee scheme and its coverage among the population, let me start by quoting a short passage from the Labour Party's document "New Frontiers for Social Security". It states:
  "… in addition to our long-term reform of National Insurance, there must be a special rescue operation designed to bring immediate relief to these forgotten millions. The remedy we have in mind is a quite novel kind of Income Guarantee …"
  Then came the General Election, and the widely- publicised passage in the Prime Minister's own election address, which I am sure he will remember well. He said:
  "An income guarantee will ensure that everyone has enough to live on as of right and without recourse to National Assistance. This will come without delay."
  The Prime Minister, I understand, is to speak next in this debate, and on this matter, the whole country—or at least the millions who were enticed by that pledge—are entitled to the answer from the right hon. Gentleman himself.
  And let us have no more of this nonsense—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—about the introduction of an income guarantee, scheme being dependent on the state of the economy. This, I will tell the
  722
  benches opposite, is a very important matter for millions of people, and if hon. and right hon. Members opposite treat it as a joke, and it is known outside, it will redound only to their discredit. There can be no question of the income guarantee scheme being dependent for its introduction upon the state of the economy.
  I say that because, on this particular point, the Labour Party's election manifesto was crystal clear. The Labour Party document "The New Britain stated:
  "… we stress again that, with the exception of the early introduction of the income guarantee, the key factor in determining the speed at which new and better levels of benefit can he introduced, will be the rate at which the British economy can advance."
  "With the exception of the early introduction of the income guarantee"—the House will see that of all the social security benefits promised by the Labour Party, this was the benefit that was specifically excepted from the provision that the timing depended on economic progress.
  The Prime Minister, realising the electoral advantage to be gained by promulgating this scheme, repeatedly drove home the point during the election campaign. In a broadcast to the nation, he said:
  "… I pledge the Labour Government to urgent action to deal with this problem … to ensure to each a guaranteed and adequate income …"
  To millions of television viewers, on another occasion, he answered a question about retired people with these words:
  "What we are going to do now, and we're going to do it early because the problem is urgent and it's needed … is to provide a guaranteed minimum, below which no one will be allowed to fall."
  Then he went on to say:
  "… substantially more than the existing National Assistance scale."
  If I may divert for a moment from the misguided trust of the electorate in what the right hon. Gentleman said to the near ridiculous, there must be no more shattered Member of the Government than the right hon. Lady the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, whom I am happy to see in her place, for it was she who told the nation:
  "We have no doubt about it that with men like Harold Wilson, George Brown and Jim

  723
  Callaghan leading this country we shall be able to afford all the benefits outlined in this statement."
  It is no disrespect to the right hon. Lady to say that perhaps on this occasion we can discount her gullibility, because she is not generally a very gullible person.
  In the light of the Prime Minister's election manifesto, we are entitled to a full explanation from him. [Interruption.] It is all very well the Prime Minister once again talking to his right hon. Friend the First Secretary. I do not know whether he is discussing the answer, but I must tell him this, because we have never had an answer on the point before and he is committed on it in his election address. It will take a little more than the Prime Minister's slick banter if he is to get off this hook.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the passage from which he has just quoted he will see that of the five measures relating to social security, of which only the income guarantee was exempted from the relationship to the state of the economy, three have already been carried out.
  Mr. Barber: The hon. Member has not been following my argument with his usual perspicacity. I was referring to the income guarantee scheme. No doubt we shall have from the Prime Minister the reasons—apart from the economic ones, which are not relevant according to the "New Britain"—why it has not been introduced.
  The Prime Minister will doubtless know—I hope that he will give me his attention, because this is a matter which concerns a quarter of a million old people. The Prime Minister will doubtless know that one of the reasons which has been given consistently for turning down the proposals in the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), which, the House will remember, was intended to give the old-age pension to a quarter of a million men and women who are at present excluded, was the impending income guarantee scheme.
  As the scheme is now to be deferred for at least a year, perhaps the Prime Minister will tell us whether, next session,
  724
  the Government, if they are still in office—[HON. MEMBERS: "We will be."]—will give time for my hon. Friend's Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is nodding. I do not know whether he is giving time or simply exuding a little confidence.
  Mr. Callaghan: I was saying that we shall still be here.
  Mr. Barber: I hope that the Prime Minister will say something on this point.
  It is only because I want to leave plenty of time for my hon. Friends to develop the case which I have made that I do not propose to deal with the multitude of other pledges given by those who are now members of the Labour Government.
  Mr. Ivor Richard rose—
  Mr. Barber: I cannot give way. I do not want to take too long. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he will not give way, no bullying will make him.
  Mr. Barber: I will give way to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Richard: I am obliged. A quarter of an hour ago the right hon. Gentleman promised that he would deal specifically with the economic situation last October. Does he and his party accept responsibility for the balance of payments situation as it was on 15th October, 1964? If he does, will the right hon. Gentleman answer, on behalf of his party, one simple question which we have asked for the last 10 months: should we, faced with that situation, have raised any taxes at all, and, if so, what?
  Mr. Barber: The hon. Member will not alter my speech one iota—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—for the simple reason that I intended to deal with that precise point.
  There is not time to deal with all the pledges, for example, the pledge given, I do not doubt, in all sincerity by a member of the Administration for whom I have a great respect, and that is my successor at the Ministry of Health. I refer to the pledge, of which the Prime

  725
  Minister knows because he has dealt with it in the past, to set up four new medical schools at least. I was Minister of Health at the time when that pledge was given and I know the impact which it made on the family doctor. Perhaps the Prime Minister will tell us when he speaks whether this pledge is also discarded.
  What about the hospital building programme? The Prime Minister, in his election address, promised—[Interruption.] I wish that the First Secretary would stop interrupting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] This is a question which, I am sure, the Prime Minister will want to answer, because in his election address he promised that the hospital building programme would be revised. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends what the result of that revision has been to date. As to building projects costing more than £100,000, there are to be no new ones this year. Twenty of the major projects which I approved for starting this year have now been posponed by the Minister of Health. No doubt the Prime Minister will wish to comment on this, because so far we have not had an answer on this point from any right hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt rose—
  Mr. Barber: I cannot give way. I do not want to take too long.
  Other pledges were held out for higher education, technical colleges and universities. I understand that the building of these is now to be postponed in accordance with the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday. I would not dream of entering the preserve of the Left-wing members of the Labour Party, so I leave them to pursue the pledges concerning the nationalisation of steel and nuclear policy.
  On Monday, we are to have a debate on the economic situation. When I appeared on television with the First Secretary on Tuesday night, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced his measures, the First Secretary admitted that his right hon. Friend, in his statement, had given no reasons for the sudden switch in policy over the previous 12 days. I wish, therefore, as we are
  726
  to have a debate on the economic situation on Monday, to make only one point, which is relevant to this debate and which is the point raised by the two hon. Members in their interventions, a point which I intended to deal with in any event because it is relevant to the question of election pledges.
  On Tuesday, the Chancellor in his statement, discarded one pledge after another. To the Prime Minister and to the two hon. Members who have intervened, I say that the time has now passed, for reasons which I will explain, when anyone in his right senses can any longer accept as an excuse the reference back to the situation last October. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I will explain why.
  Mr. Richard: Answer the question.
  Mr. Barber: Certainly, by the time of the autumn Budget in November last year—nobody will deny this—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sure he will agree, at that time was in full possession of all the facts. He pretended to the nation that there were things he had not known until he got into office, but by November he was certainly in full possession of the facts, and he then introduced his autumn Budget and he told the House that he deemed it to be enough.
  Then, in his April Budget, the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind again, and again he told us that he was taking all the action he then deemed to be necessary. He told us so in his Budget speech. Then, on Third Reading of the Finance Bill, when the Chancellor followed me, he gratuitously made this statement to the House about his taxation proposals, and as it is so important and quite short I propose to remind the House of it.
  The right hon. Gentleman said this—only 13 or 14 days ago:
  "There is a temptation to assume, because the effects of these measures"—
  those were his Budget measures—
  "are not immediately obvious, that we should rush into further measures which would have the effect of restraining the economy even more. This would be an unfortunate thing to do and I am resisting the temptation to do it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 911.]
  That was only a fortnight ago to the day. The electorate, in the light of those proposals, can draw only one conclusion,

  727
  and that is that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have failed.
  On 15th October last year the Prime Minister set himself the objective of 100 days' dynamic action. What the right hon. Gentleman has achieved is nine months of creeping disillusion. The nation is sick and tired of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government. They have forfeited the confidence of the British people. They have forfeited the confidence of our friends abroad.
  Mr. Richard rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member persists in interrupting I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.
  Mr. Barber: I would conclude by saying this to the right hon. Gentleman. If he has a jot of statesmanship left in him let him put the national interest first. Let him go to the country.
  4.52 p.m.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
  "congratulates the Government on the progress so far made with the implementation of its election pledges, expresses its confidence that, contrary to the precedent of the past 13 years, the Government will in succeeding Sessions carry out in full the pledges made to the nation in its election manifesto, and regrets that throughout this present Session Her Majesty's Opposition have failed to put forward any evidence of alternative policies to enable the nation to rid itself of the economic difficulties bequeathed by the outgoing Government".
  In moving this Amendment, my first task, an agreeable one, is to compliment the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) on his election as leader of his party. I am not going to inflict on him the traditional courtesy of saying that I hope he will be there a long time and have a long and happy life on that Bench. We always say this on these occasions. I am sure he will. What I do want to say is that, as the House knows, it is necessary for the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister to have many discussions of a kind which lead to the effective working of this House, and I look forward in the discussions to the same courtesies as I always had from the right hon. Gentleman the Member
  728
  for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), whether he was on this side of the House or the other.
  Perhaps, secondly, I ought to explain to the House why I am speaking in this debate and hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on Monday also. It is not because of the desire to hog the time of the House. It is simply this, that we understood from the party opposite, before the events of the past week, that they would be putting down three Motions of censure; first, on the cost of living, which we had yesterday; the second, covering the whole broad record of the Government in relation to their election pledges, and a third one specifically related to economics, which is for next Monday. My right hon. Friends and I thought it right in those circumstances that the Ministers most directly concerned with economics should speak on Monday, and that in this debate, covering the whole range of Government policy, it would be appropriate that I should speak. This was before we knew the change of leadership in the party opposite was coming and knew that they wanted the debate next Monday to be a general one. I fully agree with their feeling that I should take part in that debate, too, but it was too late, of course, to alter the arrangements under which I was to speak in this debate today. I only hope the House will not get too tired of my voice in two successive debates.
  I now turn to the Motion which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber). It is the most bizarre censure Motion I have ever seen in my twenty years' experience of this House, and I am going to say why. First, what it does is to complain that we have in less than 300 days not yet done all the things that hon. and right hon. Members opposite failed to do or neglected to do, or refused to do or did not know how to do, not in 300 but nearly 5,000 days.
  The second reason why I regard it as such an odd Motion is that it is presented as the culmination of a process we have been noting recently—a hypocritical identification of the party opposite with the needs and problems of various groups in the country be they ratepayers, be they owner-occupiers, be they council house tenants, regional hospital boards, or those who would have

  729
  been affected by the Bill of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave)—all those categories for whom right hon. Gentlemen opposite did less than nothing for 13 years. Suddenly—
  Dame Irene Ward rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Dame Irene Ward: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will bear in mind—will he not?—that for 13 years the Conservative Party was supported by the voters of the country.
  The Prime Minister: I find that interesting. It is true that the Conservative Party was in power for 13 years. That was the point I was trying to make. But now we find that hon. and right hon. Members opposite suddenly get worked up about groups of people covered by what is now commonly known as the Airey Neave Bill, although they did nothing about them for 13 years. Now suddenly they are expressing their concern because they are in Opposition. If they had shown then one-tenth as much of the concern which they affect to show now, we should not have to face such problems as we do, social as well as economic.
  The third point about this Motion is that it is really designed to conceal one very serious development we have noticed in our Parliamentary affairs, the fact that we now have an Opposition which in nine months has produced not a single proposal of policy on a single issue—except on immigration, where we have had two contradictory ones; and whether it has been on legislation, whether it has been in Supply debates, or censure Motion debates, every time we have had no proposition put forward and so must assume that hon. and right hon. Members opposite are clinging still in every particular to policies that have demonstrably failed the nation and which were adjudged by the nation as having failed.
  I cannot remember an Opposition—not even in 1945–50, which was a much better one—which has relied so much on destructive criticism and put forward no alternatives to Government policies. It is all right to demand reductions in Government expenditure, as they do, but whether under the late leader, and also, I am sure,
  730
  under their new one, the Opposition have opposed every cut in Government expenditure we have proposed. It is all fun, but it is not opposition, and it is certainly not credible alternative Government.
  On every Bill we have put forward they have either presented outright opposition, as in their campaign against our proposals for the modernisation of the tax structure, or they have paraded a hypocritical pretence of accepting a Measure which in their hearts they oppose, but accepting it because they feared the electoral consequences of opposing it. They give the impression of willing the end, and then shortly afterwards we find them trying to win uncovenanted electoral benefit by opposing the means, especially if the means involve finance. Again, we have seen them fall back on the last refuge of a timorous and divided opposition by saying that they agree with what we are doing but oppose the way we are doing it. That is what we get all the time.
  Mr. Paul Bryan: Has the Prime Minister mixed up his two speeches? The debate today is on the Government's pledges.
  The Prime Minister: That is the second interruption to which I have given way that did not add very much. I am going to deal with every point that has been made about pledges, but I am beginning by analysing the motives for the Motion, what is behind it, and what it seeks to cover up.
  Before I come to the detailed charges made by the right hon. Gentleman, I am going to make two general points about the pledges that we gave in and before the election. The first was that our programme was for a full Parliament, not for a single Session, nor even for two Sessions. There were many who doubted our ability to carry through such a programme in a four-or five-year Parliament. Now they complain because we did not do it in nine months.
  Secondly, I want to make clear that, in carrying through this programme, we said many times before the election that there must be priorities, priorities in legislation and financial priorilies. My right hon. Friends and I made that clear when we spoke on television and in our speeches

  731
  everywhere, not only during the election campaign but for a long time before that. I have the quotations here.
  We also said that it would be necessary to deal with the economic state that we inherited. That was made clear. In the event—and I shall be coming to this later—we found that the financial problem, the balance of payments deficit, was worse than we had expected, far worse than the country had been led to believe in the repeated utterances of the then Conservative Leader, of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of the present Leader of the Opposition.
  We found that the power and ability of British industry to get up and expand exports and to provide competitive resistance to rapidly increasing imports of manufactured goods was far less than we could have expected, and one cannot galvanise an industrial system, build new factories, encourage investment and make innovations to the point required in a few months, and nobody ever thought that it could be done. It has been a longer and tougher job, and every day that goes past provides further evidence of the effects on Britain of, first, 12 years of drift and then one year of cynical electioneering.
  I turn now to our record, and I deal first with legislation. Since November there have gone through this House, or will have, I trust, by next Thursday, 65 Bills, a pretty good record. That is two more than was achieved in the previous Session by a Government with a majority of 100, and 14 more than the average for 1951 to 1964, despite the amount of time that we spent on the Finance Bill a few weeks ago.
  But there is another point to consider, and here I am dealing with the Parliamentary bottleneck and carrying out our pledges. An in-coming Government do not normally have, as a continuing Government do, a sheaf of Bills drafted and ready for introduction. However fully policies may have been prepared, it takes time to prepare instructions to Parliamentary Counsel, and still more time, in some cases many months, to get a major Bill drafted. When we came in there was not even a draft Pension Bill on the stocks. It was not there.
  732
  The comparison so far as Parliamentary preparation is concerned should be with the last change of Government, which was in 1951, when they had the same problem, and I invite hon. Gentlemen opposite to see how much they got through in that year. I say nothing of the abysmal unpopularity which they faced at the end of nine months, but I ask them to consider their legislative achievements. I have checked on this. There were only two major Bills in that Session. One was a Bill to restore the rights of the brewers in the new towns, and on that I acquit right hon. Gentlemen opposite of the charge of not carrying out their pledges to those who were behind them. The other Bill was the transport denationalisation Measure which was introduced in July and did not even get a Second Reading in that first Session. We did not move any Motion condemning them for not having carried through pledges on that occasion. That is why I suggest that they are a little premature. We will have this debate year after year and they will see our progress in fulfilling our pledges becoming more and more complete.
  As we heard from the right hon. Gentleman, this debate is about election pledges, and I am going to take the House through the Measures that we have carried through and the Measures that were in our election programme, and I shall come later to those which are to follow in the second and third Sessions.
  The first Bill that was introduced was, I agree, a minor one, but it was very near to the heart of the Chief Whip and myself. It was only a small Bill, but it was symptomatic of what this Parliament has been about. It was a Bill to restore bus fare concessions for old-age pensioners, a concession which had been taken away by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. To some of us, where a major constituency problem was involved, this was an important Measure. I have a file knee-high of letters which I wrote to successive Tory Ministers of Transport and was turned down flat every time. Their lack of humanity on this point meant that old-age pensioners who moved out to new housing estates were unable to afford to travel, perhaps on a Sunday afternoon, to visit their relatives down town or on the other side of the city.
  This is something that we were pledged to introduce. Year after year

  733
  Private Members' Bills were introduced from our side of the House, but they were blocked with unfailing regularity every Friday afternoon by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Last year there were exchanges across the Floor with the right hon. Gentleman, the then Prime Minister, when I was pressing him to introduce this legislation, but he refused to act. He said that he did not think that that was the right way to do it. He thought that the best way was to increase the pensions, but he did not. When we first introduced this Bill last year, the most touching thing was the warm support that it got from the Conservative Opposition, yet we know that if they had won the election this Bill would still have been blocked every Friday afternoon.
  I come now to a bigger Bill. In my pre-election broadcast when I talked about priorities I mentioned pensions, and I mentioned the Rent Act. These were the two priorities. The Pensions Bill was introduced and had its First Reading 15 days after Parliament met. It provided for the biggest increase in retirement pensions, in widows' pensions, as well as in war pensions, since Labour introduced the Walfare State nearly 20 years ago. That was a pledge that we made and which we honoured, and I say without any fear of contradiction that if the Conservatives had won last October that Pensions Increase Bill would not have been introduced. If they did nothing about it before the election, one can be sure that nothing would have been done about it afterwards, and even if they had any intention of doing it they would have taken the excuse of the economic difficulties which the country was facing not to do it.
  What was the Opposition's attitude when we introduced the Pensions Bill? They did not vote against it, but they did vote against the money for it. They let the Bill go through because they wanted to pose as great supporters of the old-age pensioners, but they voted against the money to pay for it because they thought that there were votes in that. They went round the by-elections seeking votes because there was a delay in paying the pensions, but this was due to the fact that there were no plans, no draft Bill, and no administrative arrangements. In one by-election they even contrasted the delay in paying pensions with Members'
  734
  pay, to which their Leader was 100 per cent. pledged, just as I was. They really plumbed the depths on that one.
  Then we abolished the earnings rule for widows. They rejected this year after year. We gave a pledge to do that, and we carried it out. Prescription charges were introduced by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in one economic crisis, in 1952, made worse and more unfair by charging separately for each prescription in the next economic crisis, in 1956, doubled in the next economic crisis in 1961 following their old rule, "When in difficulties put the burden on the backs of those least able to bear them", but it was noticeable that when the economy improved, as it usually did before a General Election, and there were vast tax handouts, there was no remission of this burden. We were pledged to remove prescription charges. We honoured that pledge. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not oppose this, although ever since they have called it wasteful. I do not know how many times they have re-spent the saving that they say would have been made if they had opposed the Bill which they did not oppose.
  Then there was the Rent Act. We were pledged to restore security of tenure, which, for seven years, they rejected. We did this as an emergency Measure in our first month. When we introduced it they agreed with it. They should have had the courage of their convictions. Where was the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)? Having agreed to it, they kept the House up all night fighting some of the essential parts of it—willing to wound but afraid to strike.
  When the Rent Bill was published, terrific attacks were made on it at the Conservative Party mid-term conference, or whatever they have in March on Friday afternoons. They promised to attack it, but in the House, having made their electoral calculations, they let it through. But having let it through they attacked it day after day in Committee, and by day and by night on Report, with all the enthusiasm and unity that they show when the interests of landlords and property owners are at stake.
  I want to put a question to the new Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition did not oppose the Rent Bill on its Second and Third Readings—a Bill

  735
  which was to repeal various Clauses of the Rent Act, to provide fair rents and to fight Rachmanism; a Measure which they have failed to introduce. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, on Monday, if not now, will tell us where his party stands on the Rent Bill. Will they give an assurance that if, by any mischance, they ever get back to power they will not restore their Rent Act? I believe that in the light of their behaviour over the last seven years the country has a right to know. For seven years they kept it and opposed every attack we made on it. Then they acquiesced in its repeal. Will they now repudiate it? I tell the right hon. Gentleman at the start of his new career that he will get no respite until he answers that question.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: Is the Prime Minister claiming this as one of the 65 Bills which have been passed into law in this Session? If so, what steps is he going to take to remove the Amendments made to the Bill in another place before we rise next week?
  The Prime Minister: I am not sure at this stage whether I can take official cognisance of what the hon. Member says. If he is right and there were two Government defeats on this subject and those Amendments were designed to emasculate the Bill—and I can only guess that they came principally from the Conservatives in another place—all I can say is that we do not intend the Bill to be emasculated by the Conservatives, either in this House or in another place.
  I now turn to the Finance Bill—the greatest Measure of modernisation of our tax structure for 50 years. The Leader of the Opposition distinguished himself with a sustained attack on the Bill for 23 days; perhaps his motives were not exclusively fiscal in character, but they seem to have paid off. The Bill involved the fulfilment of pledges. We were pledged to tax capital gains. We honoured that pledge; the Opposition opposed it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he will repeal the Capital Gains Tax if he ever gets into office.
  Then there was the Corporation Tax. We said that we would bring it in. Would the Opposition repeal it? I am aware of
  736
  the form of words that the right hon. Gentleman used at the end of the Committee stage, but let him come clean. Would the Opposition repeal the Corporation Tax? Do they feel so strongly about it? Do they feel that it is harmful, or that its operation bears no relation to the fiscal structure?
  I now come to the Redundancy Payments Bill. We made a pledge in regard to this, and we have honoured it. We made a pledge concerning the Trade Disputes Bill, and we have honoured it. On the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Bill, I remember putting our pledge forward in what I thought was, for me, a powerful speech—I do not make many—in the North of Scotland. It was so powerful that four Conservatives lost their seats and were replaced by Liberals. Although they have not universally shown gratitude for what I did for them, I must say that they joined with the Government on the Highlands and Islands Development Bill.
  Where do the Conservatives stand on that Measure. Would the former Secretary of State for Scotland attack it? To some hon. Members opposite this was a Marxist Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was going on with his opposition until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland told him that if he would move an Amendment to take his own constituency out of it my right hon. Friend would consider it. We had no more opposition after that.
  Then there was the Monopolies Bill. Over a period of 13 years, until their last-minute conversion, the Conservatives weakened the attack on monopolies. They markedly weakened the powers of the Monopolies Commission. They made resale price maintenance a lot easier, for a long time. It was only last year that they started to move on this. However, we had the support of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in carrying through the Bill. I hope that they will carry on as they have begun in that respect.
  I now turn to non-legislative proposals. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport removed the ideological restrictions which right hon. Gentlemen opposite placed on the right of the railway workshops and other industrial undertakings associated with publicly-owned industry to undertake certain

  737
  work. This was another pledge that we had given, and which we carried out in a few weeks. The Opposition did not oppose it. Why not? There was also the decision of my right hon. Friend to remove the limitations on the right of the Transport Holding Company to allow British Road Services to expand.
  These were pledges that we made, and these were pledges that we carried out in the first few months of office. This Session's record is one of which any Government could be proud. Of all the Measures that I have mentioned—with the possible exception of the Monopolies Bill—there is hardly one that the party opposite would have introduced if it had won the election. The list of Bills which have been passed would have been longer if it had not been for the activities of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the cub tycoons with whom he surrounded himself in opposing the Finance Bill, although he knows that it was a necessary Bill and a right one.
  I now turn to Measures that we were pledged to introduce but have not introduced so far. First, there is the Bill to set up a Land Commission. I am touched by the impatience which hon. Members opposite keep showing about this. I wonder why they are so impatient. Is it because they at last realise the magnitude of the problem of land profiteering, which they did not previously recognise, and the cost it involves to local authorities and owner-occupiers? Do they now realise the impossibility of planning if it is impossible to obtain the land that is needed at a reasonable price? Do they now know that they were wrong to resist these proposals? Is that why they want to see the Bill?
  Let me put them out of their misery. They will have the White Paper on land and the Land Commission in a few weeks' time, and the Bill will be introduced when Parliament returns. Then they will have to tell us where they stand on this Bill. They will have to say whether they support the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who believes in a free market, and the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, who went further a year ago and said that he believed unequivocally in a free market in land—or whether they agree with the right hon. Member
  738
  for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who wants a levy on land sales. They will have to sort it out between themselves. They will have the help of our White Paper in this process. Perhaps they will support the public ownership of land. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt tell us about this, because he now leads a party that is split on nearly everything. We have some hopes of an improvement, because we have been told that for nine months he has been busy beavering away on these anonymous policy committees, and that in January he was commuting to "The Hirsel". He told us that there was going to be a March election and that his election manifesto was ready. We would like to see it. We were told that it was to be ready in March, and then in the summer. I think that summer is a little late this year in more ways than one. Some day, no doubt, he will tell us where he stands on these issues. Up until now, we have not had a shred of new policy.
  We said that we would give housing priority and would increase the number of houses built to let, and this we are doing. The housing programme is up this year. It will be held next year on an even keel of equality with this year, and then it will be increased year by year. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait until the publication of the national housing plan, in association with the general economic plan in September. It will provide for an increase in housing to figures far beyond anything the right hon. Gentleman contemplated, even after 13 years in office.
  I tell the House frankly that, quite apart from other economic reasons for Tuesday's measures, it would be impossible to sustain a rising priority housing programme, indeed, to maintain the present level of house building, unless we held back the proliferation of competing building contracts which right hon. Gentlemen were so busy scattering as election bribes. The House knows that all over the country building work is held up by shortage of labour and shortage of materials. They announced an election target for housing which was no more than a paper target and forgot to plan the materials. Now we have to import the materials that we need, swelling our import bill.

  739
  We will not get the housing target unless less essential building is held back as we are doing. We pledged ourselves to hold back office building in the interests of housing, and we have done it in the Control of Office and Industrial Development Bill. The licensing procedure on less essential building that was announced on Tuesday is essential if we are going to get our priority programmes on houses, schools, hospitals and factories. The licensing procedure does not apply to industry or to blocks of flats or anything to do with housing.
  For years, the right hon. Gentlemen held back housing and hospitals. I have been comparing their manifestoes. In 1959, they claimed that they built 12 hospitals; in 1964, that they built five. No other Government have built minus seven hospitals. What they did was to give the go-ahead to petrol stations, to gambling establishments, and to bowling alleys. All of those may be highly estimable things; it is not for me to assess their moral value or the pleasure that they give. But if we are to get houses built, we have got to have priorities, and I hope that we shall have their support. Will they show more concern about houses, or development profits?
  Mr. Barber: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not parting completely with hospitals. I hope he will tell us why these 20 major projects which I approved have been deferred?
  The Prime Minister: I was coming to hospitals, because I have been into the subject with my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman produced some wonderful paper plans, and it was already clear before he went out of office that his own programme was in utter chaos. The monetary provision that had been made fell far short of the number of hospitals that he said he could build. The first job that my right hon. Friend has had has been to put that hospital plan in order. It was a purely election, paper plan, which bore no relation to real building, or anything of that kind. It was just chaotic. It has been put in order, it has been costed, and in real terms expanded, and it will still go ahead within agreed limits.
  On education—
  Mr. Donald Box: What about leaseholds?
  The Prime Minister: I answered a Question on this subject from the hon. Gentleman last week. At least, I thought that it was he who had put one. If he did not, he had better read the answer, anyway. I also dealt with it at a meeting in Wales the other day, because we thought it was a very important subject in Wales. We made pledges about it, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources is working on a Bill, which will be introduced next Session. After all that the hon. Gentleman has said about the subject I hope that he will vote for the Bill when it comes.
  Since my right hon. Friend hopes to catch the eye of the Chair this evening, I will leave education to him.
  Oh, yes; there is the question of the Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner. The Bill is about ready, and the House can have it in a few weeks.
  We made a lot of promises about agriculture. There will be White Papers next week, dealing with the fulfilment of our pledges on the Meat and Livestock Commission, on agricultural development, including co-operation, the improvement of farm structure in terms of voluntary mergers, and hills and uplands.
  Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: What about the pricing scheme for white fish?
  The Prime Minister: I must say, the Press will have fun with this. After all we have heard about the great, rasping attack that we were to get from the hon. Gentlemen opposite—three days of attack that we should not have had if it were not for the new Sir Galahad who was leading them—the whole censure Motion has come down to a plaintive cry about white fish.
  All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that it has not been overlooked. I can tell him that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland were, because I saw them at it, hard at work on it only last night. May I say, as one who once spent the hardest four years of his life on a Ministry White Fish Committee just after the war, I know the importance of

  741
  the subject. I would like to say, "Thank God I am not on the Committee now".
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of living and to rates. The cost of living was debated yesterday. I will just refer to two examples. One was postal charges, which came up at Question Time. The right hon. Gentleman knew—he did not mention them, but they are part of the cost of living—that there was a deficit of over £100 million last year. I hope that he will not deny that that was known to the Government at that time. If they did know, why did they not tell the country? They suppressed the information. They knew that postal charges would have to go up. Is that not right?
  Mr. Barber: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to reply to the debate.
  The Prime Minister rose—
  Mr. Robert Cooke rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) knows that if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way he cannot intervene.
  The Prime Minister: I am replying to the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale.
  The cost of living was the subject of a censure Motion yesterday. This point about postal charges was mentioned. The right hon. Member mentioned cost of living. I want to know if, even after yesterday, we can be told whether the Opposition knew that there was a deficit of £100 million and that postal charges would have to go up. As a member of the Cabinet, did the right hon. Member know or did he not?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Robert Cooke rose—
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) was not in the Cabinet. The right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale was. If he did know this, will he tell us why his Government dodged telling the country?
  Mr. Robert Cooke: The facts are wrong.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member for Bristol, West to behave himself.
  The Prime Minister: Why, knowing this, did hon. and right hon. Members opposite put down a Motion of censure on postal charges when they knew that this was done to deal with a deficit which they had known about and suppressed when they left office? The same is true about B.B.C. licence fees. The right hon. Member knew perfectly well that the B.B.C. was moving into deficit and there would have to be an increase in licence fees, but they postponed it until after the election.
  We come now to rates. The Opposition have been running a campaign about rising rates, but they know that almost every increase in this year's rates was incurred when they were in office. The first thing necessary is to get some discipline into local expenditure which has rocketed in this period. Some of it is essential, like education, housing and so on, but the system of financial control in the last 18 months of Conservative Government broke down. Loan sanction machinery was not being effectively used. While I do not say that much local authority expenditure is unnecessary or wasteful, I think that much of it which hon. Members opposite encouraged on the eve of the election, having held it back for 12 years, is not immediately essential. We would all like to have new town halls; I should like one in my constituency, but it can wait, and in the present situation it is probably right that it should wait. By holding back local expenditure of this kind we are limiting the rate burden.
  The right hon. Member referred to the need—and it is a fundamental need—for an inquiry. We promised this inquiry, and it is proceeding. When it is complete we shall announce the conclusions and take whatever policy decisions are necessary and tell the House about them. I think the whole House agrees about the deficiencies of the rating system, and inequity and unfairness between householder and householder and its regressive character. The one thing which hon. Members opposite did about it was to produce a factual report

  743
  showing that the system is of a regressive character. We are putting a thoroughgoing inquiry in hand.
  The questions of mortgage charges, an incomes guarantee and National Health charges I shall come to in the light of the economic situation, to which I now turn.
  Sir Cyril Osborne rose—
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but I have given way about six times. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I know that he has a big speech to make.
  Even on these three matters, mortgage charges, income guarantee and National Health charges, it is hypocritical for hon. and right hon. Members opposite to raise objection, because they did not take any steps about mortgage charges, about an income guarantee, or abolishing National Health charges. Their concern is rather like that of a crocodile and would not appear to be particularly serious.
  I have outlined our highly advanced plans for practically the whole of the remaining parts of our election pledges, and I have made clear that practically the whole of them are going forward in one way or another. All this has to proceed against the background of the economic situation which we inherited. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite are very sensitive about this, but there are two facts that they cannot wriggle out of. One is the size of the balance of payments deficit which we faced on coming into office, £800 million. In fact, in their last three months of office it was at a rate of over £1,000 million, the worst since the war. Far from telling the people what we were up against and producing adequate policies to deal with the situation and acting on them in time, the previous Government deliberately misled the British people for electoral purposes and deferred action which they knew to be necessary because they preferred to get votes rather than improving Britain's viability.
  Mr. Reginald Maudling: As the right hon. Gentleman has repeated the statement, will he recall that the latest figures on balance of payments
  744
  were published without emendation in the middle of the election campaign?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, and in the middle of the night. In fact, what they showed was a deficit in the first half of the year of £350 million, and the right hon. Member knows that in the third quarter it was £251 million.
  Mr. Maudling: A seasonal quarter.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member knows that it is seasonal on the reserves, but this was not a seasonal increase at all. He knows that perfectly well. Also—and here I hope that I carry the right hon. Member with me; I like doing that because I like him—they postponed the election to the last few humiliating minutes. He was against postponement because he knew what was coming. All credit to him. He was angry about postponement of the election because an early election would alone enable necessary action to be taken. These are the facts, and the responsibility lies on the shoulders of right hon. Members opposite.
  They knew the facts and they knew what had to be done. They were preparing emergency action. When we took emergency action the right hon. Member said—and said rightly—that the action and surcharges were his remedy. It has been typical of the conduct of the Opposition that when he made the statement, which was a truthful statement, as I know, the now Leader of the Opposition insisted on contradicting his right hon. Friend. That is why he is where he is. The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) played it clean.
  Since there will be a chance on Monday of dealing with some of these questions and the right hon. Member for Bexley has had to leave—he explained why he had to go—there are various things I want to say about him in his presence rather than in his absence, so I shall wait until Monday before saying them.
  I come now to the action of hon. and right hon. Members opposite on measures which we have taken to deal with the economic situation at this time.
  Mr. Barber: Will the right hon. Gentleman please explain the passage in the election manifesto about the income

  745
  guarantee scheme not being dependent on the progress of the economy—
  The Prime Minister: Yes, I said I would do that—
  Mr. Barber: Secondly, will he explain the reasons, as this will help us in the debate on Monday, why 14 days ago the Chancellor said that such measures as he announced on Tuesday last were not necessary?
  The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Member did not waste so much time, I should have come to this earlier. I am not going to let him off the hook regarding a rather important question about the economy. I am a little tired of the childish argument about the £800 million deficit, that what we did was to talk about it and suddenly tell the country the facts about it. This is below the level expected of right hon. Members opposite.
  On every point when we have tried to put it right we had opposition from them. They opposed two Budgets which were designed to disinflate. They go around the country promising reduced Government expenditure and reduced taxation and oppose every step we have taken to reduce expenditure. They move Motion of censure after Motion of censure. We had two on aircraft cancellations. Here, I correct what I said to the Leader of the Liberal Party. It was on one and not on two occasions when the Liberals were on the wrong side.
  We have had censure Motions on the Price Review, on postal charges and mortgages—six of them—and in every case they have advocated increases in national expenditure demonstrating that the so-called alternative Government are at least as irresponsible in Opposition as they were in Government and are prepared to sacrifice our national viability and the strength of sterling to the search for votes by courting the pressure groups. I will concede them this one virtue of consistency. They are at least as irresponsible in opposition as they were in Government.
  I turn for a moment to the most recent developments and to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must put this in the setting of the basic facts I have just given of the balance of payments deficit and of the second problem of industrial bottlenecks, particularly in the building field,
  746
  because all of us know now that many building contractors are no longer having to pinch labour from one another. They are having to pinch it from themselves, because they are over-deployed, because there are too many building contracts. The same is true of a number of factories.
  Therefore, it is essential, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, to reduce, to cut back, this expenditure on grounds of physical resources and on grounds of financial resources if we are to get any discipline in public expenditure. Last year we inherited a very big spending programme, but I think that the part of of it which has got more out of hand than any other is local authority expenditure. This is why so large a part of the measures of my right hon. Friend relate to the need for controls in the field of Government expenditure.
  The right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale has just asked—why this urgency; why did we act this week after the statement of my right hon. Friend a short while ago? I will tell the right hon. Gentleman. Since January the Government have been conducting a most stringent review of expenditure to keep the Estimates year by year within the 4¼ per cent. rate of increase. This review is now complete, and it was right to announce its implications to the House as soon as we completed it. We could have waited until the House rose. That was the favourite trick of right hon. Members opposite. I think that we should have been criticised if we had, and I think rightly criticised.
  There were two other reasons. The most recent estimates showed some doubt about reaching a balance in the second half of next year owing to the trends in exports. We attach the highest importance, not nearly to achieving balance in the second half of next year, or achieving it a few months late, but to achieving it on time. Therefore, we decided that it was right to reinforce the measures previously taken, because of the estimates we got. When we got the estimates we acted on them. Equally, it was necessary, if the housing programme was to go on, for us to cut back on competition with it.
  Thirdly—I say this very seriously to the right hon. Gentleman—it was vital to reassure the world trading community and

  747
  the holders of sterling balances, of our utter determination to make Britain strong and sterling strong. For some months we have felt the effects of the American measures—the recall of profits and the reduction in working capital by subsidiaries in this country. We have also felt the side effects of the American squeeze on Euro-dollars, which has led countries desperately short of dollars to convert marginal sterling holdings into dollars, just as our reserves were hit recently by the effect of Japan's grave dollar shortage on her purchases from Australia. Then last week came the impact of the Chinese gold buying spree.
  For all these reasons, we decided to act, and to act now. I hope that, having acted, no one at home or abroad is in any doubt now about our determination. What I would stress is the relevance of our actions. The two Budgets were relevant to the need to keep total spending power within bounds and to make our financial system more just and equitable. The Finance Bill was relevant to the need to plough back funds and marginally to restrain overseas lending in favour of investment in British modernisation. Relevant, too, is the restriction on bank advances, with its selective impact on imports, and our new measures for stopping prepayment on imports. Relevant, again, are the measures taken in the Budget and again last Tuesday to operate on the overseas capital account.
  Right hon. Members opposite always tried to improve the balance by a crude restriction—not a selective one—of home demand, hoping that under-employed factories would buy less materials and under-employed workers less consumer goods imports. This worked for a time in keeping the balances, but only at the cost of stagnation, at the cost of deterrents to investment, deterrents to modernisation, and encouragement to restrictive practices. Then, as unemployment increased and as elections drew near, we had every four years panic spending measures leading to a fresh crisis, as the O.E.C.D. commented in its somewhat harsh criticisms of the recent increase in spending.
  It is because we insist on full employment that we have exempted development districts and areas of high unemployment.
  748
  Full employment will be viable only on condition of substantial redeployment—at a high rate, because it was not done before. This emphasises the relevance of our concentration on redundancy payments, industrial training and retraining, as well as our decision to give priority to wage-related unemployment and sickness benefits over the income guarantee.
  To secure viability means sacrifies. We have never failed to make this clear. We said it before the election, and we have said it since. Nor are we afraid to sacrifice by deferring, as we have done, cherished and important political programmes, including mortgages, which will be deferred to 1967, and the income guarantee similarly. We said that we would follow priorities. We said that we would put the strength of the economy and sterling first. We said it in the election. We said it in the Gracious Speech.
  On the specific point of the right hon. Gentleman about our deferment of the income guarantee, I will simply say this. We had hoped on coming in that it would be possible, dependent on the administrative machinery we found, to introduce the income guarantee very quickly indeed, because we all felt that this would be a way of increasing pensions without the full cost of a general pensions increase, and we would be able to concentrate on greatest need. The administrative machinery was nothing like sufficient to do this. What we did—this is where I claim that we have fully honoured the passage that the right hon. Gentleman read out—was to carry through immediately as our first priority the biggest pensions increase for 20 years. That was the way in which we honoured it.
  We have deferred these two projects. I make no bones about it. The exercise of priorities—this is what government is about. This is what politics is about. It involves hard and painful decisions. We have taken them, but we utterly reject the suggestion that by postponing into the third Session of Parliament two items out of 70 in a five-year election programme we have defaulted or shall default on our pledges. Least of all, shall we take this kind of thing from right hon. Members opposite, who have consistently opposed each of the measures which have been deferred.

  749
  With this I close. As our Amendment makes plain, this doctrine of electoral pledges which we assert and shall honour comes very strangely from right hon. Members opposite. I remember three pledges in 1961—first, "Mend the hole in the purse". We had a 51 per cent. increase in the cost of living when in terms of trade import prices improved by 29 per cent. Right hon. Members opposite in three years out of every four tried to hold wages down and blackguarded trade union leaders who put them up, whilst in the fourth year they claimed credit for the increases which had been gained. Secondly, they pledged themselves to reduce Government expenditure by £700 million. That was one of the pledges of 1951. In fact, it increased by £4,050 million. I admit that their third pledge, to reopen the Liverpool Cotton Market, was carried out. It did not do any good. It was a dead letter from the start.
  In 1955, they promised us a Summit, which failed. They promised us full support for the United Nations. We had Suez. They promised us an expanding economy and reduced taxation. We had the autumn Budget of that year.
  In 1959, they promised us another Summit, the Summit which never was. They promised to improve Commonwealth trade, but it fell by nearly one-quarter. They gave the figures I quoted at Question Time and said that, having for the first time in history for 100 years achieved a surplus in our trade with the United States of £13 million, they would build on this. The building was successful to the tune that the deficit last year was £257 million, a worsening of £270 million altogether. If it had not been for that, we should have had a much more manageable balance of payments deficit last year. If they had carried out that pledge, we should have had almost no deficit at all in 1965. I will say nothing now about the 1964 General Election and the pledges they then gave.
  The Conservative doctrine on election pledges—this is what this debate is about—was set out for all time by their then leader in 1951:
  "I do not admit as democratic constitutional doctrine that anything that is stuck into a party manifesto thereupon becomes a mandated right if the electors vote for the party who drew up the manifesto. We are all allowed
  750
  to have our opinions about constitutional matters. If that principle is accepted, why not shove a dozen more items in? One can always leave them out if there is not time, or circumstances change. But is it not for our convenience to have a lot to play with, and surely it costs nothing to a party seeking a change or a new deal?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 1748.]
  That is Conservative doctrine. We have had 13 years in which full acceptance of it was put into practice.
  For our part, this is our manifesto, and we shall honour it.
  Hon. Members: Divide.
  5.52 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: It is very seldom that I have the honour to speak so early in a debate, especially after—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady wait just a moment? If hon. Members wish to leave the Chamber, will they do so quietly?
  Dame Joan Vickers: It is very seldom that I have the honour to be called so early in a debate, especially after such a distinguished speaker to whom we have listened today. The Prime Minister modestly admitted that his speech in Scotland did not persuade people to vote for his party. I am certain that his speech in the House today will not convince people in the country to vote for his party at the next election. Yesterday, in the Evening Standard, there was the report of several interviews with people who were asked about the future leadership of the Conservative Party. A window cleaner who was interviewed admitted that he voted Socialist last time, but, when he was asked for whom he would vote at the next election, he predicted that the Tories would win and said: "There is nothing but gloom since the Labour Party got into power. At the local level I am not satisfied with them either. I reckon that, with Heath against them, they will get knocked out next time. That is definite." He may or may not be definitely right about that, but one thing is definite: there has been nothing but gloom since the Labour Party was returned to power.
  Mr. Ioan L. Evans: On the hon. Lady's side.
  Dame Joan Vickers: Certainly not. We have stuck it very well and kept hon.

  751
  and right hon. Members up to their job whenever necessary.
  The Prime Minister accused us of being partisan in our attitude to various groups. In my view, we have the right to protect those who need protection. It was rather strange to hear the Prime Minister say that, especially as he went on to say that he had been kneedeep in the difficulties of old-age pensioners and bus fares. He admitted that he was partisan towards one section of the population. That is how he acts in his own constituency, and he has no right to accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) of being partisan in regard to particular sections of the population who need our protection.
  It is not my intention to discuss what was said in the Labour Party manifesto. I wish, first, to refute the charge that we have not been a constructive Opposition. The various Bills which have been before the House have been studied more deeply than at almost any time during the years that I have been in the House, and it is interesting to find the number of Amendments which have been accepted. For example, the Race Relations Bill left the House after Second Reading as one Bill and came back as quite another. I am certain that this was because of the reasoned Amendments put forward by the Opposition. I could take many other Bills, such as the Rent and Finance Bills, in regard to which the Opposition have been extremely constructive. In any case, it is not for an Opposition to put forward policies. Their turn will come at the next election. We have to put forward constructive proposals and Amendments to the Measures which the Government in power put before the House.
  I come now to a subject which has not been referred to today, that is, defence. On 27th September, 1964, the Prime Minister came to my constituency and made a speech which was probably part of the reason for my reduced majority. He said:
  "It is not possible to come to Plymouth without saying something about naval affairs, about the dockyards and about the Royal Navy".
  As Plymouth, for the past 300 years, has depended on and done an excellent job
  752
  for the Royal Navy, one can well imagine that that sort of remark would be welcomed with a "Hear, hear". There are 14,000 people who work in the yard. No doubt, to get their interest and, perhaps, their votes, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "We believe that in the present conditions"—
  to my mind, conditions are worse now than they were at that time—
  "we need a stronger and more effective Navy".
  I am sure that people again said "Hear, hear" to that, but he continued:
  "The Royal Navy is not adequate for our needs in the 1960s. It has been run down to a dangerous extent by the Conservatives in their pursuit of nuclear illusion for political and prestige purposes".
  When the Navy Estimates came along, I listened with great interest to know what changes to improve our great Navy would be introduced by the right hon. Gentleman's Government. What did we hear? First, the fifth Polaris submarine is not to be built. The Hunter class submarines are being delayed. There is no question of the carrier being produced for a number of years, if at all. We were told that there would be four extra County class cruisers and 12 Leander class frigates. This was the major programme filling in the necessary details of the changes foreshadowed by the Prime Minister to give the country a stronger Navy.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—it seemed to me to prove that he really considered that we did not need this very much stronger Navy—how adequately the Royal Navy had played its part in the past year, for instance, in Kuwait, Brunei, Tanzania, Malaysia and Cyprus. In fact, the Royal Navy never failed.
  Another of his statements interested his audience very much. He said:
  "We have to renegotiate the Nassau Agreement."
  As far as I know, no action has been taken about that, and I hope that whoever is to reply at the end of the debate will tell us what has happened about the renegotiation of the Nassau Agreement.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "Redeployment in our defence expenditure as promised in our manifesto will help to provide the resources needed to stimulate regular recruitment."

  753
  This is a very big problem. What has happened? The hon. Gentleman went on to say in the same speech:
  "It is not only rates of pay—it is just as much a question of accommodation and married quarters, which have suffered severely defence cuts dictated by the missile Polaris programme."
  We on this side of the House have asked several times about the scheme for ratings to be able to have loans to buy their houses on re-engagement. All that we have had from the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy is a promise that he may make a statement before the end of the Session. As there is to be a cut of £100 million in defence expenditure, I want to know whether this will involve withdrawing the promises which were definitely given to the ratings that there would be a scheme for them, if they re-engaged, to get some loans for their houses, because the situation with regard to married quarters and other accommodation, as I know only too well from my interview session, is extremely difficult at the present time.
  Furthermore, on 11 th March the Minister for Defence for the Royal Navy said:
  "We are looking forward keenly to flying Phantoms from our carriers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11 th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 659.]
  If we are looking forward keenly to flying Phantoms from our carriers, I should like to hear when we shall be able to know something about the new carrier. At the moment we have only H.M.S. "Eagle", a modern carrier, and the "Hermes", which will not be ready for approximately another two years, and the older carriers which will soon be at the end of their service. How can we look forward eagerly to flying Phantoms from our carriers if we have not got the carriers, or, as far as I know, the Phantoms either at the moment?
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "I believe, and state with all the sincerity at my command that I believe, that our reappraisal of defence policies, with our emphasis on the rôle of the Navy's regular job, will provide better security, better assurances for the future than the vacillations of Tory defence policy."
  I would beg to differ with the Prime Minister over that last remark. There have been more vacillations by the present Government in a shorter time than ever in the history of our country in
  754
  regard to our policy for defence. We cannot have an answer today, but I hope that on Monday we shall have a very definite statement as to what is meant by all these points which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in my constituency. He continued:
  "I … state with all the sincerity at my command",
  and this is a very important question affecting not only my constituency but the whole of the Royal Navy and its future recruitment, and many other dockyard towns as well. If the right hon. Gentleman is sincere in wanting a stronger Navy, he will have to get the recruits to man the ships. I want to know what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government. At the moment the right hon. Gentleman is breaking his personal pledges. I agree that they were made to persons in a particular area, to my constituents, but, of course, this kind of statement gets round—I am sure that it was meant to get round—to all the other dockyard towns.
  The right hon. Gentleman also said in that speech:
  "Another issue—we believe in fair wages and fair conditions."
  I suggest that this hardly appears to be the case. For some time I have been trying to get action taken on behalf of certain sections of people who, I think, are being treated most unfairly, and I keep on being pushed off all the time. I want particularly to mention the apprentice group instructors. They have been asking for non-industrial status. It seems ridiculous that in the dockyards they have industrial status but if they do exactly the same job in H.M.S. "Fishgard" they have non-industrial status. I do not consider that this represents fair conditions.
  I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy stating that the Department had not heard from the Amalgamated Engineering Union on this subject for many years. I can understand that. The Amalgamated Engineering Union knows that if those concerned are given the fair conditions promised by the right hon. Gentleman it will lose some members. We are told that the Civil Service Staff Association would support the promotion of these people to non-industrial status. We then get a further difficulty, because

  755
  we are told that this Civil Service union is not a negotiating body for the conditions of these men and has nothing to do with the conditions under which they work. Therefore, how can it ever hope to get fair conditions for that area? I should have thought that this point could have been tacked by now.
  I gather that while discussions were in progress between the trade union side and the Treasury—I have this information in a letter which I received on 9th July, 1965—the Chancellor accepted the proposal of the trade union side to stand still on future negotiation. Does this represent fair conditions? Surely it is for him to make up his mind about what status these men should have. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy should be able to do his own thinking and not solely be dependent on the trade unions for advice in this respect.
  I had a further letter on the subject of fair conditions for surgery assistants, who wish to be non-industrial. I mention this particularly because I received a reply saying:
  "I am not surprised to learn that the Transport and General Workers' Union is not taking up their case since the trade union side of the Council have agreed with the Chancellor that a moratorium should be placed on all further non-industrialisation pending negotiations."
  Why should a moratorium be placed on these individuals? Is it purely to save money? If their status were raised, they would get better pay and better pensions. I want to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman carries out his pledge to the people in the Royal Navy and the dockyards that they shall get fair wages and fair conditions.
  The right hon. Gentleman said in his speech, with a sentence which I think needs a great deal of explanation if we are to know what the future of the Service is to be:
  "But there is one thing I want to add—the greater use of Royal Dockyards as well as Royal Ordnance Factories for civil work."
  Nobody, I am sure, would quarrel with that. At present there is, I believe, sufficient work for the Royal Navy. But it makes us very doubful about Socialist pledges when one looks at what has happened in other quarters.
  756
  The Minister for Defence for the Royal Navy is one of the Parliamentary representatives of Woolwich, and in his election address he said:
  "There is the problem of the Arsenal. For years I have fought hard in Parliament and elsewhere to keep the R.O.F. alive and flourishing. Now the Government"—
  that is, the Conservative Government—
  "has finally decided to close it down. I have however—"
  This was in his election address—
  "received the assurance of Mr. Harold Wilson that a Labour Government would carefully review the decision. If re-elected I would immediately draw this question to the attention of the relevant Labour Ministers."
  I should like to know who in this case are the relevant Labour Ministers. As the hon. Gentleman is himself now a Minister, why has he not been able to take any action?
  The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) also had in his election address a passage about the closing down of the R.O.F. at Woolwich Arsenal:
  "… a typical piece of Conservatism. Contracts go to private interests first. The public interest and the taxpayer's pocket come second."
  On 21st December, 1964, the "Go-Ahead signal was given for the Royal Arsenal to be gradually shut down. There was to be no civilian work. In the Daily Telegraph of 22nd December, 1964, one of the shop stewards said:
  "We are more disgusted than words can express The Labour Party slammed the Conservatives for announcing last year only two weeks before Christmas that the Arsenal was to be run down. Now the Labour Government announces this four days before Christmas. What are we to say?"
  Knowing dockyard language, it was obvious what he might have said. However, I am sure that, on this occasion, words failed him. Words will fail us if similar action is taken in the rest of the naval establishments. I therefore seek a full assurance that the pledge given in the speech by the right hon. Gentleman will be carried out—civilian work being provided if necessary—because it is essential to the whole area that we should know what is to happen in regard to future employment. The dockyard towns are concerned because of the announcement of the £100 million cut likely to take place in the near future.
  The final sentence from the right hon. Gentleman's speech made one wonder

  757
  what is going on with regard to planning for the future. He said:
  "I believe there will come a time when Plymouth's dependence on the Admiralty side of the Ministry of Defence will be matched by growing interest in the work of the new Ministry of Overseas Development."
  It will he interesting, and it is rather worrying, to know what is meant by that sentence. Perhaps we can be told.
  I only mention this one point because it has not been mentioned before and it is essential to thousands of people throughout the country that they should not be deceived, as they were deceived in the last election, into voting for a Government that promises them a better Navy and even more security in future. It is on this point that I hope the Government will keep their pledges.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) will forgive me if I do not follow her since she raised the question of Plymouth and I know very little of the town except about its football team. Nor am I am expert on instructors and apprenticeships questions.
  Every Labour M.P. felt grave disappointment when hearing the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday. When he announced his "squeeze", let us admit that it was a serious disappointment to us, in particular the postponement from next year to the following year of three dearly held reforms—not-ably, the minimum income guarantee, the cheap mortgage rates for those wishing to buy their own houses and the removal of the charges on teeth, spectacles and other appliances.
  The question is: why is the squeeze taking place? The Prime Minister has made it clear that it is due to the deficit that the Government inherited of £800 million on the balance of payments and the consequent lack of confidence among foreign bankers in the E. The point I wish to make is that, even so, there is a way of restoring our country to international solvency. There is one sphere, and only one sphere, where the Government can cut without hurting the ordinary people—and that is in the field of arms expenditure.
  758
  When the Chancellor spoke on Tuesday of a £400 million a year cut in arms expenditure by 1969–70, many hon. Members and people outside the House believed that this really did mean a cut of £400 million a year. In other words, they believed that the fantastic burden of £2,100 million a year would be reduced to £1,700 million a year. Today, however, the Prime Minister has confirmed that it means nothing of the sort. All it means is that, by 1969–70, we will be spending £400 million a year less than we would have been spending if the arms programme had continued to expand unchecked at the rate which had been projected by the Conservative Government.
  I do not want to be disrespectful to my Irish friends, but we all know what an "Irishman's rise" is. To be honest, this is an "Irishman's cut", because it is not a cut at all.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
  House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
  Mr. Allaun: I gather that there is a counter-attraction in another place not unconnected with the 1922 Committee, but one would think that, in a debate on a Motion of censure, right hon. and hon. Members opposite would have been in the Chamber.
  The point I was making is that what looks like being to many of us a cut in arms expenditure is not a cut and that, just as we have heard of an "Irishman's rise"—when he expects his wage to go up but it comes down instead—the reverse is actually happening and we are having an "Irishman's cut".
  I am certain of that because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has confirmed it. I am not so certain about the next point, but I fear that I am also right in saying that the £100 million a year reduction in arms expenditure by next year, which was also mentioned in the Chancellor's statement and to which the hon. Lady referred, is a similar kind of cut. In other words, I believe that arms expenditure far from going down will, in terms of £ s. d., go up.
  I ask why military expenditure alone should be sacrosanct, untouchable and

  759
  have top priority. Whilst I strongly disagree with the criticisms made by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), I believe that in this matter the Government are not doing enough. It is not good enough merely to knock £400 million off what might have been expenditure when one intends to increase the actual financial burden. Some hon. Members on this side are entitled to make this criticism. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are not entitled to do so because they were responsible for this wild, military dream of uncontrolled arms expenditure which would have gone far higher still if it had not been contained to a certain extent. Secondly, they are not entitled to criticise because they opposed the cutting of the TSR2, which would have cost £700 million. They are, therefore, not in a very good position to criticize, but, repeat, some of us on the Labour benches are.
  If there has been a delay in honouring some of our pledges—and we have to admit that there has been—it is due to this cause. Many of my colleagues on this side of the House feel very strongly about the size of the arms programme and I am sure that they are right. In politics, the way to success is to seek for the master key which will unlock not only one door but all doors. It is quite clear that the master key in the present situation, the key to the problems facing the British people and the Labour Government, is a drastic cut in arms expenditure. If the Government turn this key, they can carry out all their pledges with little further delay. I believe that they intend to carry out their pledges, but there is a postponement due to the international position, which, in turn, is caused by the size of the arms programme and particularly overseas arms expenditure.
  If we took this road and cut arms far more drastically, the effects would be dramatic. Our problems would be greatly eased and we would be able to carry out our pledges completely, for instance, to re-equip industry, to reduce prices and to encourage the export trade. All these things could be done far more rapidly if we were not wasting our substance on the arms programme.
  Overseas military expenditure is £350 million, but it involves far greater sums.
  760
  I will give two examples. East of Suez the official figure is that military expenditure is £320 million per annum, but if overhead military expenditure is included, such as headquarter costs of the Ministry of Defence and the cost of the Navy some of which is in the Far East, the total bill is nearer £500 million a year. I agree that not all of it is in currency across the exchanges, but a high proportion of it is. Similarly, in Germany we are spending £85 million a year in foreign currency in maintaining the British Army of the Rhine. My hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards), who is a member of the Estimates Committee, assures me, however, that the total cost of maintaining B.A.O.R. is not £85 million but nearly £200 million a year.
  Another door which could be opened and another pledge which could be honoured more easily is marked "Pensions". One part of that pledge has been implemented by raising the basic old-age pension by 12s. 6d. a week, but we have not so far honoured the pledge on the minimum income guarantee, or graduated pensions. The way to do that is by cutting military expenditure. Similarly, by switching materials, money and manpower from war production to peaceful production, we could carry out our housing programme. I speak with great feeling on this subject, because in Salford the waiting list for council houses is 21 years and there are families who have been waiting that number of years. Unless a family is in one of the areas of the city scheduled for slum clearance—and much of the city is a slum—or practically dying of tuberculosis, it has no chance of getting a council house unless it has been on the list since 1944.
  We have pledges on this. The Labour Party gave the pledges of cheap interest rates for council house building and cheap interest rates for those wishing to buy their own houses. I am still hoping desperately that the former pledge will be implemented by October, even though the latter is being postponed for another year. Otherwise, starts on council house building will be delayed.
  Yet another pledge which we could honour is that of the war on want in the hungry nations. Seventy-two Labour Members last week signed a declaration

  761
  which appeared in Tribune, and I understand that there have been a number of additions since. In this declaration they stated that we should aim at a cut of £500 million a year in our arms expenditure, and by that they meant a real cut and not the Irishman's cut which I mentioned earlier. I believe that those Labour Members were firing at the right target. Most of them have held this view for a long time, but it is now becoming obvious to everyone outside a mental institution that we cannot afford to continue out arms expenditure at the present rate. No Government of any colour could carry out these pledges and maintain that kind of expenditure.
  Naturally, we would prefer to see disarmament take place by agreement, but there is no need to wait for that. In 1963, Russia cut her arms programme by £240 million a year and the American Government responded with a cut of £360 million a year. Arms expenditure is being cut in Germany and a number of other countries, but in our country it is going up.
  I have recently been reading the third volume of Hugh Dalton's autobiography, "High Tide and After." He describes the run of the £ in 1947. I must say that that situation was frighteningly similar to this. Whether or not one agreed with everything he said and did, Hugh Dalton was convinced that, in order to carry out the Labour programme of 1945, the payments which had to be cut, and quickly, were those for the Armed Forces, particularly those stationed overseas. He wrote to the then Mr. Attlee as follows:
  "We must think of our defence in these hard and heavy years of shortage not only against the more distant possibility of armed aggression but also against the far more immediate risk of economic and financial strain and collapse. What would it profit Britain if, by spending nearly £1,000 million a year on defence"—
  as it then was—
  "it were to come an economic and financial cropper two years hence?"
  We do not want that part of our political history to repeat itself. What good would it do our people or the prospects of peace if we were to spend even more on arms and become a bankrupt nation in consequence?
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I always listen with interest to the hon. Gentleman for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), because I know that the views he holds are held sincerely. While I do not agree with his arguments, I do agree with the suggestion he made about the figures for the cutting down, given in the speech of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, being Irishmen's cuts.
  I would go further than that and say that his right hon. Friend's speech was an Irishman's speech. When the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, at the end of the Prime Minister's speech, waved their Order Papers and cheered, I felt I was witnessing a completion of an almost impossible trick, namely, the making of a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that although I pointed to this confirmation by the Prime Minister of the lack of reduction in arms expenditure, I also said that this was a great speech. I think that he himself will admit that this was one of the most powerful speeches we have heard in this House.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: It was certainly a great speech from the conjuring point of view. It was making gold out of lead, in the most literal form. When I saw this remarkable feat take place earlier this afternoon I felt that those hon. Members who were cheering the Prime Minister were either totally ignorant of the true facts or were completely bemused by the conjuring trick.
  When the Labour Government took office in October we, as the Opposition, made it clear, both here and in public statements in the country, that we were prepared to give the new Government a fair run for their money. I speak as a new Member of this House, who entered it at the last election. Listening to the Labour Ministers telling us of the plans which they had for Britain, I waited eagerly to see them being carried out. In the months before the election, I listened to their ambitious programmes, which, frankly, I felt were overambitious, but as they were propounded with such conviction, I thought that they had a new way of handling the whole economic situation, so that this virtual

  763
  Utopia could come to us without delay. Feeling that there must be something in their plans I was prepared to sit back with my hon. Friends and to give the Government a fair run.
  Their plans read like a catalogue for a wonderful store, when one remembers the prizes which were offered. They offered increased social services without increased taxation. This is a devastating argument, a wonderul platform for any party at a General Election. They promised a halt in the cost of living, again a most attractive suggestion to all the electors in my own constituency. More homes, cheaper mortgages, cheaper money, better schools, more schools, more universities, great technological advance, were all promised.
  It was a wonderful platform. I ask the House to look at the results. This was the prospectus we were given, but it was a bogus prospectus. It was a fraud. We gave them every chance in those spacious days which now seem so long ago. They are only 10 months ago, but they seem a long time ago and one can hardly realise that today we are just reeling after the third Budget announced by the Government.
  The cheap mortage policy has been completely abandoned; house building, if at best holding up, is more likely to fall below the target set; huge extra taxes have been imposed and, there is absolutely no sign at all that we have reached the end of this Via Dolorosa. It may get a great deal worse. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, East, said he saw a parallel between the situation which Hugh Dalton saw in the important book, which I also have read, and the situation we face today.
  We find prices everywhere rocketing. If hon. Gentlemen opposite really believe that the Labour Government have kept their pledges, and are satisfying the people of this country, then all I can suggest is that they are completely out of touch with their own constituents. They know in their hearts that there is something terribly wrong. They know that their promises are worthless. They will be going away over the weekend to meet their constituents. They are not relishing that, because they know they will be met by angry people who gave
  764
  them their support because they thought they could trust them. They have found that the trust they placed in their party has been utterly betrayed.
  Why are they in that terrible situation? Why, as a country, are we in a terrible situation? I give the one simple answer. It is because they have a bad leader. The Prime Minister, whose political genius was so often flaunted in the months leading up to the General Election, and afterwards, has proved not to be a political genius at all, but a bad politician.
  Mr. Ioan L. Evans: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is to talk about leaders this week?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member will perhaps rue making that remark.
  I say that the leader of the Government is a bad politician. He must know that in a small island with a population of 56 million, half of whom would starve to death if goods were not brought in from outside, the financial balance in the economy is bound to be extremely delicate. He must realise that the confidence of the people abroad is absolutely essential if one is to make the economy of this country operate at all, let alone be prepared to stand the strain of enormous social programmes, such as were outlined in the election campaign.
  The Prime Minister must know of this, or else be a had politician. Why, if this is so, does he, having been elected to office, start upon a deliberate campaign to denigrate the position of Britain in the world? We saw, soon after the Government was elected, a document issued by them, on the economic situation as they found it. This document is available to Members in the Vote Office. It certainly points to problems which an economy such as ours is always likely to be faced with—the difficult problems of import-export balance of payments. It is because we live on an island that such problems exist.
  In this document, summing up the economic situation as the Labour Government found it, there is the sentence:
  "We reject the stop-go policy."
  Yet since the Government has been in power we have had nothing except stop.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: The hon. Gentleman should direct his remarks about denigrating Britain to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), in view of his remarks a few days ago.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Member, because he has thought ahead of me, to the next point I wish to make. It is now apparently unpatriotic to point to the mess that the Government have landed the country in. Anybody who raises his voice to say that this is the worst Government which this country has had since the war and to point to the disastrous policies which they are pursuing is immediately criticised as being extremely unpatriotic.
  I for one am not prepared to be muzzled by comments of that sort. I am not prepared to stand back and watch the country bled white by a thoroughly incompetent Government led by a bad politician. We in this country are, as the Americans put it, "on the toboggan" and we are heading for a brick wall. As long as this Government remains in office, the situation will get worse. Indeed, the parallel of the hon. Member for Salford, East between now and 1947 is abundantly plain to everybody. The people are disillusioned, betrayed and fed up. Those who supported the Government realise that they made a terrible mistake.
  It is not enough, after the third Budget that we have had in eight months, to blame the Tories. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so brave—and he has had many cockshies at the problems—why is he still introducing more Budgets? It is because there is a hole in the boat and it is sinking. He knows perfectly well that he will have to take tougher and tougher measures all the time. Those of us on these benches who have been pointing this road to ruin since the Government took office look back on the history of other Labour Governments and realise that they all proved dismal and costly failures; and this one is an exact copy.
  The only fair course open to the Government is immediately to call a General Election.
  Mr. Orme: The Conservative Party would lose it.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: The Conservative Party will not only not lose the next election; it will sweep home. If hon. Members opposite are so confident of victory, why do not they take this immediate opportunity to increase their majority so that they do not have to suffer humiliating defeats "arranged" by the Conservative Party? They are no longer in a position to ask their supporters to support them again. I suggest that the Government should immediately offer themselves for judgment by those whom they have betrayed.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Shore: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair-Wilson) laid it on a bit thick. The measures which were taken earlier this week were not designed to be popular. No doubt we shall have to explain them in our constituencies when we visit them this weekend. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that here is at least one Member on this side of the House who is not afraid of visiting his constituency this weekend and who is not planning to take to the hills or to disappear until the end of the summer.
  Mr. Ioan L. Evans: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it will be an easier task for us this weekend than it was for hon. Members opposite last weekend?
  Mr. Shore: I do not wish to pursue these preliminary remarks further.
  I wish to come to the subject of the debate, the censure Motion, if that is what it is, which is levelled against us. I seem to remember that it deplores our failure to honour our election pledges. If the Motion is to be taken seriously, we have to subject it to a certain scrutiny and to see what it means. The first thing which, I suppose, it could mean is that we are being censured for not having carried out our manifesto in nine months. Some hon. Members opposite have almost suggested this, but I think that they can be somewhat better in their criticisms than that. I do not think that they can really mean to make such an accusation, because they know as well as we do that no Government can be seriously judged on its first nine months of office. If anyone doubts that, he should look at the legislation of the Conservative Government in 1951–52. It is

  767
  rather difficult to get a programme mounted. I think that we have achieved rather more success in our first year of office than right hon. and hon. Members did in theirs.
  The 1951–52 Session was memorable. It was a most marvellous occasion for back benches. There was a great deal of time available and some very exotic Measures were passed. A hypnotism Bill, a cockfighting Bill, a cremation Bill and an intestates' estates Bill all managed to reach the Statute Book during that rather underpowered Session. I think that that deals with the accusation about our not having carried out our manifesto in nine months. We are not seriously being accused of not having carried out the whole programme in nine months.
  A second accusation which might be made is that we gave the impression that we would carry out the greater part of our programme in this time. If that accusation could be made, it would obviously be damaging. But it is a very difficult accusation to sustain by anyone who bothers to read what was put in our election manifesto. The second part of it—"Planning the New Britain"—begins with the warning words:
  "We offer no easy solution to our national problems. Time and effort will be required before they can be mastered".
  It goes on to deal with specific aspects of policy. The House is entitled to know what we said.
  Take housing. Right hon. Members opposite might be interested in this passage in particular:
  "While we regard 400,000 houses as a reasonable target, we do not intend to have an election auction on housing figures. It is no good having paper plans for houses if—as the present Minister of Housing is now discovering—you haven't the bricks to build them. The crucial factor governing the number of new houses that we can build—and indeed the schools, hospitals, factories, offices and roads that can be completed—is the output of the construction and building supply industries."
  That is hardly a rash and foolish pledge to immediate action or a commitment to programmes which could not be reasonably sustained.
  No wild promises were made about education. On the contrary, we struck a rather sober note. We said: "The
  768
  modernisation of our schools system will require time, and money and manpower."
  Turning to social security, our pledge on the incomes guarantee has been cited and quoted. But the Prime Minister's point is the obvious reply, that as it turned out this aspect of our social security programme proved in the short term to be administratively impossible and so we switched to the all-round flat rate increase, which was not part of our immediate programme.
  The words of the social security section need to be quoted again. It is a very sober statement indeed:
  "… the key factor in determining the speed at which new and better levels of benefit can be introduced will be the rate at which the British economy can advance."
  These are not rash words. They were put in the manifesto quite deliberately because the leaders of the Labour Party had very clear knowledge of the difficulties which lay ahead. I therefore dismiss the charge that we gave the impression that we would carry out our programme in nine months. We did nothing of the kind.
  The only other charge which can be brought within the words of this censure Motion is that we will not be able to carry out our election programme during the next five years, that there is something so intrinsically difficult in either the situation which we face or the proposals which we put forward that it lies beyond the reach of this nation to achieve it within the period of a normal Parliament. This connects very strongly with the charge made by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), who opened for the Opposition. He accused us of election deceit.
  But if it is said that we are unable to carry through the programme that was put into the manifesto "The New Britain", it can only be because the basic assumptions on which that programme was drawn up were false. Those assumptions were mainly the figures, the facts and the projections which were made available to the nation by the then Ministers in the last Government. It was they who produced the key figures based on a 4 per cent. growth rate with all that that meant and implied in the growth of national income in the years to come.
  It may be said that we were unwise to take notice of their plans, but their own

  769
  programme also was based upon—indeed, it was the central sentence in their whole election manifesto—the claim that they would achieve and that all their proposals depended upon an increase of 4 per cent. per year in the national income. If it is said that that now lies beyond our reach, a point which I do not accept, it is Ministers of the former Government who must bear the guilt and the blame just as much as we do, because if it invalidates our programme because we cannot achieve 4 per cent. growth, equally it invalidates theirs. Who was responsible for drawing up the plan? Who was responsible for the careful costing—a phrase which I seem to recall—that went on during election year?
  We cannot, therefore, accept—indeed, we reject entirely—any such charge as electoral deceit on our part. If there has been electoral deceit, there is no doubt whatever that the deceit has come from the failure of those who either knew or largely suspected the truth about our economic position. They should have spoken up and told the nation with candour what lay ahead. No one can expect certainty in Ministerial forecasts about the economy over the course of a year, but we do have some idea of the way that things are going.
  When I hear my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer being attacked and lambasted for having done his duty on three separate occasions—each time when he saw that the economy was getting out of hand he came back to the job, however unpopular, and went ahead with it; when the right hon. Gentleman who held the same great office of State only a year ago made a decision in April, 1964, which he knew, the nation knew and the world knew was wrong and then failed to correct his judgment, as events showed just how false that judgment was—I can only feel a great deal of anger that such criticisms are made against my right hon. Friend.
  In this debate, we on this side are not quite certain whether we are answering serious charges. [Interruption.] Obviously, we are not. Hon. Members opposite have not considered what they want to accuse us of. As I listened to the speeches that were put from the benches opposite, I thought that we were listening to a number of hastily assembled debating points more appropriate to the
  770
  Unions of Oxford or Cambridge than to the House of Commons. It was not good enough.
  We on this side feel that it is not just a question of our good name and good faith which is at stake when were are faced with accusations of this kind. The nation has a great interest in this. If we fail to produce a "New Britain," if we fail to organise and plan the modernisation of our economy and if we fail to modernise our social services, if we fail to do these things and the nation has to turn back again to the dreary policies that have been seen to fail for so many years, it would indeed be a disaster.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I cannot really say that this kind of debate is one which I specially enjoy. Since coming to this House a relatively short time ago, I have frequently greatly enjoyed the occasions when we on different sides of the House have got down to the business of trying to understand what are the different principles which we hold and what are our different methods of implementing those principles in terms of policy.
  Today does not seem to me to be one of those occasions. I doubt very much whether anything that is said this day or this night will contribute greatly either to the understanding of hon. Members of each other on separate sides of the House or to our understanding of the many problems with which the country is faced and which, as we have heard, are crowding in on us. Indeed, I suspect strongly that the Motion which is before us is not designed to do that but is designed, if the speeches which we have heard thus far are any indication, to give an opportunity for the sort of marketplace oratory which at election times tends to inflame the ignorant but also to sadden the wise.
  I speak from the Liberal bench representing what is certainly a minority party. To put it poetically,
  "My strength is as the strength of ten."
  To put it more practically, my strength is as the strength of 3 million. Today's Motion has been initiated by the Conservative Opposition. If we on this bench had an opportunity on Supply Days to initiate subjects for debate, as I feel our representation in the country more

  771
  than warrants in all equity, this is certainly not the sort of subject which we would choose.
  Obviously, if one is discussing election pledges, one can discuss practically anything. Election manifestos are generally fairly comprehensive. I should, however, have thought that we would better spend our day and our night in looking more closely at some of the many subjects which should engage our attention, such as, for example, transport, industrial relations, wage differentials or some of the many subjects for which the Leader of the House is pressed each Thursday to give time.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Or white fish.
  Mr. Johnston: I suggest that to discuss white fish in detail would certainly be more advantageous than to discuss this Motion.
  However, let me none the less play the game for a short time. Let us look at the Motion as it is set out:
  "That this House deplores the Government's failure to honour their election pledges."
  The first thing that I would do in looking at a subject of that sort is to ask what are the credentials of the proposer. That is an obvious thing to ask, because if one deplores something one generally ought to be entitled to deplore something. Drunkards do not generally deplore other drunkards. Thieves do not generally deplore other thieves. Consequently, if somebody deplores it should generally imply that he has, if not a cloak of virginal white over him, at least a very good case. I suggest that the Conservative Party is not in a particularly strong position when it comes to the question of broken pledges.
  I do not propose to spend long on this, but if one goes back across the span of years to the beginning of Conservative rule after the war, one finds that many things were said which were indicated as "This is what we are going to do". I remember that in 1950 the then Leader of the Conservative Party, the late Sir Winston Churchill, in his election manifesto just before the Conservative Party surged into power said:
  "Of every £ earned in Britain today Government take and spend 8s. Conservatives
  772
  think that this is far too much. Most of the taxes come from the earnings of private persons. The amount they are able to spend and save is reduced, and their choice is limited."
  This is all very fine, but when we look at the present rate of Government expenditure expressed as a percentage of the gross national product we find that it is at a rate of about 8s. 6d. or so in the £. I think the latest figure is nearly 46 per cent.
  Again, if we look at the 1951 pledge, a year after this. I am not going to spend much longer on this, but I would quote from the 1951 manifesto of the Conservative Party.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman please explain the basis on which he arrives at this figure, because it was accepted by both sides that taxation had been greatly reduced in 13 years as a percentage of the gross national income?
  Mr. Johnston: In 1957 the figure was 40·6 per cent., in 1962 it was 44·1 per cent. So in fact it did rise. I think, with respect, the hon. Member is wrong.
  Mr. Taylor: What is the hon. Member's basis?
  Mr. Johnston: I will declare my source. I am always willing to do that. It is Cmd. 2235 published by the Conservative Party in December, 1963, and I would commend the hon. Gentleman to go forthwith to the Library and study it.
  As I was saying, the 1951 manifesto said:
  "A Conservative Government would cut out all unnecessary Government expenditure, simplify the administrative machine and prune waste and extravagance in every department."
  This is an example of what was said at the beginning of Conservative rule and reflects very much on the credentials of the proposers of today's Motion, and of the sort of criticisms they are making today. In fact, as we know, Government expenditure has vastly increased. There are many reasons for this. Some of them are justifiable reasons, but it is also clear that there was a very considerable increase in Government expenditure throughout the period of Conservative rule. I think the Prime Minister himself today put the figure at between £4,000 million and £9,000 million.

  773
  Therefore, it would seem to me that the credentials of the proposers are not very strong at all. Mind you, it is a common fault among political parties to make promises. That is something which Liberals are certainly from time to time accused of doing, though I may say that that is something I certainly would be more than willing to debate at another time.
  Let us look at the Motion as it stands and give it a little objective treatment, so far as I am capable of being objective: most of us are not very capable of being that. It speaks of "the Government's election pledges". I would make a quotation, and I am surprised it has not been made before, from the Labour Party's manifesto:
  "The country needs fresh and virile leadership. Labour is ready. Poised to swing its plans into instant operation. Impatient to apply the 'new thinking' that will end the chaos and sterility. Here is Labour's manifesto for the 1964 election restless with positive remedies for the problems the Tories have criminally neglected."
  Really, this was very strong stuff. I remember that the programme "That was the week that was" which was running at that time dealt with the question of "instant Wilson", making an analogy with the television advertisements of the time.
  The fact of the matter was that, as hon. Gentlemen opposite will, I think, readily admit, they were not poised to swing their plans into instant operation. The Prime Minister himself quoted the example of the land commission, which I think had been brought to his attention earlier by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber). The fact was that the Labour Government were not ready for this piece of legislation or to transform their ideas into legislative form. They had their ideas, but they were not ready in that sense. Yet during the election the Prime Minister was asked,
  "What would be the most important measures you would take in the first year of a new Government?"
  That was in the Daily Mail of 19th September. He answered:
  "Since housing is undoubtedly the most pressing social problem, we shall not waste time before establishing our new land commission."
  Obviously it was his intention to set up a land commission.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has really passed the point, but it has some significance, so perhaps he will permit me to ask him a question. He said that the amount taken in taxation in 1951 was 8s. in the £ and rather more in 1965. Then he quoted as his authority for saying that, a White Paper issued by the Conservative Government in 1963. It looks as though the Liberal Party looks up the record the year before last and not even the last year to get the facts.
  Mr. Johnston: In the first place, this point has been passed a very long time ago. Secondly, I rather suspect that the hon. Gentleman was not in at the beginning of my speech. I think I will leave it there, if he does not mind, but if he would care to write to me I will certainly explain it.
  Now as I was saying regarding the land commission, the fact is that we have not had this land commission. The Prime Minister said that he hoped to introduce it in the new Session of Parliament in November. It was his intention, and it was hoped to do it in the first year. In fact this did not happen.
  Then there is the question of house purchase and the hopes which were held out. This has been mentioned already by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale and one or two others who have spoken before me. Whatever view one takes about the difference between the First Secretary of State and the Sunday Express as to what the right hon. Gentleman said, the fact was that it was generally accepted that there would be a decrease in mortgage charges, that there would be lower interest rates for home buyers. The Labour Party said in its manifesto that it was its policy to
  "introduce a policy of lower interest rates for housing".
  This did not happen and we have already heard quoted that they are up to 6¾ per cent.
  It seems to me that, weighed against that, we have a list of things which the present Government have done, and in my part of the world there is the question of the Highlands and Islands Development Bill which this very evening is going through its final stages and it was urgently desired. In spite of what the Prime Minister said about the effect of his

  775
  speech in Inverness, I would say that this is a very good example of the Labour Party adopting a very longstanding piece of Liberal policy. That would not prevent me from complimenting the Government on the prompt introduction of it. Rather the contrary. It was interesting to notice that the Conservative Party, which consistently opposed this Measure for many years, did not go to the extent of opposing it in this House, because it knew of the real feeling in that part of the world in favour of that idea.
  This brings me immediately to the other factors which must necessarily be considered in examining a Motion of this kind. The first factor is obviously the time factor which has already been mentioned. We cannot, obviously, expect any Government, whatever their colour or persuasion, to do things in nine months. How do we normally phrase a manifesto? We may say that a manifesto contains the prime elements of policy. First of all, there is an outline of short-term legislation. By "short-term" I mean about five years, because that is the normal expectation of life of a Parliament. Secondly, there is the vein of what one might call the long-term vision, and I hope that there are many idealists on both sides of the House who feel that when their party comes to power this does not mean just a series of specific Measures to be put on the Statute Book, but the development of a new feeling in the country and the shaping of society in a new way. This finds but one expression in certain phrases in the party manifestos, but one does not expect this sort of thing to happen in a short time.
  Mr. Shore: There is also a small third section which can reasonably go into a manifesto. I am referring to the few actions which can be taken almost at once. Generally they are actions which amount to saying "No". For instance, one can say "No" to the proposal to close certain railway lines. One can give the same answer in respect of office development in London. One can also say "No" to an excess of imports, by clamping on some kind of restriction. It is important to bring in this element as well as it will help to explain some of the confusion in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. Johnston: There is a further point to be made with regard to the time factor. There has been what one might describe as a running General Election since 1961 or 1962, and it looks as though it is the intention to continue that state of affairs. I do not think that this is good for the country, nor do I think that it is particularly sensible to engage in this sort of criticism after such a short time. What the country desperately needs is stability, and this cannot be achieved if people get the impression that an election is imminent.
  My next point on the time factor concerns the question of cost. One must clearly differentiate between the inability of the Government immediately to frame their proposals in legislative form—for example, the Land Commission Bill, which is a failure of Government—and their failure as an Opposition. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were in opposition for 13 years, yet they failed to frame legislation on this subject even though they had the facilities for doing so, but they cannot necessarily be criticised for inheriting a situation which makes it impossible for them to do certain things which they hoped to do. We on this bench feel that the responsibility for the economic crisis of last autumn rests fairly and squarely on the Conservative Party. Therefore, although some of the Measures taken by the Government are welcome, if they had acted more firmly and more quickly things would not be as bad as they are now.
  To put it in terms of Scots law, the Motion is not proven. For the benefit of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who do not have the good fortune to be Scotsmen, that means not that the charge is dismissed but that the verdict is delayed until new evidence is found. We feel that there is insufficient evidence to justify this kind of Motion.
  There is one further point which I should like to make with regard to the Motion, and that is that its emotional crux lies in the use of the emotive word "honour". The Motion refers to the failure of the Government to honour their election pledges. As has ben said, if one does not honour something one is engaged in an exercise whereby one deceives. I think that that is the weakest argument of all, because if Members of

  777
  the Conservative Party are seriously saying that the public were bluffed—I maintain that the public are not all that gullible—and that they fell lock, stock and barrel for the alluring promises made to them by that compulsive siren the First Secretary and rushed out and tumbled over themselves to vote Labour, I must say that we are being called on to believe something which is not true at all. After all, the total Labour vote at the last election fell by comparison with the previous one, and it is because of our crazy electoral system that we continually produce crazy results.
  It is a criticism of the Liberal Party, of the Conservative Party, and indeed a little while ago of the Labour Party, that because of our party system any opposition party depends for its advancement on the failure of the Government party. However good one's intentions and ideals, if the Government party is making a good job of things the likelihood is that it will not be turned out of office because people do not wish to change an Administration which is working satisfactorily and which is giving them the sort of economic and spiritual answers for which they are looking.
  It is therefore fair to say that after 13 years of Conservative Government it was not merely a question of people rushing to join the Labour Party because that party promised them better things, but there was a real sickness in the country and a real tiredness with the failure of the Conservative Party to take advantage of the many opportunities which it had to put things right.
  Mr. Charles Curran: The hon. Gentleman says that the electorate tend to go on returning to power a party with which they are satisfied. Would not he agree that during the three elections in the 'fifties the electorate did just that? When he is arguing that there were 13 years of failure and broken promises, is it not relevant to point out that the Tory Party won one election after another during those years?
  Mr. Johnston: It may be relevant to do so, but it does not destroy my argument. The hon. Gentleman is talking about an historical situation. It may be that the country was pleased with the Conservative Party during those years. There was an increase in prosperity
  778
  during that period, but the point I am making is that the Conservative Party did not take advantage of that situation in the way that it ought to have done. I do not necessarily dissent from the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but nevertheless I regard this Motion as primarily a party political exercise without any real effective justification. Perhaps this is the last kick of the previous Tory heirarchy, which has now been changed. We on this bench compliment the new Leader of the Conservative Party on his appointment to that office and wish him well in the future. I noticed in the newspapers this morning that he said that the Conservatives would fight the Government on their policy. I hope that they will, because that is the sort of fighting that we should have in this House.
  I have devoted my speech to the Motion, and I do not wish to speak for very much longer, but there are one or two points that I must make about the Amendment. It is natural that the Government should table this kind of Amendment. We, too, thought of putting down an Amendment. One of our Members, in a rather frivolous mood, thought that it might be a good idea to delete the words after "deplores" so that the Motion would read:
  "This House deplores the intention of Her Majesty's Government to implement their election pledges, and further deplores the fact that the Opposition are urging the Government to implement such measures as the nationalisation of steel",
  but we felt that such an exercise was not desirable.
  The Government have tabled a political Amendment saying that they are a great Government and that they are doing a fine job. It is natural that they should do that, but this is not necessarily something that we on this bench can support. We disagree with the Labour Party on many things. We disagree with hon. Gentlemen opposite over taxation. We disagree with them over nationalisation and over their approach to industrial relations. We disagree with them over the governmental structure, and we also disagree with them over foreign affairs and defence. The Amendment cannot be supported by us, and the Motion is certainly not one that we can support in any way.
  The people outside the House—the ones who are round about us and who

  779
  sent us here to work as well as we are able for the advancement of our country—will not thank us for using our abilities for party fraction. They would appreciate much more our sitting down and trying to deal with the fundamental problem that face this nation—the difficulties of industrial relations and of trying to bring the two sides of industry together which is fundamental so that we have a unified country moving forward.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), who made an entertaining speech, referred to the fact that we had adopted one aspect of Liberal policy. For many years the Liberals have deservedly served in opposition, in which time they have embraced so many policies that it was statistically inevitable that, sooner or later, there would be a certain coincidence of policy. What is remarkable is that for members of a party which still claims to be radical they do not find a little more coincidence with our policies.
  It is also interesting to point out that just an hour ago, when we had a Count—on the day when, we are told, a new dynamic Conservative leadership was about to emerge, and when the Opposition were about to put pressure on the Government, in order to fight them and harry them from office—the Conservative benches could muster only five Members. This is the enthusiasm with which they are now fighting the Government.
  Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I must point out something that is often forgotten by the hon. Member and his colleagues. On many occasions other important business is going on outside the Chamber. The Conservative Party sat here day after day when only two or three Government supporters were in the House when the Finance Bill was being debated.
  Mr. Williams: In reply, I would say that we have long expected Conservative Members to put the interests and needs of the Conservative Party before those of the country. We would not expect them to be here, serving the needs of the country, when they have a meeting they could attend elsewhere. We see here the whole
  780
  significance of the change in Tory leadership. It means that instead of ambling aimlessly towards defeat they will now be led vigorously to defeat at the next election.
  We should not overlook the significance of the fact that this Motion came forward at all from the Conservative Party. If hon. Members opposite mean what they say in their Motion it is a major victory for morality in this country and it represents a major conversion. At last, it seems, the Conservatives have realised that an election promise is something which should be kept. We have been trying to tell them this for 13 years, with little success. During that period we have had many Tory broken promises. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister listed some of them. They have debased the political coinage of the country and to some extent undermined the standing of the House in the country, because people have felt that their words could not be trusted in matters of policy.
  One could well write the history of the 1950s in terms of Tory broken promises. There has been the spiraling cost of living—which has risen 42 per cent. in the last 10 years and 51 per cent. over the whole of their spell of office—which we can relate to their promises to mend the hole in the purse and their creation of a property-owning democracy. It was not very democratic to own a house, because the Conservatives cut back very heavily on council house building. There was nothing very democratic in it for the property owners, because the Conservatives cut back housing in that respect, too, later.
  They deluded many people into thinking that under Conservative leadership they would have a house of their own.
  Mr. Curran: I put to the hon. Member the same point that I put to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston). During the 13 years of broken promises that he has told us about—years of Tory cheating of the voters—the Tory Party won election after election. How does he explain that? If the promises were not being kept why did the voters go on returning the party that made them?
  Mr. Williams: That is answered by saying that the Conservatives put forward a series of bigger and better

  781
  promises. The misfortune of the 1950s is that whereas the Greeks always had a word for it the Tories always had a solution for it. They were always very good at advertising, but they were not very good at solving problems. They could always appeal to the public through a good advertising campaign, although eventually it came home to the electors what the real situation was.
  The Conservatives spoke of it as a landslide victory when they increased their majority from 30 to 100. How much more of a landslide was it when they lost that 100-seat majority completely at one sweep? The public have come to realise the real nature of Conservatism.
  Already hon. Members opposite, who are telling us that we ought to honour our election pledges, have fallen into disgrace—if I may use that word—in respect of the next election. They are already ahead of themselves. This spell in opposition is putting some verve into them, but they have already started breaking their promises for the next election. Only a few weeks ago, on television, we were assured that at the next election the Conservative Party would be led by a certain right hon. Gentleman who has now, unfortunately, departed from the scene. They are ahead of themselves. Do not let us have any show of virtue from them about keeping promises.
  My intention is to talk about a set of promises which were linked to Wales, and to ask how far those promises, as embodied in the policy statement, have been fulfilled. I regret to say that, unfortunately, none of those Conservative Members who represent Wales have seen fit to be present in the House—not even the Conservative spokesman for Wales. First, we promised to create a real Secretary of State for Wales. The Tories opposed this. We have now set up this office, and the former Leader of the Opposition has said that the Conservatives would not abolish the office if they came back to power.
  But not only have we set up this office; we have been gradually increasing its range of responsibility beyond what we stated in the election manifesto. We have added a responsibility for roads. We heard only last Saturday from the Prime Minister, in Newtown, that a certain responsibility will also be given to
  782
  the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of higher education. As a result of all these measures Wales has been given a clear voice in the Cabinet. Not only that; it has been given a Welsh voice in the Cabinet.
  The Conservatives do not seem to know where Wales is. They have perambulated all around Britain trying to find it. We had one charming gentleman who had a Scots name—Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, as he was when he was in this House. We had a Member who represented one of the London constituencies. We even got as far as Leeds. The Tories obviously thought that Wales was one of the Ridings of Yorkshire. Now we have reached Hereford. The Tories have not yet come to the Floor of this House to find one elected Conservative Member whom they would consider fit to speak for Wales. Labour Members have had more regard for Conservative Members from Wales than the Conservative Members themselves have had.
  Not only have we given the Cabinet a Welsh voice; we have given it a voice which is intended to speak purely about Wales, instead of a voice which speaks in respect of various other duties coincidentally, as occurred under the Conservatives. Under them the Secretary of State for Wales also dealt with one of the trivia of the Home Office, or the minor problems of housing all over Britain. We now have a Welsh Secretary of State who deals exclusively with the problems of Wales, and we therefore have a greater chance of her problems being solved.
  We promised a new town for Wales, and already surveys are being undertaken and consultants have been appointed. We expect to have a report in the early autumn. That is very quick action on such an important development, but it was attacked in the Welsh Grand Committee by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side. They said that it was ill-considered, but the remarkable thing is that they have never made any investigations on which to found their rejection of it as an idea.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in the 16 years during which I have been in the House

  783
  this is the first time that we have had a full Session where there has not been a day given to debate Wales?
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is making a slight mistake. I was not aware that we had yet had a full Session. I was under the impression that we still had some of the Session to come. He knows the procedure of the House better than I do, but I thought that we went on with the Session when we came back in October, and that that would seem to be a more suitable time. If I am wrong, no doubt he will correct me. But I am very interested to hear him say that this is the first Session in which he cannot remember a Welsh day. When did the hon. Gentleman's party give us a Welsh day? It gave it to us on the very last day before the Summer Recess, year after year.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite should not try and belittle what the Government are doing for Wales. They are actually solving problems which have existed in Wales for a long time. As I have said, consultants for the new town have been appointed, and it is under way. We have also made a declaration about leaseholds. In December, as soon as we got into office, we fulfilled part of our pledge by saying that we were putting a standstill on the loss of houses through the leasehold system, and already we have given security. In addition, we had a pledge from the Prime Minister—and he repeated it today—which he made at Newtown on Saturday, that leasehold reform would be introduced next Session. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite flatly refused to introduce legislation for 13 years; they were not interested. One or two went through pantomimic performances, displaying a not very far-reaching support for it, but they made sure that it never got through. In that sense, Wales has already seen the benefit of a Labour Government.
  We have seen the benefit in housing. Already we have been told that there will be 5 per cent. more houses built in Wales this year than there were last year.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: After Tuesday's announcement?
  Mr. Williams: Oh, yes. These houses are already started. There will be 5 per cent. more.
  784
  Compare that with the record under the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. During a recent debate on housing we heard from them about a highly successful Conservative housing campaign, but let us see how highly successful it was and how sincere it was in Wales. In 1951, having won an election on the housing programme, for a couple of years they did increase the number of houses. In 1954, they were building more houses than were built in 1951. They achieved that, but what I have never understood is why, in 1955, they built fewer than in 1954; why, in 1956, they built fewer than in 1955; why, in 1957, they built fewer than in 1956; and why, in 1958, they built fewer than in 1957. By 1958, for every 100 houses that had been built in Wales in 1954, they were building only 66. That is why we still have a hard-core problem of housing in Wales.
  As a result, it was not until 1964 that the number of houses built managed to equal the number which had been built 10 years before, and the loss in those intervening 10 years of disinterest and mismanagement was the equivalent of the output of 22 months, if they had maintained the 1954 output. In other words, if the 1954 output had been kept up they could have said that they were putting the building industry on holiday for 22 months, and they would still have built the same number of houses.
  Between 1963 and 1964, they achieved an increase in Wales of 20 per cent. They expect people to accept that as creditable, but surely it is their own indictment. What occurred in the building industry between 1963 and 1964 to enable that to happen? Was there an increase in the number of workers and an increase in capital outlay? No. What there was in 1964 that had been lacking before was not the means to produce houses, but the will to produce them. That is what was lacking in 10 years of Conservative Government. Twenty-seven thousand people are without houses or are living in sub-standard housing because of the calculated housing policy of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  I would like briefly to refer to what has happened in relation to industrial development in Wales. Here again, the people of Wales owe a debt of gratitude to the Labour Government. They contrast it sharply with what happened

  785
  under the previous Administration. Already, new development districts have been set up and new firms are coming in. In Swansea, the town which I have the honour to represent, though not in my own constituency, we have recently had a Ford factory come as a result of negotiations undertaken by the Welsh Office and the Board of Trade in December.
  We have had a planning board set up. It may be asked, what is the value of planning boards? To that I would reply, what is the importance of not having planning boards? Under a Conservative Government, Wales had a desperate problem of depopulation in the centre of the country, and we found that, far from dealing with the problem—because they had no technique for controlling and planning—under the Tories the rate of depopulation between 1951 and 1963 actually doubled, because they did not plan to cure it. Under the Tories, the rate of increase in the number of jobs in Wales was half that of the rest of Britain, and they told us that we shared fully in the prosperity of Britain How fully did we share?
  What about incomes standards? The Tories say that in Wales they are high, and they are, if you consider only one statistical fact. They are high because of one industry, steel. If you take steel wages out of the average earnings in Wales and if you take them out of the average earnings in England, the average earnings in Wales are 16s. 2d. a week lower than they are in England. It may be said, what is 16s. 2d.? What it indicates is the nature of the Welsh problem. We have not got the high wage industries which have been set up in England. We were not given a fair stake in the twentieth century by the previous Government, and they did not establish in Wales the industries that we will need if prosperity is to carry on through to the end of the century.
  For those reasons, I suggest that what has happened under the present Government has been quite remarkable, particularly when we have been working with a majority of three, and when we inherited a deficit of £800 million, which means that not only do we have to pay that back but we have to limit our spending to make sure that we do not repeat it. Controlled by the economic situation
  786
  which we inherited, in foreign policy, in peace bids in Vietnam, in saving the £, we have found that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite have all too often stabbed in the back the efforts that have been made by the Government to save the situation for the country.
  Without hesitation, I say that the people of Wales have no doubt that the Government have kept faith with Wales.
  7.40 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) will forgive me if I do not directly follow his speech but comment on it as I go along. At the outset I wish to say something about the Prime Minister's speech. I thought it one of the most unconvincing speeches I have every heard in this House. The hysterical cheers of Government supporters when he sat down did not conceal from any of us the very low morale there is on the benches opposite nor the guilty consciences of many hon. Members opposite because of the broken promises we are debating today. It was notable that in his speech he barely answered a single point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) in opening the debate. It was a really remarkable achievement.
  This debate is about our view that it is unforgivable for politicians to make promises which are unrealistic or unrelated to the nation's resources and therefore unlikely to be carried out. As I was in this House in 1945, I shall make a brief comparison with the situation which arose then. I shall not talk about the Labour manifesto of 1945, "Let us Face the Future", an over-optimistic, starry-eyed and somewhat naive document, but I shall say a few words about some of the speeches, articles and broadcasts made by leaders of the party opposite in 1945 and make some comparisons with last year.
  I acquit the Socialist Party absolutely of any deliberate policy of wishing to mislead the public in any way in 1945. I do not believe they did that. I do not accuse them for one moment of dishonest politics or of making promises they did not think they could carry out, but many of the promises they made

  787
  were extremely rash and extremely misleading. That was in 1945.
  Looking back it is interesting to find that on the subject of housing we were told by Cabinet Ministers that there was "an immediate plan for 4 million well-planned and well-built houses." At the rate achieved in the six years of that Government it would have taken 22 years to build 4 million. We were told that there was a plan for "new and better old-age pensions" which would be introduced at once". In fact is was a terrible story of the 26s. pension at the last moment being raised to 30s. and even then not given to everyone. We were told by an ex-Minister that unemployment would be "eliminated" and that nationalisation "would ensure that goods would be available at decent prices for everyone." That was a big laugh. Public ownership of gas and electricity undertakings would "lower prices for everyone". That was another big laugh. We were told,
  "Labour will protect your savings against rising prices".
  Every pound which was saved in 1945 was worth only 15s. six years later. We were even told in an election broadcast,
  "You can have all you want."
  If that was not a big promise I do not know what was.
  These were the sort of promises made out of over-confidence, inexperience and, to some extent, irresponsibility, but with no deliberate intention, I suggest, to mislead the electorate, although, in fact, the electorate was misled. It gave evidence of that when it voted in 1951. Failure to carry out those promises was an important factor in our winning three General Elections in a row with an increased majority each time. I go so far as to say that there is no doubt that we would have won four in a row but for the lavish promises made in the last General Election, which people took at their face value. Those promises were not just starry-eyed, well-meaning, naive, irresponsible promises but promises which were so far beyond the nation's resources that the chances of carrying them out were not 10 to 1 against or 100 to 1 against—there was no chance of carrying them out at all and, therefore, they should never have been made.
  788
  We are offered three excuses why many of the things promised, and which people had a right to assume would be carried out in the first Session of this Parliament, have not been carried out. We are told that there has been too little Parliamentary time. Everyone knows that is rubbish. We have had time for a vicious, unnecessary Finance Bill—the longest, I think, in history—taking a terrific amount of Parliamentary time. There has been time to debate an anti-hanging Bill in Government time which everyone knows the great majority of the general public are opposed to, and ample time for all kinds of nonsense, but no time to carry out these pledges.
  Mr. Kenneth Lomas rose—
  Sir T. Beamish: I do not want to give way much as I want to make only a short speech.
  Mr. Lomas: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will concede the point that we still have another four years to go? These are only the first 12 months.
  Sir T. Beamish: That is the very last thing I would concede. I should be surprised if the party opposite had four months to go. The second excuse made is that the party opposite inherited a terrible economic mess after 13 years of Tory misrule—
  The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Charles Pannell): Hear, hear.
  Sir T. Beamish: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear", but it was the Prime Minister himself who said only two weeks before the General Election:
  "I do not believe we are facing any danger to sterling, any run on the £."
  On 23rd November he said:
  "so far as the trade gap is concerned … there were reserves and borrowings more than adequate to meet this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 933.]
  This cannot be denied. This excuse will not wash. The party opposite knew exactly the balance of payments position when they made their promises during the General Election. It was a difficult position, but they knew it just as well as we did. This is a fact. The Prime Minister admitted it before the election and after the election. It was in the light

  789
  of the known balance of payments position that these promises were made, so that excuse will not wash either.
  I find a third excuse. I apologise that I have not warned the right hon. Gentleman concerned. It is difficult before a debate like this to warn every hon. Member that one might refer to him. I have not informed the First Secretary of State and the First Secretary of State for Economic Affairs that I would quote something which he has been reported in inverted commas, in a newspaper recently, as saying. He gave another excuse, and perhaps this might be a valid one. According to the Press:
  "He promised that every pledge given in the Labour manifesto would be honoured by the end of their term of office, 'assuming, of course, that our term of office will be at least 10 years'."
  This may be the explanation. It is just possible that, "Let's go with Labour" left out this sentence by mistake, as a printer's error. That could be an explanation, that it was assumed by those who made these promises that the Socialist Party would be in power for 10 years. It is an odd reason for making such promises.
  The difference between 1945, between promises made then and promises made in the 1964 General Election, is very contrasting. I have said that I acquit the party opposite absolutely of any intention to mislead in 1945, but I certainly do not do so in regard to promises made in 1964. Many of the promises made were plainly dishonest. If they had not been made I do not believe the party opposite would have won the election. I am sure of this.
  I think it worth while having a look at some of those premises. Some of them have been quoted and some have not. I do not want to quote too many, but it is worth having on the record why this debate has arisen and what sort of promises were made. I shall not quote the names of those who made the promises, but in every single instance they are well known members of the party opposite and the promises were made in broadcasts, speeches, election addresses or the party manifesto.
  First there was:
  "The Labour Party will not need to increase the general level of taxes to pay for its programme."
  790
  That was said by a Cabinet Minister and confirmed by the Prime Minister himself. Another Cabinet Minister said:
  "The continual rise in the cost of living can, must and will be halted to give the housewife relief and her family a genuine rise in their standard of living."
  Transport:
  "a dynamic expansion of the road programme"
  was promised by an ex-Cabinet Minister. Home ownership—the Prime Minister promised
  "One hundred per cent mortgages, lower interest rates and cheaper legal charges".
  Another promise was
  "Special low interest rates for house purchase".
  Education—we were promised "greatly increased school building" and
  "greatly increased recruitment and training of teachers".
  We were promised
  "a massive programme in higher, further and university education".
  We were promised that the Labour Party would guarantee at least half pay in the case of sickness and unemployment. "Signposts for the Sixties" had earlier said that this would be one of the "first jobs" of a Labour Government. There was no mention of a 10-year period of office there. We were promised by the Prime Minister:
  "An income guarantee will ensure that everyone has enough to live on as a right, and without recourse to National Insurance This will come without delay."
  There is no mention about it coming in 10 years. It was to come "without delay".
  We were told by another Cabinet Minister:
  "One of the first jobs of the next Labour Government will be to introduce a new 'income guarantee' which will apply to everyone over 65 and to every widow."
  I emphasise "one of the first jobs". There was no mention of 10 years there. What a scandalous disgrace this is. Yesterday I was horrified to hear both Government spokesmen virtually denying that the Prime Minister himself and the Colonial Secretary, as Chairman of the Labour Party, and the spokesman for the party opposite in a debate last spring had all promised, or practically promised, parity for public service pensioners and for Armed Forces pensioners. I have four quotations in my hand, two of them

  791
  from the Prime Minister, making absolutely clear promises of parity for public service and Armed Forces pensioners. I challenge the Minister of Public Building and Works, who is now sitting on the Treasury Bench, to deny that these promises were made. He knows full well that they were made, and so do the public service and the Armed Forces pensioners. They feel terribly badly let down.
  Lastly, on this list of promises, the reform of the rating system, something which matters a great deal in my constituency. This was a promise which, like many of the other promises, won thousands of votes for the Labour Party. My right hon. Friend quoted this:
  "We shall give early relief"—
  I emphasise this, not in 10 years—
  "to ratepayers by transferring a large part of the burden … from the rates to the Exchequer."
  There has been no relief. Instead, there has been the biggest single rise in rates for many years, averaging 14 per cent. throughout the land. Tens of thousands of people living on fixed incomes are suffering tortures and unhappiness as a result. These are people who believed the promise that "early" relief would be given.
  The promises given in 1964 were a very different kettle of fish from those given in 1945. The electorate is increasingly sophisticated. This goes without saying. But many people were taken in by these promises. There is no doubt about that. They feel that they were deliberately foxed. Who can blame them for accusing the party opposite of double dealing in politics? For this the Prime Minister himself bears a very heavy responsibility. Democracy is in danger when promises so carelessly, even callously, given can be so casually broken. Honest politics have been debated by the giving of these promises in this way, and the people who made these promises are laying themselves open to the charge that politics is a dirty game, which I do not believe it is. By making these promises they are running a grave risk of encouraging cynicism in the electorate.
  Any party that knowingly makes promises of this character is bound to pay the price next time round. The manifesto, coupled with the broadcasts and the
  792
  election addresses and speeches, from a few of which I have quoted, at the 1964 General Election amounted to a confidence trick on the electorate. Put together, they amounted, as has been said several times today, to the issuing of a false political prospectus. This was unforgivable, and it will not be forgiven.
  7.56 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lomas: It is not my intention to follow what the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) has said, because so much of it is based on the assmption that the Government who were returned nine or ten months ago should in that time have implemented a programme which was designed for five years. It must be emphasised that the Government have been in power for only nine or ten months, one-sixth of the time that they are entitled to be in power and one-sixteenth of the time that the party opposite were in power during 1951 and 1964.
  We have a long way to go. The steps that we have taken in the nine or ten months we have been in power reflect in many ways great credit upon the Government faced, as they have been, with a terrible economic situation. It is important that members of the Liberal Party should recognise that we have survived in this Parliament, shall continue to survive, and that we have not been dependent upon them for their support. The Liberal Party is dependent upon us if it wants the social reforms that it claims are part and parcel of its policy and philosophy brough into effect. The Tory Party will certainly not bring in the great social benefits that we have been, and will be attempting, to bring in.
  We have been criticised for not doing all that we promised in a short space of time. It is cheek and impertinence on the part of right hon. and hon. Members opposite to say that we should have done everything in this short space of time. We knew in the run-up to the election that the Conservative Party had been playing tricks. We knew that it was playing the electioneering game. We knew that it had hung on to office, though it had a dispute over its leadership then, as it has now—or, rather, it has just resolved one. The Conservatives clung on in the hope that something would turn

  793
  up. The Conservative Party is the Micawber of British politics. The Conservatives clung on until the last month, until they were forced to go to the country so that the nation could reach a verdict.
  Although we knew this and although we knew that certain things were being concealed, it was not until we came to power and the books were examined that we realised that much had been kept secret in the hope of it working advantageously to the Conservative Party.
  Sir T. Beamish: Will the hon. Gentleman give just one example of anything which was kept secret?
  Mr. Lomas: Yes, I will. First, a report on the state of the schools was not published until after the election, because the Conservatives were frightened of the consequences. Secondly, they did not disclose the terrible financial situation into which we were moving. Thirdly, the Conservatives concealed the fact that the Post Office had a deficit of £100 million. I could give many more examples. The policy of the Tory Party has been to conceal the true issues, in the hope of getting some electoral gain from such a policy.
  During the last nine months of Tory government, between January and September, 1964, it is an undeniable fact that production did not increase by one single point. We know the heartless way in which the Tories looked after their own interests. People were evicted from their homes. They became the victims of landlordism and all kinds of evils of that kind. The Tories concealed many important facts which should have been placed before the nation.
  As a Government and a party we decided that this attitude had to be changed and one of the things we set out to do was to try to rid the country of the word "Rachmanism" which had become synonymous with the Tory Party. It was a part of the whole outlook and mentality of the Conservative Party. We have recently passed the Rent Bill, which is a good thing in itself and which will get rid of many of the evils with which we were faced in those intervening years. By giving security of tenure and protecting people from exiction we are doing useful things, and also keeping our promise to the electorate.
  794
  I know what happened in Huddersfield during the period that the Tories were in power. That great county borough is still faced with a situation in which out of 40,000 houses, 8,000 have no bath and 10,000 have no inside toilet. That is a reflection upon the fact that the Tories were in power for 13 years but did very little about that housing situation.
  That was the background when we came to power—a terrible mess with £700 million or £800 million deficit in our balance of payments, imports entirely out of control, goods being imported and not sufficient exported. We had to take immediate action. But, faced with that situation, we still honoured our election promise to the old and the sick and the weak and to people for whom we had specifically promised that we would do something immediately. 'We abolished the earnings rule for widows and trebled the pension of 10s. widows and we abolished prescription charges.
  Of course the Conservative Party could not openly oppose those things, but why then had it not done them while still in power? Were hon. Members opposite still in favour of us giving people on National Assistance some kind of Christmas box to get them over the worst period of the winter? They did not vote against many of these things, but they must have been against them because they sought to do little about them and, when they had the opportunity they refused to vote the money to make them possible now.
  If it is true, as we are told, that we are spending too much on the social services, will any hon. Member opposite tell me what we should cut, how we should reduce and where we should do it? There is no point in saying that we must reduce public expenditure without identifying the projects in mind.
  We have kept our promises in many different ways. In spite of the crisis with which we are now faced, we have done what we could to reduce public expenditure. The review of defence programmes which is now taking place should be applauded. Under the Conservative Party, hundreds of millions of pounds were frittered away on projects and missiles which were never any good and which soon lost any useful purpose which they might have had. The Government should

  795
  be applauded for trying to find ways and means of reducing and at the same time making more efficient our whole defence programme. Personally, I would like there to be a much greater cut in defence, because until defence costs bear a realistic relation to the economy as a whole, we shall never get anywhere.
  Equally, we have attempted to do something which hon. Members opposite failed to do in the whole time that they were in power—to stimulate exports and to try to ensure that we sell more abroad. I had the pleasure only a few weeks ago of going on an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Iceland. It is a very small country with a very small population, but what was true in that country must be true in others. I was told by the chief purchasing officer on behalf of the Iceland Government that British exporters did not go there, but waited until someone got in touch with them, which they did by letter. People in areas like Iceland want to see and talk to representatives of British industry and discuss problems with them face to face, and the Government are now doing everything they can to assist exports in that way.
  Again, it was essential that we should meet the pledge in our election manifesto that we would overhaul our antiquated tax system. This is what we have been doing. We said that we would attack business expenses and we have started doing so. We said that we would attack the great capital gains which were being made without any work being done for them, and we have been doing that. In that respect, too, we have kept our promises. These reforms were long overdue, but the Conservative Party was loth to undertake them because it represents not the ordinary individual but the great vested interests. We believe that the burden of taxation must be more equitably shared, but do the Tories believe that? If they do, why did we have such a sustained argument against the Finance Bill which in many respects sought to redistribute the whole burden of taxation?
  Equally, we promised to introduce another reform which was long overdue—the setting up of regional councils to look after areas to which it was necessary to take work and where it was necessary to
  796
  set up new kinds of employment. In case of any falling-off in work in the transfer of men from one job to another, we introduced, as we promised, a Redundancy Payments Bill to help to deal with the situation.
  Through the action of the First Secretary, we have kept an election promise that we would introduce an incomes policy; not a wage freeze but an incomes policy, not the pay pause which we had in 1961 when, as a Health Service worker, I realised only too well what it meant to have wages held back when the Whitley Council reached agreement and the Minister stepped in and prevented the award. An incomes policy is not a wage freeze but is the realisation that those at the bottom of the scale should receive greater rewards than they are getting and that those at the top in this set of circumstances should take something slightly less.
  We have honoured another election promise in the setting-up of the Incomes and Prices Review Board which is already having its effect, as was seen only recently with road haulage rates. These are definite political promises which we made in our election manifesto and which we are honouring.
  I accuse the Conservative Party of being nothing more or less than political hypocrites in that hon. Members opposite want it both ways. They want defence costs to go on soaring and they want greater subsidies to the farmers, but they are not prepared to vote the money essential to obtain these things. Again I ask hon. Members opposite where they would cut and where they would attack the social services if they were the Government.
  Overseas we have attempted to repair the damage which was done to the Commonwealth by the hasty and ill-conceived action of hon. Members opposite when they sought to take us into the Common Market without giving any, or very little, thought to the effect which that would have on the Commonwealth. We have cemented the Commonwealth together much more than has ever been the case before.
  In the limited sphere in which we can operate we have tried to initiate greater moves for peace, but from the Opposition all we have had has been carping, baying,

  797
  yapping criticism of every step we have taken. The Prime Minister's initiative at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference was treated almost with disdain and at the same time the sending of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) to Vietnam was treated as a joke. We are working for peace, something we have been attempting all the time that we have been a political party.
  I have sat on these benches for nine months, but I have not yet heard a single constructive comment from hon. Members opposite. From beginning to end, it has been nothing but destructive comment. The nation has had more than enough of Toryism. For 13 years it suffered under the Tories. The Tories appealed to base materialism, but we are trying to appeal to something better. We have thought of the people who need our help and assistance, and they have turned to us and we shall not let them down, either as a Government or as a party.
  If we are given the time—and the time is ours, for we can have an election whenever we choose and not when hon. Members opposite decide—we shall get out of this mess. Because we have a Government with guts and which believes in keeping its election promises and because we stand by those election promises, I am convinced that when the election comes, in twelve months, or two, three or four years, we shall win it handsomely and we shall have laid the foundations on which we can build the kind of society which we set out to build when we started on this great drive forward in 1945.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. C. M. Woodhouse: The Prime Minister, at the end of his speech, said two things; in one case, he quoted the words of the late Sir Winston Churchill, that manifestos do not matter and no attempt need be made to carry them out, and in the other—I cannot imitate the eloquence with which he uttered the words—he said that the Labour Party manifesto would be carried out.
  This equivocation illustrates one of the difficulties that we are in in this debate, the difficulty of knowing exactly what the Labour Party did promise and
  798
  what it meant by it, and the difficulty of knowing this especially in the case of local pledges, the kind of promises which were scattered around the constituencies to swing votes here and there, with no regard to the consistency of those local promises with the total national programme.
  The difficulty depends on whether one is to rely on the Labour Party's manifesto or the statements made by the Prime Minister and some of his senior colleagues in their speeches during the year or so before the General Election took place. We know where we are in cases where there was a straight contradiction between the manifesto and the pre-election speeches, as in the case of immigration policy. On this side of the House at least, we have no doubt that the manifesto was deliberately phrased in ambiguous terms to enable the Government to reverse their way out of a foolish position, as, for instance, was the case with their financial policies.
  But in some matters we just do not know whether there was an undertaking being given or not, and it is with one of those that I want to deal. I shall be brief, and I apologise to the House for the fact that this will in part be a parochial matter, but even though it is parochial, it is typical, because parochial pledges of the same kind were given all over the country. The matter also involves national issues. It involves, indeed, one of the central issues of the Labour Party manifesto, the issue of rate reform.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) pointed out, the manifesto promised not only reform of the rating system but also interim Measures to give early relief to ratepayers by transferring a larger part of the burden of public expenditure from local authorities to the Exchequer. Everybody knows that that has not yet been done. Even the interim measures have not been carried out. I do not deny that this is an extremely difficult operation. I am not blaming the Labour Party for having failed to carry out this extremely difficult and complex operation. I blame it for ever having promised that it would do it. The whole gravamen of the charge against the Government is not so much that they have failed to carry out their promises as that they

  799
  saddled themselves with so many promises which would be impossible to carry out.
  But there is one aspect of rating reform which it is possible to isolate from the general question. It is very simple to carry out the reform about which I wish to speak once a decision in principle is taken. It is one which the electors in my constituency and in the sister constituency of Cambridge were led to believe that the Labour Party had decided in principle and that the Labour Government both could and would immediately carry out. This pledge concerns the intricate matter, which I will not elaborate in detail, of the rate relief enjoyed by the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, and them alone among all the university institutions, at the expense of the other ratepayers.
  I will merely summarise the crux of this problem and the pledge that appeared to have been given. The problem is whether or not this admitted anomaly should be cured by an Exchequer subsidy. I do not wish to attack the Government on this; I merely seek information. I just want to ask whether there was or was not an undertaking given by the Labour Party to seek a possible cure by means of an Exchequer subsidy. The electors in my constituency certainly believed that there was such an undertaking, and they found it in a letter written by the General Secretary of the Labour Party, Mr. Len Williams, to the Oxford City Labour Party, which was prominently published in the Oxford newspapers on 31st January last year.
  They also thought that this undertaking was confirmed by a letter published in the same Oxford papers from the agent of the Oxford City Labour Party a few weeks later in which he repeated and confirmed the words of the General Secretary, saying that the next Labour Government had been committed to initiate early discussions between the Treasury, the University Grants Committee and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government with a view to special grants being made to the Oxford and Cambridge colleges through the U.G.C. in lieu of rates.
  All this appeared to amount to a definite undertaking. I say that it
  800
  "appeared" to do so, because since the Government came into office the Labour candidate at Oxford, in the General Election, on being reminded of this apparent undertaking, denied publicly that there had been any undertaking, and on being reminded of the words of his own agent, he denied that his agent had any right to make statements of policy. In these denials he was supported, though somewhat ambiguously by the chairman of his party. I accepted those denials, because I have respect for the honour of these men, but, curiously enough, when I put the same point to Ministers in the House of Commons they did not deny that there had been an undertaking, though they did not exactly admit it, either.
  In a debate on 25th March this year, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said:
  "It is not a question of an embarrassing pledge which we want to forget."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 865.]
  That can, of course, mean that there was a pledge and the Government are doing their best to carry it out, or it could mean that there was no pledge. I should like to know which. On the face of it, I should have no hesitation in believing the first, and preferable, alternative, that there was a pledge and it is to be carried out, were it not for the fact that the second, and more regrettable, alternative has been publicly supported by the Labour candidate in Oxford and his chairman.
  Unfortunately, too, every Question which I have tabled in the House on the assumption that the pledge existed and is being honoured is being met with increasingly evasive and uninformative Answers. The time has come to seek a definite answer. Was there a pledge to initiate early discussions on an Exchequer subsidy or not? Who is right—the Labour Party agent in Oxford, ambiguously supported by the Minister who replied to the debate, in saying that there was a pledge, or the Labour candidate in Oxford, apparently supported by his own chairman in saying that there was not? If I may have an unequivocal answer tonight from whichever Minister winds up the debate, I will make him a fair offer. If the answer is that there was a pledge, that it has been honoured and that a

  801
  satisfactory settlement based upon an Exchequer subsidy is to be announced in the early future, preferably before the Summer Recess, I should not feel disposed to vote against the Government tonight, but I should be very surprised if I receive that answer.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Ioan L. Evans: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) will forgive me if I do not follow him in dealing with the parochial problems he raised. I thought that the subject was one for an Adjournment debate rather than for this great debate to censure the Government. Indeed, hon. Members opposite seem to be scraping the barrel. Now we have been told about a local promise confined to Oxford. That is almost better than the intervention about white fish, which was the best red herring in the debate.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), rather than deal with the promises we made in our recent election manifesto, dealt with the promises made in "Let Us Face the Future" in 1945. He claimed that the 1945–51 Government did not fulfil the promises in that manifesto. I challenge him to read the document again. A five-year programme was set out in the manifesto. We said that we should take over the basic industries, and we did. We said that we would establish the Welfare State, and we did. We introduced a vast programme of National Insurance, National Assistance, industrial injury benefits and other welfare measures.
  Indeed, the period 1945–51 was a unique occurrence in British social history. For the first time, the pledges that a party had made to the electorate were fulfilled almost to the letter. It is true that we did not go as far as we wished in housing, but do not let us forget that in 1945 we still were suffering the ravages of the war and 250,000 blitzed houses had to be repaired.
  We should remember the situation that faced the Government in 1945. Sir Winston Churchill, when he was Prime Minister in 1945, told Mr. Morgenthau that this country was bankrupt and that he did not know what he was going to tell the Forces when they returned because he feared the consequences. Yet
  802
  between 1945 and 1951 there were the tremendous achievements which we on this side are justifiably proud of.
  However, we are not debating what happened then. That is history. I thought that this was to be a censure debate on the present Government, but even from the Liberal benches we have had more censure of the 13 years of Conservative Government. When right hon. and hon. Members opposite examine the terms of their Motion again they will regret that they chose this subject as a Motion of censure. What we set out in our manifesto was a programme for a five-year Parliamentary period. Now the Opposition are accusing us of not having done in nine months what we said we would do in five years. That, to me, is a weak case.
  I am sure that the speech made today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have made Parliamentary history. It was a complete, comprehensive and convincing case of what the Government has done. It was a brilliant speech.
  Mr. Maurice Orbach: It was devastating.
  Mr. Evans: I remind the House of what my right hon. Friend said, as Leader of the Opposition, before the election. He said that the Labour Party would endeavour to achieve three main tasks. The first would be to restore a sense of social justice to the conduct of our national life. The second would be to restore a sense of purpose to Britain's economic and industrial life. The third would be to achieve a new greatness based on the unique contribution that we had it in our power to make to world affairs.
  If we examine what the Government have so far done to deal with those tasks, we can see how the Motion deserves no consideration in the Division Lobbies. Much has been done to achieve our objectives. Three things should be remembered in considering what the Government have done. First, there is general agreement that the economic situation in October was hopeless. I would go further. Our relations with other countries were not too good and the fabric of the social services, of the Welfare State that we created between 1945 and 1951, was torn.
  Secondly, of course, there was the size of the Government's majority. That has

  803
  not helped matters. Despite it, however, the Government have put through major tax reforms in the Finance Bill against filibustering tactics by hon. Members opposite.
  Finally, as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend, we are considering what the Government have done in the first 300 of the 1,800 days that the people of Britain gave in electing the Government, for 1,800 days is about the normal life of a Parliament. If we are to make comparisons, then we can make favourable comparisons between what the Government have done in these 300 days and what was done by the Conservative Party in the 4,500 days between 1951 and 1964. Hon. Members opposite have said that the Conservatives had a majority in 1951. The fact is that although the Conservatives had more seats more people voted for the Labour Party than for them.
  What has been done to restore the sense of social justice to Britain? National Insurance benefits have been improved by the largest amount since 1946, when a Labour Government were also in power. Industrial injury benefits have also been improved by the largest amount since 1946. It was the post-war Labour Government which put the legislation on the Statute Book. The maternity benefits have been improved and the payments to widows trebled. The prescription charges have been abolished. I remind the House of what happened under the three successive Conservative Governments. The first imposed a charge of 1s. per prescription; the next made it 1s. per item and the third made it 2s. per item. Again, there has been the abolition of the earnings rule for widows, improvements in the scale of National Assistance, improvements in war pensions and the travel concessions Bill to allow the aged to travel on buses at concessionary rates.
  All these things could have been done by the Tory Government when they were in power. Yet today they criticise this Government because we have said that we intend radically to alter the structure of the social services in our five years of office. If we are given the opportunity to remain on this side for five years many hon. and right hon. Members opposite will regret that they spoke as they did today. Again, in the social services, we introduced the Protection from Eviction
  804
  Bill in the early months of this Parliament, and now going into the other place is the Rent Bill which will restore security to the many thousands of people who were living in dread because of the action the Tories took in their 1957 Rent Act. A great start has been made in the Government's planning to bring about the necessary social changes. Although there is more to be attained, we have, certainly in the first tasks, gone a long way to fulfil our election promises.
  Before one can improve the social services, however, there must be a sound and strong economy. What has been done to restore a sense of purpose to Britain's economic and industrial life? This year's Finance Bill has set the pattern. We said that, under a Labour Government, taxation would be fair. The introduction of the Capital Gains and Corporation Taxes will ensure not only that those who work hard are taxed but that those who make large gains through speculation on the Stock Exchange will be taxed equally. In the Queen's Speech we said:
  "Our industries will be helped to gain the full benefits of advances in scientific research and applied technology."
  Tremendous changes are taking place in the world, automation is coming, and enormous scientific advances are being made. This Government set up the Ministry of Technology to deal with these problems. These are early days yet, but, as the months go by, we shall see Britain once again leading the world in industry.
  We said that there would be
  "central and regional plans to promote economic development, with special reference to the needs of the under-employed areas".
  We have set up the Department of Economic Affairs, which has done much already to deal with the problems of those areas which suffered tremendously under Tory economic policies. In addition, we have established the regional economic planning machinery which is already doing an enormous amount to bring a new dynamism into the localities which suffered so much in recent years.
  We said that we would deal more effectively with monopolies. Already, the House has had the Monopolies and Mergers Bill before it. One may say that more needs to be done in this connection, but we have, at least, made a beginning. We said also that there would

  805
  have to be a proper relationship between increases in productivity and the growth of incomes in all forms. We have established the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and this has got off to a good start.
  Our economic progress should be judged not by the heights which we have so far reached but by the depths from which we have emerged. We did not start from scratch. We started from the slough of the Tory period, and we are now bringing ourselves out of it, looking forward to building on the new foundations we are creating. We have hitherto spoken of a balance of payments deficit of £800 million, but we heard from the Front Bench today that it was nearer £1,000 million. This is a serious situation from which to start. It is very pleasing to know—I hope that the people of Britain will realise it—that in nine months this deficit has already been halved. I hope that the Government will pursue their economic policies so that, in a year or two, we can see our nation's debt in the form of the balance of payments deficit finally removed. This Government are certainly taking us out of the economic mess which we inherited.
  Some of my hon. Friends, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), have spoken about cutting defence expenditure. I believe that we must begin to cut our military cloth according to our economic resources. For many years we have had an imperial army to maintain an empire. But when one begins to dismantle one's empire, one should take appropriate action to dismantle one's imperial army. I am pleased to see that the Government are making a real review of our defence commitments. These commitments depend, to a very large extent, on our foreign policies, our attitude to other countries.
  On the question of beginning to plan our economic policy, it is true that the party opposite is now won over to the idea of planning.
  Mr. John Biffen: No, no.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is one of the very few who supports the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). One of the revelations of the recent exercise in which they have been involved has
  806
  been that the other party is making progress as far as that attitude is concerned.
  We must look at what action has been taken by the Government to influence international events. First, we had the establishment of a Minister responsible for disarmament. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that on this major issue concerning all of humanity this Government is taking a lead. While all Governments throughout the world have Ministers of Defence the Labour Government have set a new example by giving someone the task of looking at the problems involved in disarmament, and seeking ways and means to remove the threat of nuclear annihilation. A lead has been given to freeing the world from the heavy burden of armaments. Something like £50,000 million is being spent by the leading industrial nations of the world on military expenditure. We are putting our £2,000 million-odd into that and we must therefore make sure that we use the raw materials of this world, and the brains and capacity of our people to divert this expenditure to real world problems. We are playing an important part as a Government in the disarmament discussions which are taking place at present.
  The appointment of a Minister to the United Nations was of special importance. It established that this Government was four-square behind the belief that the United Nations is a keystone to this country's foreign policy. The principles of the United Nations must prevail if peace is to be preserved. There is no shadow of doubt that the United Nations Organisation has had far more support from this Government than from the previous Tory Government. Not only have we played a part in the United Nations world peacekeeping operations, but in the present financial crisis which faced the United Nations it was Great Britain which made the proposal for an additional contribution to the U.N.O. to meet the financial problems. It was Great Britain which made the initial contribution.
  The third contribution we have made is that of a Ministry of Overseas Development with a Minister in the Cabinet. Once we have resolved the problem of disarmament the one serious problem remaining, and it is going to be a great heartache and headache for mankind in the future, will be the problem of world poverty. This Government have created a

  807
  Ministry to deal with this problem. We should consider what this Government have done in the last nine months. We have certainly made great progress in making a contribution to greater national understanding.
  The Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office have a vitally important part to play in the transition and development of mankind, one wiping out the old Empire and the other creating new and stronger bonds between developing Commonwealth countries. The Commonwealth has a new sense of purpose with the initiatives taken by the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference. The Commonwealth Prime Ministers took an initiative in the war in Vietnam. They want the Commonwealth to play a greater part, as it should since it represents a quarter of the world's population, in solving the world's problems.
  Our greatness will not be measured by military might or by possession of the so-called independent nuclear deterrent on which the Conservative Party spent so much time in its last years of office in trying to convince the people. [An hon. Member: "And our money".] Yes, and our money. It spent so much of our resources and so much of its time in putting forward this fallacious argument.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that we still have the nuclear deterrent and that his Government, as far as I know, have done nothing to get rid of it?
  Mr. Evans: There is to be a review of our defence commitments. The Government appointed a Minister with specific responsibility for disarmament who is trying to bring about a pact to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If they are given the opportunity, the Government will give a lead in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait a few months longer to see what the Government do in this respect.
  An hon. Member opposite spoke about the danger of democracy. We have people queuing up outside to listen to our debates. There is tremendous political interest in the country, and there is certainly a democratic awakening. Democracy
  808
  has at last even entered the thinking of the Tory Party. It now has a democratic procedure to elect a leader. At long last, with all the history of the Conservative Party, it has now decided to adopt a democratic procedure. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) is not present, but he was the man who debunked the magic circle. I do not know whether he will now speak about a conspirators' circle, but that is another story.
  I wish no to the new Leader of the Opposition. I hope that he will hold office for three or four decades. I hope that he will lead his party for many years to come. However, the Tory Party had better be wary, because the Liberal Party will replace it as the official Opposition if it is not careful.
  The Labour team has worked very well over the last nine months. We have not had all this shuffling and reshuffling on the Front Bench. We have not had to change our leaders.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Neither have we.
  Mr. Evans: The Liberal Party representative says that neither has his party, and I accept the point. Of course, the Liberal Party has not much censuring to do. The Conservative Party has been playing political musical chairs. This is, perhaps, why right hon. and hon. Members opposite want an organist to lead them.
  It was Sir Winston Churchill who, speaking when the House of Commons was rebuilt, said that we shape our buildings and they in turn shape us. The same principles apply to our political policies. We shape our economic, defence and foreign policies, and we in turn are shaped by them. Our policies are now taking a new, decent and better shape under the Labour Government. Harold Wilson as Prime Minister will do for Britain in peace time what Sir Winston Churchill did for Britain in war time. He has already given the nation the leadership required. I am convinced that, given some good fortune, the tasks we have set ourselves will be accomplished and that once again, just as we fulfilled our promises in 1945, the promises which we made in 1964 will be fulfilled.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Curran: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Joan L. Evans) certainly deserves well of his party. He has done his best for his Prime Minister and I hope hat his merits will be duly recognised. With all respect, however, to what was an entertaining speech, it was very much beside the point. Listening to the hon. Member's dithyrambic account of the wonders that have been worked by the Labour Government, one wonders what in the world the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been talking about this week. One wonders why every foreign capital appears to be speculating what economic disaster may be about to befall us.
  If the Labour Government really were doing a; well as the hon. Member has convinced himself they are doing, how does he explain the action taken this week by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Is that any evidence that the Government are recapturing confidence?
  Mr. Ioan L. Evans: As has been pointed out from this side of the House, we inherited a serious economic situation. I pointed out in my speech that we had reduced the deficit of £1,000 million to almost half, a tremendous achievement. That was part of the problem that we inherited. It took the party opposite 13 years to get into that situation. We must have a little more time to get out of it.
  Mr. Curran: I do not want to deal with that argument at great length, but I want to deal sufficiently with it.
  During the last election, the party opposite was well aware of the trade position. The balance of payments situation did not come as a bombshell to it after the election. And yet, knowing as its members did during the election what the trade position was, they proceeded to make the promises which they made. It really will not do for the Labour Party, nine months after having got its votes by making those promises, knowing as it did when it made them that the promises could not be kept, to tell us now that it will keep those promises sometime in the future.
  Every one of us here went through the last election successfully. Every one of us knows—I think that this is true on
  810
  both sides—that the Labour Party got votes in handfuls by promising to do this, that and the other, not in 10 or 20 years' time but forthwith. Nobody on the benches opposite said at the last election—I should like to be told of any Labour candidate who did say it—"If you vote for us, we will not do anything at all about cheap loans for a couple of years." That was not how Labour candidates talked, and everybody knows it. Everybody knows that they never suggested to the voters that nine months after coming into power they would have done nothing at all about interest rates or about mortgages. If only Labour candidates at the last election had told the electors what the Chancellor told the House this week, the result of the election would have been very different.
  There can be no doubt whatever that the promises on which the Labour Party got votes at the last election were promises which so far have not been kept.
  Mr. Victor Yates: Old-age pensions?
  Mr. Cyril Bence: The hon. Member has made suppositions about what the electors would have done had the Labour Party told the country the state of our balance of payments. Has he made any assumptions about what the electorate would have done had Conservative candidates told the electors exactly the same story?
  Mr. Curran: The hon. Member has not, apparently, listened to what I said. At the election there was no secret about the balance of payments. The trade figures were there for everyone to see. Does the hon. Member dispute that the trade figures were published at the end of September. Did he not know this? Was that how he fought the election?
  Mr. Bence: I assure the hon. Member that in the constituency of East Dunbartonshire I carried around with me a report to the Minister of Power giving the adverse balance of payments. The Conservative candidate, Mr. Warren Strachan, said that I was a Jeremiah, like all Socialists, for doing so.
  Mr. Curran: I do not know as much as I should like to know about the political underworld of East Dunbartonshire, but I am saying that there was no secret

  811
  about the trade figures last September. To assert that those figures were being handled, as the hon. Member apparently thinks, by M.I.5 is not really credible.
  I invite the House and I invite hon. Members opposite to agree to two statements. First of all, that during the election, when the Labour Party was making these promises, it knew of the state of the balance of payments. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Secondly, I am inviting the party opposite to agree with me that very large numbers of votes were obtained at the last election, particularly in marginal seats, by those two promises about cheap loans and about taking action about rates. I am inviting hon. Members of this House, on whichever side they sit, to agree that these two promises alone were worth their weight in ballot papers to the Labour Party.
  Mr. David Steel: The hon. Member is making a quite valid point that Labour candidates were not saying that cheap loans and a system of rating reform would not come in nine months, but would he agree that the electorate probably decided that, as none of these things had happened in the last 13 years, they were prepared to take a fair gamble?
  Mr. Curran: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman considers that a serious contribution to a serious argument or whether he really thinks that is the best he can do by way of interrupting me, but I regard this as a serious argument and not a matter to be dealt with by secondrate backchat.
  I now turn to what is really the basis of our case against the Labour Party. At the last election I am certain that many people believed what Labour candidates said, that Labour would be able when they came into power to provide bigger and better social benefits and to spend more money on welfare than we were spending, or offering to spend, because they would run this country more efficiently. The underlying case for the Labour Party was that it could make a better job of running this capitalist country than we Tories. That was really the central assertion of the election. It is that assertion which is now being weighed and appraised by foreigners
  812
  who are displaying such a lack of confidence in our financial stability.
  Is it likely, is it credible, that a party which proclaims itself to be Socialist will make a success of running a capitalist country? This question has been asked before; it was the key question when the Labour Government of 1929 collapsed. I shall make a reference to that a little later. But it seems to me that it is not reasonable to suppose that a party which does not believe in capitalism can make a success of running a capitalist society. After all, the mainspring of the capitalist system is the profit motive. That is what makes the system tick. It is not reasonable to expect a Government put into power by Socialists, to uphold or to advance a system based on the profit motive.
  It is all very well for some members of the Government to say, as they have said, that they believe in a mixed economy. It is all very well for members of the Cabinet to make placatory gestures in the direction of the City. But such words and such gestures do not alter the fact that the Labour Party, by its very nature, is opposed to capitalism and is therefore not prepared to let the profit motive flourish as it should. We can see that from the speeches we have had today.
  If we want this country to be more prosperous, we have to stimulate the profit motive. That is how capitalism works. It works, not by promoting egalitarianism but by making some people richer than others. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like Ferranti."] It works in a way that is completely hostile to the whole spirit of the Labour movement. This is the difficulty in which the Labour Party finds itself. Because it does not accept the capitalist values, because it will not stimulate the capitalist appetite, because it regards profits and profit seeking as socially undesirable, because it regards acquisitiveness as something which ought to be damped down instead of stimulated, it is not able to make a success of running this capitalist country. The Labour Party may be able to persuade some sections of the British electorate that it can do so, but it is unable to persuade foreigners of that. This is the root of our trouble.
  We have heard in this debate, just as we have heard throughout this Parliament, the authentic voice of the Labour Party

  813
  displaying its hostility to acquisitiveness, its dislike of competitiveness, its dislike of profit seeking and profit making, its dislike of conspicuous expenditure and its suspicion of advertising. It is basically an anti-capitalist party.
  I make no criticism of the Labour Party for being that. I recognise that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like the capitalist system with its profit seeking and acquisitiveness. But, since it is the profit motive that keeps us going, to put in charge of this capitalist country a party which rejects the profit motive is like putting a man who does not believe in drink in charge of a public house. Of course he will not make a success of it. He will not try to make a success of it. He will not want to make a success of it. It is not likely that foreigners, who can look at these matters dispassionately, will believe that this anti-capitalist party will make a capitalist country flourish.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: To continue the hon. Gentleman's analogy, our charge against the present capitalists is that they, like the publican, have been drinking the profits.
  Mr. Curran: At the moment we have in charge of this capitalist country a party which does not believe in capitalism. Because of that it does not command foreign confidence. Everything that the Government have done since they came into power has been an attempt, so far unsuccessful, to inspire foreign confidence. That is why we have had one crisis after another.
  I do not believe that it will be possible for this country to re-establish confidence abroad so long as we are governed by a Socialist Party. This is not new in our history. In 1929 a Labour Government came to office, and ran into difficulties for very much the same reasons. Finally it crashed. There was in this House then a Labour Member who watched the process. He wrote an account of it. I have been looking at that account, and I recommend hon. Gentlemen opposite to look at it too.
  I am talking about John Strachey and his book, "The Coming Struggle for Power". Three chapters of this book describe the decline and fall of the 1929 Labour Government. They are well worth reading today. For this is where
  814
  we came in. Strachey makes exactly this point—that the root reason why that Government failed was that they were trying to inspire confidence in their ability to run a capitalist system although they did not believe in capitalism. He said that this job was impossible. I suggest that just as it was impossible in 1931 it will prove equally impossible in 1965.
  Let me finish by quoting the final sentences from Strachey's account of that Labour Party failure. He said:
  "Nor will any of the leaders of the Labour Party, on whichever side of the House they may find it convenient to sit, ever falter before the expostulations of their supporters, however cogent, so long as they know that in the end the expostulator will remain a supporter. 'The war and fortune's sons', they will 'march indefatigably on', so long as life is in them, to ever new defeats, surrenders, deceptions and betrayals."
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: We are debating today a Motion and an Amendment. As it stands, the Motion is one that nobody could vote against, because nobody could deny that pledges have been broken, and presumably everybody must deplore it. So the Government had to nut down an Amendment. I need read only the first part, which
  "congratulates the Government on the progress so far made with the implementation of its election pledges."
  Let us see. The Prime Minister—I do not know where he is; he does not come here often—seemed concerned that we were censuring the Government for not achieving in 90 days what had been planned for the duration of Parliament, or four to five years. That is quite a fair point, with two exceptions. Every time the Prime Minister speaks we have to read the small print very carefully.
  The first exception is that when, both in the Labour Party manifesto and, in particular, in the election address of the right hon. Gentleman who became Prime Minister as a result of that election, it has been promised that urgent action would be taken, we are entitled to ask why that promise has been broken.
  Secondly, we have a very clear and very easy test, because we are now within a short time of the Summer Recess and the end of the Session, and if we study the Queen's Speech we find that it tells us not what was planned for four years, but what was planned for this Session.

  815
  Therefore, we can judge exactly the truth of the allegations that have been made and the strength of the defence that has been put up against them.
  The one exception to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was the income guarantee. He said:
  "with the exception of the early introduction of an income guarantee the key factor will be the rate at which the British economy can advance."
  According to the Prime Minister's own election address,
  "An income guarantee will ensure that everyone has enough to live on as a right, and without recourse to National Assistance. This will come without delay."
  Hon. Members: Where is he?
  Mr. Macleod: He will not come without delay.
  A number of questions were asked of the Prime Minister, some of which I propose to go over again because he made not attempt, in an hour-long speech, to answer them. Let me take, first, the question that was put to him by my right hon. Friend—[An HON. MEMBER: "About white fish?"] No, I am not passionately interested in white fish. The Prime Minister said, "Over the period of a Parliament"—these are the words that come in; this is the small print—"I believe that we can carry out our programmes without any general increase in taxation". So the question was asked, "Are you prepared now to tell the House and to tell the country that, before the end of this Parliament, you will take something like £500 million a year less in taxation from the people of the country?", because, if the Prime Minister is not prepared to say that—and, of course, he is not; the Chancellor of the Exchequer would resign tonight if he did—that proves that the Prime Minister's undertaking at that time has been broken.
  Let us look at the Queen's Speech, because that is the menu through which we have been struggling. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said this afternoon that the whole of the Queen's Speech could suitably be carried forward to the next Session. I do not think that that is true, because the Government have carried out some of the Measures that were proposed. One was that:
  816
  "A Bill will be introduced to provide for the independence of the Gambia".
  They have done that. They have introduced the Bill, but all the arrangements made for the independence of the Gambia took place under the old Administration, and the advance of the Commonwealth towards independence has been slowed to a stop under the Socialist Administration.
  For the rest, I calculate that there are 12 domestic Bills in the Queen's Speech, which it indicated would be taken this Session, and I think that they have got either seven or eight of them—the wording of one is not very precise. As for the others, the undertaking has not been carried out. It therefore cannot be argued that the pledges of the Government have been carried out, because the major Measures that they indicated to us when they knew the economic position of the country on Tuesday, 3rd November, have not so far appeared before us.
  Take steel, for example. The Prime Minister got through an hour's speech today without mentioning the word "steel", which is quite an achievement.
  Mr. Ioan L. Evans rose—
  Mr. Macleod: I will give way in a few minutes.
  We are talking about pledges and broken pledges. The pledge was made in these specific and exact terms on 18th March of this year:
  "… the Government intend to table a White Paper in the near future setting out the main provisions of the Bill which we shall ask Parliament to pass into law this Session."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 1474.]
  There is a pledge broken, and the confirmation of it was given by the Leader of the House this afternoon.
  Then we have the question of the Lands Commission. We were told this afternoon that at some time in the autumn there is to be a White Paper, but that is not what we were told in the Queen's Speech and that is not what we have been told all this year, over and over again.
  The major Socialist Measures in the Queen's Speech have not been put through Parliament this session, I am delighted to say.
  Mr. William Baxter: I have recollections of hearing the

  817
  former hon. Member for Kidderminster, Sir Gerald Nabarro, saying on numerous occasions that the Conservative Party had broken its pledge to the electors by not denationalising steel. Will the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention to that?
  Mr. Macleod: I have given a firm undertaking that if steel is nationalised we shall denationalise it, including R.T.B.
  Both main Socialist Measures have gone. There is not to be leasehold enfranchisement, but that was promised. There is not to be an ombudsman, but that was promised in the Queen's Speech. We are not even to have legislation about political contributions.
  I turn to the announcement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this week. In one sense this makes the debate easier, perhaps almost less critical for the Government than it would otherwise have been because there are some things in this field which, frankly, I do not want to press on the Government at this time, but in another sense that statement tears up every Election address on which the Government obtained the confidence of the people. They are all scraps of paper now, everyone of them, and I have had the grizzly task of reading dozens of them.
  Last night, an hon. Member of this House who is very much respected, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), felt that he had given a pledge on behalf of the Labour Party when in opposition. He felt that he had been asked or invited to join the Government Party in dishonouring that pledge, and to his eternal credit he refused to do so. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), in a splendid speech this afternoon, punched home this breach of faith. This breach of faith alone won the party opposite the election last October. Quite enough votes turned on it with a majority of four for that to happen.
  When one adds to that the other pledges which have been broken, some of which I have referred to and others I am coming to, there can be no doubt at all that that majority was obtained on a false prospectus. There can be no doubt that the Government house is built on sand, that it is built on deception.
  I turn now to the background of the Chancellor's change of mind, because it
  818
  is vital to understanding the present position. I do not suppose that the whole story has emerged—of course he does not emerge—of what exactly happens to the reserve figures and other key factors of currency. It is quite right that it should not. I found the Prime Minister's comment on this flippant this afternoon. He said, "We have been working out a plan so that we can keep the expenditure within the nation's income and we were ready so we announced it".
  Then the right hon. Gentleman said, "There was, of course, the Chinese gold buying spree last week." This is his explanation which he offers to the House of Commons. The facts as I understand them are these. That is what he said this afternoon—[Hors. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] If he wants to object to this, he can come to the House of Commons and object to it.
  I am very glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer here. I do not know whether he heard what I said earlier, that there are matters which I genuinely do not want to press him on now. On the Third Reading of the Finance Bill the Chancellor made what my right hon. Friend described as a gratuitous comment. He was quite right. The debate was on Third Reading, on what is in the Bill. Comment outside that, although it may be valuable, is perhaps dangerous; and on this occasion it was. We have already heard the quotation. I need not give it again. The Chancellor ended by saying that he was resisting the temptation to restrain the economy further.
  The Financial Times, in a very interesting article this morning, commenting on it, says that the Chancellor was tired—I am sure that he was—and that it was late. No doubt it was. That was usual of that Bill. However, the Chancellor will realise very well that this is not an excuse. When he makes remarks like that, which have an immediate effect upon sterling, upon our currency, and upon our reserves, because the attacks started the next day, whatever the state of his tiredness may be, he must weigh his words a little more carefully than that.
  Two days later, speaking at Durham, the Chancellor said:
  "If the situation demands I shall be ready to take further short-term action which would operate immediately and could be quickly reversible."

  819
  I want to come back on those last words. It was too late by then. By that time the strains were there. The Chancellor went off to Paris. The Prime Minister made one of his tough speeches, about people getting off their backsides—I think that this was the one in this case—and here we have these reserves now.
  I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would understand that every crisis—he knows the first part of this—is a crisis of confidence. I wish he would realise that the main thing that has gone wrong in confidence is that the Government all the time have said one thing and done another. The switch from the soft message of the Thursday to the hard message of the Saturday is typical not only of the irresolution, but of the plain incompetence, of Her Majesty's Administration.
  I will give just one example of the utter folly of words. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is here. I know that he was talking about National Insurance. I know that he was referring to the poor and the needy at the beginning of this Parliament. He will remember very well the words I am about to quote to the House:
  "… the courage and determination of the Government to see that the poor and needy shall not suffer, come what may, and if the international financiers do not like it, they can lump it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 1404.]
  That is what the right hon. Gentleman said. It was utterly irresponsible. It went straight away into every embassy all round the world as a message from a member of the Cabinet.
  We have, then, this hopeless inability to command events running through this Administration. It finds its patron saint in the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister seems to lead a sort of Walter Mitty existence. He is always governing with guts. He is ordering people off their backsides. He is knocking hell out of the Americans. He is glaring into the television cameras and telling them how tough he is today, or anyway that he will be with luck tomorrow.
  All the time his military metaphors multiply and become more meaningless as they go. A year ago he was talking, of all the ludicrous ideas, of putting our heavy tanks into Cyprus. A few days
  820
  ago Anthony Howard, in his article "Battle of the Finance Bill", said that Harold Wilson told him:
  "It was rather like marching your troops through a long deep valley with the enemy ranged on the mountain tops on either side. We were fighting them on their own ground and in the worst possible conditions. But we won through."
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Macleod: Hon. Members had better try fighting a battle like that sometime.
  Then we had the famous science speech—it was a very good speech—at the party conference—
  "The Britain that is going to be forged in the white heat of this revolution will be no place for restrictive practices or for outdated methods on either side of industry."
  What have we got? Instead of white heat, we have got the Minister of Technology. There is not enough white heat in the whole of the Government to boil an egghead. Perhaps I may read to the House Disraeli's words from his most famous speech:
  "As I sat opposite the Treasury Bench, the Ministers reminded me of one of those marine landscapes not very unusual on the coasts of South America. You behold a range of exhausted volcanoes."
  The Prime Minister is a brilliant man, as he is the first to admit, but he is also essentially a trivial man. It is good of the right hon. Gentleman to come back to the Chamber. I was saying that he is essentially a trivial man. His horizons are bounded by the next speech or the next Parliamentary Question.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is not even a man.
  Mr. Macleod: His answers get longer and longer and the content of them gets less and less. I have been quoting from his election address. If he will do me the honour of reading my speech in HANSARD tomorrow he will realise that he has come here from Huyton on what is basically a tawdry and false prospectus. I have already quoted what he said about the income guarantee. I understand that he said this afternoon—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—that this is now postponed until 1967. Not this Session. Not next Session. Not even in this Parliament, because that Government will not be there.

  821
  I take up one particular point from what the right hon. Gentleman said about schools. He must have had this in mind during those Cabinet discussions which took place on the Chancellor's statement.
  "We will expand massively our higher, further and university education so that all who would benefit from it will have the chance."
  Let us see where we are exactly in relation to what has been said and to what the Secretary of State for Education and Science will say in reply. There is not one education building programme that official Labour spokesmen did not promise in the last Parliament to increase. Schools, universities, teacher-training, technical colleges, youth clubs—all these were led to expect larger programmes even than we planned. Now the axe falls on universities, technical colleges, colleges of education and youth clubs—everything except schools. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) will remember very well that in 1961—we have heard a great deal of comment about this—there was no cut in the technical college building programme.
  I wish to ask the Secretary of State some questions. I have given him notice of them. Are the Government still intending to meet the Robbins' targets for next year or the year after? If university building is now halted, it is hard to see how the extra numbers can be accommodated—and the Labour Party manifesto spoke of a massive expansion of higher education. Worse still is the decision to stop building technical colleges. If one wants proof of my description of the Prime Minister as a trivial man, how could he say this afternoon that his programmes are relevant and modernising when he is putting a stop to the building of technical colleges? What use is it to encourage the demand, as we have all been doing—both sides of the House have had a share in this—while, at the same time, cutting off the supply?
  I also asked the Secretary of State whether the Government are still committed to the Henniker Heaton figure of an extra 250,000 by 1970. I hope that he will tell us exactly what the effect on these programmes will be of the announcement that the Chancellor made.
  We have been dealing with broken promises and broken pledges That they
  822
  have been broken is not in dispute. They fall into two categories, those relating mainly to defence, which we are delighted the Prime Minister has broken, and those for breaking which we despise him. That is the only division. But I think that behind all the broken promises there is a much more serious weakness in the Government. I believe that the Government are day by day getting further and further out of touch with the ordinary feelings of the ordinary people. They are out of touch because they understand nothing. They have all the statistics, and maybe they have the good intentions, but they have not the ability. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] No, they have not. It is a Government basically of the second-rate.
  The Prime Minister presides over the smallest majority in our modern political history, and to help him do this he has the largest, the oldest, the most highly paid and the most incompetent Government of modern times. The Recess is only a few days away. Perhaps they will get a little breather now, and they will need it. The day of reckoning for the Government and for the Prime Minister is coming very swiftly and when it comes Socialism will not just be defeated; it will be destroyed.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I must congratulate the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) on an amusing, trivial, lighthearted and characteristic after dinner speech. It could hardly be described as a serious contribution to our political life. But no doubt he is delighted at having finally broken the "magic circle".
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech hardly accorded with the kind of predictions made in the Press about the result of the election of the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) as Leader of the Opposition. I read in the Daily Express that one hon. Member opposite had said that now that the right hon. Member for Bexley had been elected there would be blood on the Dispatch Box. The only blood on the Dispatch Box tonight will have come from the knuckles of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West as he was laughing at his own jokes.

  823
  Of course, the fact is that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is typical of the kind of style that we are to have in this new period of opposition under the right hon. Member for Bexley. It is a combination of synthetic rage, of amusing Spectator jokes, of a total lack of any constructive criticism, and a marked degree of irresponsibility about the country's economic situation. I am certain that this kind of speech—full of synthetic anger, as I have said, and devoid of any content—is typical of the sort of sound and fury and huffing and puffing we are to have under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Bexley. Having said that, perhaps I might be allowed to congratulate the right hon. Member for Bexley on his election.
  The Motion is an excellent example. It purports to be serious and angry, but in fact it is totally frivolous. It appears to imply that the Government are under an obligation to carry out an entire five-year programme in a single year. It appears to imply that in one single year the Labour Party is to correct all the sins and omissions of the last 13 years.
  It can hardly be seriously maintained that a pledge is broken if it is not carried out in the first year of what will be a five-year Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Queen's Speech."] I am coming to that. I shall deal with every one of the major points raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, West.
  The position was made clear in the Labour Party Manifesto. It said:
  "Drastic reforms are now needed in our major social services. To make them fit for the 1960s and 1970s will be costly. … This will not be achieved all at once;"
  There is an even more striking statement which shows that someone had a sense of what was on foot.
  "We do not delude ourselves that the tasks ahead will be easy to accomplish. Even now we do not know the full extent of the damage we shall have to repair after thirteen wasted years of Conservative governmnet.
  Indeed, we did not know all the damage, and I shall come to the Queen's Speech, which is highly relevant to this. It is well that we should look at the facts of the situation of last autumn, when the Conservative Government—and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer strongly criticised them at
  824
  the time—were continuing and were committed to a dangerous spree which my right hon. Friend rightly said would outrun the resources available to us. Despite this fact, Tory Ministers, who must have known that the economic crisis was getting worse and worse, indulged in these promises, including, for example, in the Tory manifesto the promise to build or rebuild 300 hospitals.
  Despite the fact that they must have known that the economic crisis was developing more and more seriously throughout the year, they did nothing to warn the country or their own supporters of how serious matters were. The right hon. Gentleman managed to make a speech on this topic without even referring to this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Queen's Speech."]—and this is relevant to the Queen's Speech.
  It is perfectly true that right hon. Gentleman published the figures in September, but let us see what effect this had. The Tory Party Manifesto, published in September, contained not one hint of the balance of payments deficit. Speeches made by right hon. Gentlemen after the figures had been published contained no hint of how serious the situation was. The present Leader of the Opposition rebuked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 6th October saying that he was giving a disgraceful distortion of the facts of the then situation. In fact he was grossly underestimating them.
  In the course of saying:
  "It is said of me that I am in disagreement with Mr. Maudling. This is quite untrue."
  I forget what that was about.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) said:
  "I made no suggestion that there is now a crisis" in our economic situation.
  Typically the best and most accurate of all came from the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who in October, after the publication of the September figures, said:
  "There is little doubt that they are all getting a bit wild. These reckless accusations and absolutely fatuous statements show every sign that they are getting rattled".
  He went on:
  "Only today you observed the detestable glee with which he"—

  825
  now the Prime Minister—
  "tried to make out that Britain was on the verge of an economic crisis. Well, is it true?" Only to the extent of the deficit of £800 million.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey rose—
  Mr. Crosland: I will give way to the hon. Gentlemen later.
  I could go on to quote the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), who said that the nation was duped. Certainly the nation was duped, but it was duped not by my party but by the party opposite, and of course the nation is still being duped—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—as a result of the completely doubled-faced attitude still being taken up by the party opposite, an attitude which reflects itself in voting for the pensions increase, but against the taxation needed to pay for it, reflected on the one hand in criticising us for not spending more and on the other hand saying that we should deflate more.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way.
  Sir Keith Joseph rose—
  Mr. William Hamilton rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I see not the slightest indication that the Secretary of State was giving way to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).
  Mr. Hamilton: Nor him.
  Mr. Speaker: I was exercising a personal judgment. Sir Keith Joseph.
  Sir K. Joseph rose—
  Mr. William Hamilton rose—
  Sir A. V. Harvey rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that these are very good exercises. To whom the Secretary of State was in fact giving way is of course for him to say. I was only trying to assist the House because I thought that he was giving way to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph).
  Mr. Crosland: To clear this up; I was giving way, as I promised, to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey).
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I am much obliged. In making his many quotations, will the hon. Gentleman explain one by the then Foreign Secretary, Mr. Gordon Walker, on 27th October, 12 days after the election, when in Washington he said that there was no question of putting up the Bank Rate?
  Mr. Crosland: I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman said that in Washington. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] At any rate, by that time there was no attempt to hush up the seriousness of the facts of the situation, because the White Paper had already been published.
  Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman said that this party voted against the means of raising pensions. That is completely untrue. In the annual report for 1964, issued last week by the right hon. Lady the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, it is shown quite clearly that contributions were raised by £187 million for the year 1965–66 and the extra cost of the higher pension was £181 million and we voted for the increased contributions. [Interruption.] [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
  Mr. Crosland: Certainly I will answer. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that it would have been the advice of the party opposite to raise pensions to the extent that we did without a penny on any other form of taxation? [HON. MEMBERS: "You said that."] I am perfectly well aware of that. I do not withdraw in the slightest degree. There is no right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite, certainly not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who would have suggested that, with the economy very heavily loaded, we should have increased pensions without an increase in taxation.
  The basic fact of the matter is that we were presented with a deficit of £800 million. Of course this is an unpalatable fact, but it is the centre of the whole situation in which we find ourselves. There is no method known to man of curing a deficit of this size painlessly. The country is spending £800 million more than it is earning. Somehow, somewhere, we have to spend £800 million less, and that explains the higher taxes, the higher rates of interest, the higher prices and the fact that certain social reforms,

  827
  to which we are committed and which we shall carry out, have now had to be postponed.
  Sir C. Osborne rose—
  Mr. Crosland: Against this extremely unfavourable situation, the proportion of our manifesto, and the proportion of things in the Queen's Speech, which is not necessarily a commitment to do things in a single Session, which have been achieved is remarkable, to put it mildly. I would like to mention some of the things which we have done, and to consider whether a Tory Government in those circumstances would have done them.
  First of all, let us take the subject that has been discussed, the matter of social security. There has been the largest increase in old-age pension since 1946, a corresponding increase in sickness benefits, unemployment benefits, industrial injuries and war pensions. There has been the abolition of the earnings rule for widows. Would the party opposite have done these things in this situation? Prescription charges have been abolished; there has been control of rents and security of tenure. Would the party opposite have done that? They have moved completely in the reverse direction for 13 years.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) spoke of education. There is the national policy for abolishing the 11-plus and establishing a comprehensive system, the 13 per cent. salary rise for teachers, which carries out what we said in the Queen's Speech and what we said in our election manifesto. As far as higher and further education is concerned, to answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman, we will stick to the Robbins and the Henniker Heaton targets and are confident, despite the Chancellor's statement, of achieving them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly we are.
  Sir Edward Boyle: Arising directly out of the right hon. Gentleman's last remark, can he say whether the University Grants Committee agrees that the Robbins target for 1967 will still be achieved, despite the six months' postponement of university building starts?
  Mr. Crosland: For right hon. and hon. Members opposite to start talking about university starts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite seem to have very little desire to hear an answer. It is our view that these targets, even with the cuts which have taken place, will be achieved in the particular years for which they were set. We are now in discussion with the University Grants Committee as to how this can be done.
  Is it seriously suggested that in the last nine months the party opposite would have carried out any of these reforms in social security, health, housing and education? The simple answer is that it would have done none of them. It would have used the economic crisis as an excuse for carrying out none of these social reforms.
  I turn to another sphere which links up with social reform, and that is the question of taxation—and I am still on the pledges which we made and which we have carried out. Another of our pledges was that we would make the tax system juster and fairer than it is now. This pledge also we have carried out by introducing the Capital Gains Tax, which hon. Members opposite certainly would not have done, and by introducing the Corporation Tax. [An HON. MEMBER: "And putting 6d. on Income Tax."] Yes, in order to pay for the increase in pensions. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] All the things which I have mentioned, and many others which the Prime Minister mentioned this afternoon, are the fulfilment of pledges made in the Labour Party's manifesto. They are the fulfilment—
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: On a point of order. For purposes of greater accuracy, would it be in order for me to ask whether the Queen's Speech might be read again?
  Mr. Speaker: That does not raise a point of order. It is quite important that hon. Members should not rise on a point of order if it is not one.
  Mr. Crosland: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be interested to read the Conservative Party's manifesto of 1951, which promised the restoration of the university seats, which it never carried out in 13 years.
  I want to pass to the way in which the Labour Government, in the light of

  829
  our manifesto, have dealt with the crisis which we inherited from the previous Government. I want to point out one basic difference. Whereas the previous Government had one method, and one method only, of dealing with the balance of payments crisis, namely, blind general deflation, this Government have adopted a far more selective, discriminating attitude.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster rose—
  Mr. Crosland: On regional policy, which should interest the hon. Gentleman, we have a real policy instead of the half-baked one which the Leader of the Opposition had in government. On prices and incomes—so much sneered at by hon. Members opposite—we are far nearer achieving a policy, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour made it clear last night how seriously the Government took it. In labour mobility and redundancy payments we have a far more direct policy than the previous Government had. There has been control over office development and a serious attempt through the "Little Neddies" to increase the efficiency of British industry.
  In every one of these ways the Government have shown that they have an alternative to the 1961 policy of general deflation. If anyone thinks that there is no difference between the reaction to a crisis of a Conservative Government and a Labour Government, does he seriously think that if these measures had been announced by a Conservative Chancellor they would have excluded schools, hospitals and housing? Of course, they would have done no such thing. They would have done what they did in 1961: attack the nurses and teachers first.
  Sir Douglas Glover rose—
  Mr. Speaker: There is every indication that the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way to one hon. Member, still less to two hon. Members.
  Mr. Hirst: He dare not.
  Mr. Crosland: I have given way a great deal more than the right hon. Member for Enfield, West did. That is the difference between our policies in the economic field and those of the Conservatives.
  830
  [Interruption.] What is the fuss about the Queen's Speech? [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] Hon. Members opposite need not worry about steel. I know how keen the party opposite is on steel. There is no change in the Government's policy on steel.
  The party opposite will find that our policy comes forward in due time. The party opposite will also find that every one of the few items in the Queen's Speech which was not carried through in this Session of Parliament will come in the next Session of Parliament. [Interruption.] There will be a White Paper on land shortly and a Bill in the next Session of Parliament. There is not one item in the Queen's Speech which has not been introduced this year which hon. Members will not have the pleasure of looking forward to in the next Session of Parliament. So they need have no worry about the Queen's Speech. In the course of this Parliament, everything that was mentioned in our manifesto or the Queen's Speech will be brought forward and put into law.
  I turn to one other direction in which this party has carried out its election pledges and where those pledges differ markedly from the policies of the Tory Government. One of the worst indictments of the Tory Government—
  Mr. Hirst: Of the right hon. Gentleman's Government.
  Mr. Crosland:—over 13 long years was the appalling desecration which they allowed of the British coastline and countryside. [Interruption.] That reaction reflects a completely different sense of values. One of the things that the Government propose to do, and which, again, was mentioned in the manifesto, is by a much tougher and more rigorous town and country planning policy to do something to save those bits of Britain which the previous Government allowed to be desecrated.
  I am delighted that even though hon. Members opposite do not care—although some of them, I happen to know, do care—one of the Chancellor's first acts, despite our balance of payments difficulty, was to make a large contribution to Enterprise Neptune to save the British coastline. [Interruption.] I have a particular interest in white fish. White fish was the one single constructive intervention which

  831
  I heard from the other side. [Interruption.] I quite agree that if the Labour Party's manifesto were not carried out on the subject of white fish then I would regard that a No. 1 resigning issue as far as I am concerned.
  I do not think that this point about the British countryside is a frivolous one. I think that there are many issues outside the strictly economic field where reform is very urgently needed, and this Government are carrying it out, and though right hon. and hon. Members opposite may laugh I am delighted that this Government are giving far greater encouragement to the arts than ever was given by the previous Government.
  I am delighted at the fact—and this alone justifies our having a Labour Government—that we have been able to help through the Bill for the abolition of hanging. The Bill is not through yet, but if it goes through with the support of the great majority of Labour Members of Parliament then it will have been a remarkable achievement, in itself justifying a Labour Government, and I may say that it is a Bill which had no help and assistance from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He may be famous for his strong leadership, but on the question of the abolition of hanging he gave no kind of leadership at all.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: Only three more minutes of this.
  Mr. Crosland: So I would claim that in nine short months, and despite the crisis which we inherited from the previous Government—and it is no good having this debate at all except against the background of the deficit which we did inherit—I claim despite the short time this Government have been in, and against
  the background of the economic crisis, this Government have carried through a remarkable achievement of social reform—
  Mr. McMaster rose—
  Mr. Crosland:—and I repeat that if the hon. Gentleman is unhappy, everything in the Queen's Speech he will see achieved in due time. Our view on this side of the House is that the achievement which the Labour Government have accomplished is an achievement which any Government can rightly be proud of in these circumstances. It is a remarkable achievement which would not have been approached in the slightest by the Tories if they had got in on 15th October last year. And it is an achievement which we shall be proud to vote for in the Lobbies tonight.
  Mr. McMaster rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think there is much to choose on such a ritual occasion between either side of the House, except that an hon. Member, having been called, should be allowed to be heard.
  Mr. McMaster: I just wanted to put one question to the right hon. Gentleman, and that is why right hon. Gentlemen opposite have used a critical balance of payments situation as an excuse to cancel so many excellent aircraft projects and to order from the United States?
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 306.

  Division No. 266.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Biffen, John

  Bryan, Paul

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Bingham, R. M.

  Buck, Antony

  Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Astor, John

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Blaker, Peter

  Buxton, Ronald

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bossom, Hn. Clive

  Campbell, Gordon

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Box, Donald

  Carlisle, Mark

  Balniel, Lord

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Barlow, Sir John

  Braine, Bernard

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Batsford, Brian

  Brewis, John

  Chataway, Christopher

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Cole, Norman

  Hopkins, Alan

  Percival, Ian

  Cooke, Robert

  Hordern, Peter

  Peyton, John

  Cooper, A E.

  Hornby, Richard

  Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Cordle, John

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

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Corfield, F. V.

  Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Costain, A. P.

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Crawley, Aidan

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pym, Francis

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Jennings, J. C.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Curran, Charles

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Dance, James

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Ridsdale, Julian

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Dean, Paul

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Roots, William

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kimball, Marcus

  Royle, Anthony

  Doughty, Charles

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Kirk, Peter

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Sharples, Richard

  Eden, Sir John

  Lambton, Viscount

  Shepherd, William

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Emery, Peter

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Farr, John

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Fell, Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'd field)

  Speir, Sir Rupert

  Fisher, Nigel

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

  Stainton, Keith

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Stanley, Hn. Richard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

  Longbottom, Charles

  Stodart, Anthony

  Foster, Sir John

  Longden, Gilbert

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

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

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Talbot, John E.

  Gammans, Lady

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Gardner, Edward

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

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

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McMaster, Stanley

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Teeling, Sir William

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Maddan, Martin (Hove)

  Temple, John M.

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Maitland, Sir John

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Marten, Neil

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mathew, Robert

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maude, Angus

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Gower, Raymond

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Grant, Anthony

  Mawby, Ray

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Grieve, Percy

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Walder, David (High Peak)

  Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Gurden, Harold

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mitchell, David

  Wall, Patrick

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Monro, Hector

  Walters, Dennis

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  More, Jasper

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Webster, David

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Murton, Oscar

  Whitelaw, William

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Neave, Airey

  Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hay, John

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wise, A. R.

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hendry, Forbes

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hiley, Joseph

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Younger, Hn. George

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

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. McLaren and Mr. MacArthur.

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Peel, John

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Alldritt, Walter

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Albu, Austen

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Barnett, Joel

  834

  835

  Baxter, William

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Beaney, Alan

  Grey, Charles

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

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mapp, Charles

  Bence, Cyril

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Marsh, Richard

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Griffiths, Will (M'chester, change)

  Mason, Roy

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Maxwell, Robert

  Bessell, Peter

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Binns, John

  Hale, Leslie

  Mellish, Robert

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Blackburn, F.

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Millan, Bruce

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Boardman, H.

  Hannan, William

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Boston, Terence

  Harper, Joseph

  Molloy, William

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Monslow, Walter

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

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Boyden, James

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hazell, Bert

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Bradley, Tom

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Murray, Albert

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Neal, Harold

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Newens, Stan

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

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

  Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

  Holman, Percy

  Norwood, Christopher

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hooson, H. E.

  Oakes, Gordon

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Ogden, Eric

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

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

  Carmichael, Neil

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Howie, W.

  Orme, Stanley

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hoy, James

  Oswald, Thomas

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Owen, Will

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Padley, Walter

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

  Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

  Paget, R. T.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Cronin, John

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)

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

  Jackson, Colin

  Parker, John

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Darling, George

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

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

  Pentland, Norman

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Prentice, R. E.

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

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

  Probert, Arthur

  Delargy, Hugh

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Dell, Edmund

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Randall, Harry

  Dempsey, James

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

  Redhead, Edward

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Dodds, Norman

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Doig, Peter

  Kelley, Richard

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Richard, Ivor

  Driberg, Tom

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lawson, George

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Ledger, Ron

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  English, Michael

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Ennals, David

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Ensor, David

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Rowland, Christopher

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. w.)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

  Lomas, Kenneth

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Loughlin, Charles

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

  Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McBride, Neil

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Floud, Bernard

  McCann, J.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Foley, Maurice

  MacColl, James

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  McGuire, Michael

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Ford, Ben

  McInnes, James

  Small, William

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Snow, Julian

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

  Solomons, Henry

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Garrow, A.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Ginsburg, David

  MacMillan, Malcolm

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Stonehouse, John

  836

  837

  Stones, William

  Tuck, Raphael

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

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

  Urwin, T. W.

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

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

  Varley, Eric G.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Swain, Thomas

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Wallace, George

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Taverne, Dick

  Watkins, Tudor

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Weitzman, David

  Woof, Robert

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Whitlock, William

  Zilliacus, K.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Wilkins, W. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Tinn, James

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mr. Sydney Irving and

  Tomney, Frank

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mr. George Rogers.

  Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—
  The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 294.

  Division No. 267.]

  AYES

  [10.15 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Doig, Peter

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Albu, Austen

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

  Alldritt, Walter

  Dunn, James A.

  Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  English, Michael

  Jackson, Colin

  Barnett, Joel

  Ennals, David

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Baxter, William

  Ensor, David

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Beaney, Alan

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)

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

  Bence, Cyril

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Binns, John

  Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

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

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Blackburn, F.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Floud, Bernard

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Boardman, H.

  Foley, Maurice

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Boston, Terence

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Kelley, Richard

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Kenyon, Clifford

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

  Ford, Ben

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

  Boyden, James

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  Lawson, George

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bradley, Tom

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Ledger, Ron

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Garrow, A.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Ginsburg, David

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Grey, Charles

  Lipton, Marcus

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, David (ROther Valley)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Carmichael, Neil

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  McBride, Neil

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hale, Leslie

  McCann, J.

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  MacColl, James

  Coleman, Donald

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

  McGuire, Michael

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hannan, William

  McInnes, James

  Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

  Harper, Joseph

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

  Cronin, John

  Hattersley, Roy

  McLeavy, Frank

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hazell, Bert

  MacMillan, Malcolm

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Darling, George

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Mapp, Charles

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Marsh, Richard

  Davies, Itor (Gower)

  Holman, Percy

  Mason, Roy

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Maxwell, Robert

  de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Delargy, Hugh

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

  Mellish, Robert

  Dell, Edmund

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Dempsey, James

  Howie, W.

  Millan, Bruce

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Hoy, James

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Dodds, Norman

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Molloy, William

  Rees, Merlyn

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Monslow, Walter

  Reynolds, C. W.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Richard, Ivor

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Tinn, James

  Murray, Albert

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Tomney, Frank

  Neal, Harold

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

  Tuck, Raphael

  Newens, Stan

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Varley, Eric G.

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

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Norwood, Christopher

  Rowland, Christopher

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Sheldon, Robert

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Ogden, Eric

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Wallace, George

  O'Malley, Brian

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Watkins, Tudor

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

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

  Weitzman, David

  Orbach, Maurice

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

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Oswald, Thomas

  Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

  Whitlock, William

  Owen, Will

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Padley, Walter

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Paget, R. T.

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Small, William

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Snow, Julian

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)

  Solomons, Henry

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Parker, John

  Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Pentland, Norman

  Stonehouse, John

  Woof, Robert

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Stones, William

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Popplewell, Ernest

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

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Prentice, R. E.

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

  Zilliacus, K.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Probert, Arthur

  Swain, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Swingler, Stephen

  Mr. Sydney Irying and

  Randall, Harry

  Symonds, J. B.

  Mr. George Rogers.

  Redhead, Edward

  Taverne, Dick

  NOES

  Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Errington, Sir Eris

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Buxton, Ronald

  Eyre, Reginald

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Campbell, Gordon

  Farr, John

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fell, Anthony

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fisher, Nigel

  Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

  Astor, John

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Chataway, Christopher

  Foster, Sir John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Chichester-Clark, R.

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

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Balniel, Lord

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Cole, Norman

  Gammans, Lady

  Barlow, Sir John

  Cooke, Robert

  Gardner, Edward

  Batsford, Brian

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Cordle, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Costain, A. P.

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Bessell, Peter

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Gather, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Biffen, John

  Crawley, Aidan

  Goodhart, Philip

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Crosthwaite Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bingham, R. M.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gower, Raymond

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Grant, Anthony

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Curran, Charles

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Blaker, Peter

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Bossom, Hn. Clive

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Grieve, Percy

  Box, Donald

  Dance, James

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

  Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Braine, Bernard

  Dean, Paul

  Gurden, Harold

  Brewis, John

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Doughty, Charles

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Bruce-Gardyne J.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Bryan, Paul

  Eden, Sir John

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Buck, Antony

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

  Hastings, Stephen

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Emery, Peter

  Hawkins, Paul

  840

  841

  Hay, John

  Maddan, Martin (Hove)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Heald, Rt. Hn, Sir Lionel

  Maginnis, John E.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Maitland, Sir John

  Sharples, Richard

  Hendry, Forbes

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Shepherd, William

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Marten, Neil

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mathew, Robert

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

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

  Maude, Angus

  Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Mawby, Ray

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Speir, Sir Rupert

  Hooson, H. E.

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

  Stainton, Keith

  Hopkins, Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stanley, Hn. Richard

  Hordern, Peter

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Hornby, Richard

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Stodart, Anthony

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

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

  Mitchell, David

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

  Munro, Hector

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  More, Jasper

  Talbot, John E.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

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

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Murton, Oscar

  Teeling, Sir William

  Jennings, J. C.

  Heave, Airey

  Temple, John M.

  Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)

  Jopling, Michael

  Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Kimball, Marcus

  Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Peel, John

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Kirk, Peter

  Percival, Ian

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Kitson, Timothy

  Peyton, John

  Welder, David (High Peak)

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Wall, Patrick

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Pounder, Rafton

  Walters, Dennis

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Webster, David

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

  Pym, Francis

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

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

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Whitelaw, William

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

  Longbottom, Charles

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wise, A. R.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wood, Rt. Hn, Richard

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Roots, William

  McMaster, Stanley

  Royle, Anthony

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Mr. McLaren and Mr. MacArthur.

  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, this House congratulates the Government on the progress so far made with the implementation of its election pledges, expresses its confidence that, contrary to the precedent of the past 13 years, the Government will in succeeding Sessions carry out in full the pledges made to the nation in its election manifesto, and regrets that throughout this present Session Her Majesty's Opposition have failed to put forward any evidence of alternative policies to enable the nation to rid itself
  842
  of the economic difficulties bequeathed by the outgoing Government.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and on consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. George Rogers.]

  REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

    Clause 8.—(REGISTRATION OFFICES.)
    10.28 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Judith Hart): I beg to move in Clause 8, page 7, line 15, to leave out "or strong box" and to insert ", safe or cabinet".
    This is an Amendment which we overlooked in Committee. It is consequential upon a Government Amendment to subsection (1) of the Clause which was completely accepted by the Committee. I hope that the Amendment will now be accepted by the House.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 14.—(DUTY TO GIVE INFORMATION OF PARTICULARS OF BIRTH.)
    Mr. J. A. Stodart: I beg to move, in Clause 14, page 9, line 23, to leave out from "mother" to the end of line 25 and to insert:

    (i) any relative of either parent of the child, being a relative who has knowledge of the birth;

    (ii) the occupier of the premises in which the child was, to the knowledge of that occupier born;

    (iii) any person present at the birth;

    (iv) any person having charge of the child.

    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): It is proposed that we take with this Amendment the other Amendment to Clause 14, in page 9, line 34, to leave out subsection (2).
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Stodart: The hon. Lady will recall that in Committee an Amendment not dissimilar from this was moved and discussed, and I think it fair to say that on that occasion, in our attempt to do what we genuinely thought, and still think, to be right for the improvement of the drafting, we took a step which went a little too far, altering paragraph (a) of subsection (2) by suggesting that the words "being a relative" should be left out.
    844
    This cast doubts, as the hon. Lady explained, on whether it was a relative who had knowledge of the birth or a parent which had knowledge of the birth. Accordingly, we have now stuck to the wording of the whole of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) in subsection (2) and merely changed their position in the Clause, thereby making, we think, the Clause easier to read and understand.
    We have, therefore, I think, gone at least halfway to meet the objections to the Amendment which were raised by the hon. Lady in Committee. So I hope that, following the example which both sides set with great success in Committee, she will be able to come towards us and accept the Amendment. Before she makes it clear, let me admit that we have not gone the whole way to meet the objections which she pointed out in Committee, because it is true that as a result of our Amendment "qualified" disappears from line 24 and so does the part of subsection (2) which states who, other than the parents, would be qualified.
    However, although I am not a lawyer, and would not pretend to be well versed in the expertise of drafting, I should have thought that if it is laid down, as it is in the Clause, who has the duty to register a birth, be it a parent or, in the inability of the parent, any relative or the occupier of the premises or any person present at the birth or any person in charge of the child—it is upon these in turn that the duty is laid—it ought to go without saying that anyone who has this duty must automatically be qualified to do it.
    On both sides, in Committee, on many occasions we have tried to make the Bill a more understandable one. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) uttered some words of praise and encouragement for this Amendment, and the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) certainly did not pour cold water on the idea. Accordingly, although we failed in Committee, I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to put the seal on the harmony which has characterised the passage of the Bill and accept the Amendment.
    Mrs. Hart: Nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to extend the spirit of harmony which has pervaded

    845
    the proceedings on the Bill by accepting the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). I am sorry that I cannot, but I will tell him why I cannot, and perhaps he will understand that it is in no spirit of discord whatever but merely because the Bill must be a perfect Bill.
    On the one hand, this matter is, I freely admit, entirely one of taste and presentation. We think that the words in the Bill are, on the whole, slightly better, partly because they are more easily understood and more readable and partly because they place proper emphasis on the importance of the father and mother as primary informants. But this is not the main reason.
    The main reason is that the Amendments could not stand on their own without two other Amendments which, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not tabled. One of them would have been an Amendment in line 33 because the reference there to "those persons" is related back to subsection (1,b). We should have to modify that to enable his Amendments to carry through. Secondly, in Clause 56, we would have to amend the definition of "qualified informant".
    Quite apart, therefore, from the question of balance of judgment as to which is the better way of doing it, unfortunately the hon. Gentleman has not put down the other two Amendments needed to make these two carry through the Bill. I am extremely sorry that I must resist his Amendments, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see my motives in doing so.
    Mr. Stodart: I think that I may say, as on many other occasions, that the hon. Lady's explanation, put forward extremely straightforwardly, seems to be perfectly adequate. I regret my lack of diligence in not noticing the other two cases where amendment would have been necessary. In view of this, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 37.—(SEARCH OF INDEXES KEPT BY REGISTRARS.)
    Mr. William Hannan: I beg to move in Clause 37, page 22, line 6, after "payment", to insert "to him".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, the following three Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan), which are in similar terms.
    Mr. Hannan: In Committee, particularly on Clause 37, I raised the point that the phrasing here did not make quite clear on whose responsibility and to whom and by whom such fees for searches should be paid. These Amendments emphasise that the fees are to be paid to the registrar and not by him, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to accept them.
    Mrs. Hart: I am glad to accept these Amendments because they make for greater clarity. We discussed the point in Committee and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) for enabling us to make the Bill a little bit better.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 38.—(SEARCH OF INDEXES KEPT BY REGISTRAR GENERAL.)
    Amendments made: In Clause 38, page 22, line 21, after "payment", insert "to him".
    In line 30, after "payment", insert "to him".—[Mr. Hannan.]

    Clause 47.—(SEARCH OF PAROCHIAL REGISTERS, ETC., AND PROVISION OF EXTRACTS THEREFROM.)
    Amendment made: In Clause 47, page 28, line 8, after "payment", insert "to him".—[Mr. Hannan.]
    10.40 p.m.
    Mrs. Hart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    In the spirit of harmony that has prevailed throughout the course of this Bill we could have had the Third Reading "on the nod", but its merits and importance warrant a few words. I am extremely glad to be able to do so at this stage.
    This is a Bill which can be considered as a small but very important piece of law reform, and I pay tribute to hon. Members opposite, because both sides, in Committee and on Report, have taken an almost equal share. It has been a somewhat technical Bill, but in Committee we brought out its real purpose and its wider objectives. I do not know whether you

    847
    are aware, Dr. King, that in the Scottish Standing Committee we may have achieved a record by dealing with a Bill which had 59 Clauses in two sittings, certainly an accomplishment of which both sides of the House can be proud.
    The primary object of the Bill is the creation of a long-term series of records of births, deaths and marriages as accurate and as complete as possible and made in as up to date a way as possible. The whole act of registration, dealing as it does with those fundamental occasions in the lives of families, brings up a number of personal problems. We dealt with these fully in Committee, and I believe that our discussions were very useful. We fully considered the service which registration is intended to perform to individuals and organisations and especially to our descendants. Their rights in a number of respects may depend on how accurately and effectively we compile a register of births, deaths and marriages.
    The register will fulfil another function in which increasingly more and more of us are becoming interested, that of supplying the vital statistics on which so much of our planning depends. Much medical and social research nowadays depends on how accurately we record the information which, under the Bill, will be recorded.
    There are one or two matters which I should like to mention before we leave the Bill and one of them concerns the difficult question which the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) raised in Committee—over the Border registration of births and deaths. I assured him in Committee that the Registrar General in Scotland would have discussions with the Registrar General of England and Wales on possible modifications and improvements which we might be able to make to meet some of the difficulties which he mentioned. These discussions will go on. I do not know how long they will take, but we shall certainly pursue this matter as vigorously as we can.
    The hon. Member also asked what would happen when someone died and his body had to go one way or the other over the Border. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may not have been in Committee when we discussed this matter, but I can assure them that the hon. Member for Dumfries wrung our hearts with his
    848
    description of the personal problems which could flow from this situation. The Registrar General in Scotland is discussing with the Registrar General for England and Wales the procedures for when a body is removed across the Border, and we shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman know when our discussions have finished.
    A Departmental Committee on death certification has been set up in England and its terms of reference include reviewing, among other things, the law and practice relating to the issue of medical certificates for the disposal of dead bodies. Although this Committee is concerned with the procedure in England and Wales, the hon. Gentleman may like to know that the issue which he raised and which we discussed so fully has seemed to it to be relevant and we have reported it to the secretary so that these matters can be considered in the English context.
    In Committee, doubts were expressed about the highly controversial use of "etcetera" in the Bill. Parliamentarians tend to be a little unhappy when we use slightly unorthodox words like "etcetera", because we may meet with some difficulty. We were well aware of the difficulty of registrars throughout Scotland and that they wanted to preserve the traditional usage of the initials R.C.E. for all the corrections to the registers, but, at the same time, we had to find a word which would cover not only corrections, but additions to the register, following on new events in a person's life.
    In view of the doubts, I went into the matter very carefully and spent an hour or two with the Oxford English Dictionary and came up with a large number of words which might commend themselves to the Registrar General. One or two are slightly unusual, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether the House is familiar with the words—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If the words are not in the Bill, no matter how interesting they are, they must not be spoken of on Third Reading.
    Mrs. Hart: That is a great pity. I had hoped to educate the House in one or two interesting words which had some unusual secondary meanings. However, I can go on to say that, despite their secondary meanings, these words do not

    849
    find favour with those who know, in detail, the implications that they have to have in the Bill. What I can assure the House of is that very important historical precedents have been found for the use of the words "et cetera" in Parliamentary legislation.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), who was so concerned about this is now reassured. He has written to tell me he is satisfied, in view of our explanation, that the words "et cetera" can be used. It has been very frequently used in the Titles of Bills and other legislation. We need not be afraid that we are creating an undesirable precedent in the usage of the English language.
    I conclude by saying how grateful I am to the Opposition for making the Bill such a co-operative venture. I think that between us we have carried out very quickly and effectively, an important, if undramatic, piece of law reform.
    10.47 p.m.
    Mr. Stodart: As the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary said, some interesting revelations came about during the course of the progress of the Bill. The first, as she has said, and I think that I detected a trace of incredulity on your face, Dr. King—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was too gallant to correct the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State, but the hon. Gentleman must address the Chair in the proper way.
    Mr. Stodart: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I thought I noticed an expression of incredulity on your face on hearing of the speed of the Scottish Standing Committee in getting through its work. As the hon. Lady said, we discovered, as a result of searches done by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), the extraordinary fact that although dead bodies can be transported anywhere about Scotland and England, they may not cross the Border with England more than once, although great difficulties can arise over deaths and cremations in the Border area.
    I think that it is worth putting on record the fact that the registration system in Scotland, even before the Bill was introduced, had been regarded as the best system in the world. Many people from
    850
    other nations have expressed this opinion. Even the best can be improved, however, and that is what we have sought to do in the course of our discussions.
    I would like to make several points which, I think, are of value as a result of the Bill. First, it has been urgently required that the pressing accommodation problems of the Registrar General in Edinburgh should be dealt with. Before the Bill he had no powers to keep registers outside the Register House, or to use any modern system of filing. I hope that the obtaining of this extra accommodation will not suffer any delay as a result of the cuts about which we have read.
    It depressed me to read in The Scotsman, two days ago, that one building which was to suffer was the new record office in St. George's Church, West.
    Secondly, there is no doubt that the interest of the public will be served by the introduction of the system of the ability to register births and deaths in one of two places. I think that this will be of particular benefit to those who live in the Highland areas.
    Thirdly, the position of registrars has, without doubt, been improved as a result of our discussions because the Registrar General will now be consulted about the salaries or remunerations of district registrars, whereas before this was entirely a matter for the local authority. This will go a long way towards doing something which, I think, will be of help to district registrars because they have been worrying about this matter, as we know from the correspondence we have had on the subject. It will secure some consistency of salaries in the different parts of the country.
    Fourthly, although there has been room for argument, and there probably still is, about the abbreviated birth certificate, if it came to one or the other and not to both, I would be most firmly in favour of the abbreviated one. This will give much relief from embarrassment to many people.
    I wish to return the kind words voiced by the hon. Lady. My hon. Friends and I did our best to co-operate. We received great "come hither" from her and her hon. Friends, as a result of which we now have a better Bill than when it was first drafted.
    10.52 p.m.
    Mr. Hector Monro: As the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary has taken so much trouble over the problem of the Border areas, I wish to put on record my appreciation for her work and the speed at which these two Committees have gone into action. When I go home tonight I will have the happy thought that my children will not have so much trouble disposing of me at the end of my days.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING LEVY
  10.52 p.m.
  Mr. J. B. Godber: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering) Order 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 1263), dated 11th June, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be annulled.
  There are several points which I wish to make at the outset. This is the third occasion on which this Prayer has been on the Order Paper. On previous occasions it has been accompanied by two others, but because of the volume of Government business going through Parliament on each of the previous occasions no time has been found to debate them. I am glad that now we have at least a few minutes in which to discuss this matter. Tonight, we have only the one levy Order before us.
  I should perhaps point out, although I am sure that this is well known to all hon. Members, that it is parliamentary custom that on many occasions—indeed, the majority—when a Prayer is moved there is no intention, in moving it, to seek to annul the Order but that this is the only way by which an order of a negative nature can come before the House for consideration.
  I would not have thought it necessary to make that observation had it not been for some comments made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on a previous occasion in the House. I am glad that he is in his place tonight and I hope that he will take this opportunity of putting his remarks in, shall I say, a somewhat
  852
  different perspective and, I hope, of withdrawing some of the implication of what he said on that occasion. I was extremely annoyed when I learned of his remarks and I reacted to them fairly strongly at the time.
  I recognise that in the circumstances in which he was speaking there was a good deal of pressure—as there would be on a Minister winding up a stormy debate—so one can make allowances for that. Even making those allowances, I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree that some of the things he said were misleading to a considerable degree. I hope that he will be able to put them in better perspective tonight.
  On 14th July, in winding up the debate—I am seeking to put this as moderately as I can—the hon. Gentleman first made a complete misstatement, and I think he agrees with me that it was so. He said:
  "Under the Industrial Training Act, in the first year alone the Government will spend a sum not far short of £100 million."
  That was completely wrong and, presumably—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. I have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to pursue a personal difference to a certain extent, but he must get back to the Order now.
  Mr. Godber: I should not dream of raising the matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, were it not that the hon. Gentleman, as I shall seek to show—and I have to quote more of what he said to make my point—made comments about our Prayers which call for discussion. If you will allow me to go a little further, I will seek to show that that is so. I merely say on this point that I subsequently put a Question to the Minister, when it was shown that the amount spent was much smaller, less than £2 million in the first two years.
  In the hon. Gentleman's next quotation, in response to an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), who was leading for the Opposition, he said:
  "Perhaps he will say why his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has tabled Prayers to annul the Orders that we have made to put the Act into effect. It makes one wonder what was

  853
  the intention behind the Act. It was a sort of enabling Act, by which one could do a great deal, or do very little. We decided to do something about it. The Orders were published, and at the first possible opportunity the Shadow Minister of Labour, the right hon. Member for Grantham, tabled Prayers to annul the three Orders that were made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 630–1.]
  That is my reason for raising the point and I hope you will agree that it is right that I should do so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because of my earlier point that this is a perfectly normal procedure which, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, is used in the House. It is used regularly by Opposition parties with no intention whatever of seeking to annul.
  My purpose in regard to the Orders was quite straightforward. These were almost the first levy Orders under the Industrial Training Act, a Measure which I was responsible for piloting through the House. I had no intention of holding up the operation of the Act and I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman thought I had. He was seeking to make a party point which was completely unfair. I understand that he was under great pressure because of the strain of the debate, but, even so, I hope that he will take the opportunity tonight completely to withdraw any suggestion that I did not wholly support the Act, because all those concerned with the operation of industrial training know well from my record at the Ministry and subsequently that I am desperately keen to see the Act succeed and to see the boards go forward to success.
  My purpose in tabling the Prayers was to enable the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to explain—I thought that he would be glad to do so—some of the issues in regard to this entirely new legislation, which we have only just had before us. Four of these boards were set up when we were in office and we have now had the levy Orders for those four. The one which we are considering tonight is that for engineering. This was the one on which I thought that it would be of particular advantage for the Parliamentary Secretary to be able to give explanations, because the levy in this Order was substantially higher than in any of the others.
  854
  That is a point on which there has been criticism, and, possibly, it is this which has led to the misunderstanding. I have never criticised it. I have always said that all levies would have to be at a high rate, because they would "bite" only if they were at a high rate. The whole purpose of the levy is to impose it upon the whole industry and to pay back grant to those who are giving sufficient training.
  Therefore, to the extent that the levy is a high one, pressure is increased on those who are not training to do so. Although this levy is a high one I was merely seeking to know why there is this wide discrepancy between the levels of levy between the different boards. That is why I put down the Prayers originally on the three different Orders. In this case, it is 2½ per cent. of the total pay received.
  From the Report of the Engineering Training Board, which came out today, I see that the Board decided to start its levy at a level which would bring in sufficient money to cover the total current costs of training in the industry. It rejected the idea of starting with a small levy, but decided to begin as it meant to continue, with a levy to embrace the whole range of training. This may be the explanation which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary wishes to give, but it does seem to be perhaps a different attitude from that of the other Boards, and while one obviously would not expect complete unanimity it is perhaps surprising that there is this degree of discrepancy.
  There is this difficulty in this case, that there would be an interflow between the Engineering Board and the Iron and Steel Board. There is a joint committee dealing with the affairs of the foundry industry. It is a joint committee between the Engineering Board and the Iron and Steel Board. It is, therefore, a somewhat complicated matter. As I was responsible for setting up that committee I realise, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary does, the differences between those industries, and the fact that it was impossible to fit the foundry industry neatly into one or the other, but, because of this, the discrepancy between the rate of levy in the engineering industry and in the iron and steel industry becomes very important, because we have some foundry

  855
  operators who are levied under the iron and steel rate and some under the engineering rate.
  I want to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary whether there is any intention to try through the operation of this joint committee to even out the levy in the foundry industry between the two, in the one case a 2½ per cent. levy and in the other case a per head levy of, I think it is, £7 per annum. If it were on a per capita basis in the engineering industry, the levy would come out, I imagine, nearer £20 rather than £7. So there is a big difference between them. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us whether the joint committee will be able to smooth out the difference, because I think that there is some feeling in the foundry industry that some people are at a disadvantage compared with others if they come within the orbit of the Engineering Board as opposed to the Iron and Steel Board. This is one other reason why I particularly wanted an opportunity of raising this matter.
  One or two of my hon. Friends want to speak, I believe. I certainly want the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to have an opportunity to clear up this matter to which I have referred, so I do not want to go into too great detail about it, but I hope that he will be able to tell us something about this, and something more about the speed at which things are going forward, because an implication of his remarks that night was that we were hanging back and that he and his colleagues were rushing forward. In fact, the very reverse is the case. If he cares to study the Reports of the Engineering Training Board and the other boards we set up when we were in power he will find that, in most cases, with the advice and guidance of the then Government they anticipated being set up and substantially in advance—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is going wide now of the Motion. He may discuss only the levy and things appertaining to the levy.
  Mr. Godber: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I thought that I was perhaps going just a trifle wide, but, of course, the Engineering Board's Report includes a reference to the levy—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be so, but the fact that the Report mentions certain things does not mean that everything in the Report can be discussed in this debate.
  Mr. Godber: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in this as in all things.
  Having made my point, I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will have noted it and be, if not a sadder, yet a wiser man in regard to this matter in the future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least adopt a fairer approach towards our attitude to these matters, and will acknowledge that we have been at least as keen as he has about this levy, and about other matters, too.
  I shall not be able to quote from this other paper which I have here, but there are other misleading factors which emanate from a source which the hon. Gentleman may recognise. As I cannot quote from this paper, which the hon. Gentleman may have seen, I suggest that he studies it. It has been suggested that we were not keen on this, and I hope, therefore, that what I have said will disabuse people's minds of that idea.
  So far as the levy Order goes, we acknowledge that in the engineering industry it is very important that high standards of training are achieved throughout the industry. We recognise that some aspects of this industry in particular have very heavy training costs. We do not dispute that that is so. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to tell us a little more about this, to explain, if he will, the difference in rates between this and the iron and steel levy, because of the interplay between these two. If he can tell us anything about the way in which these are going forward, without, of course, going outside the bounds of order, I hope that he will do so, because there is genuine interest in the operation of this Act in regard to the Board and this levy, and in regard to the other boards as well.
  11.7 p.m.
  Mr. Mark Woodnutt: My intervention will be very brief. I must declare an interest as a director of the Charles Churchill group of companies, and I shall be expressing the view of the Machine Tool Trade Association.

  857
  I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has made it clear that he does not intend to force this Prayer to a Division, because the machine tool industry is well pleased not only with the Industrial Training Act of last year, which was piloted through this House by my right hon. Friend, but also with the Industrial Training Levy Order, which became effective on 30th June, 1965.
  This levy of 2·5 per cent. of the total emoluments paid by the engineering industry is considered by the machine tool industry to be a fair assessment of the average amount that has been spent annually by the engineering industry on training schemes. It is true that some sections of the industry will have spent far less than 2·5 per cent. and that some of them will have spent considerably more.
  I am rather pleased that the Minister of Technology is present this evening so that I can make this point, because the machine tool industry has been much maligned in this Parliament. The amount spent annually by the machine tool industry is far more than 2·5 per cent. of the wages that are paid annually, and for that reason it should receive considerably more in grants than it will pay in levy. It is only right that those sections of the industry which in the past have spent more on training schemes should get the greatest benefit now from any money that is to come from the Exchequer.
  I should like the hon. Gentleman to give the House two assurances. First, will he assure the House that the funds created by the levy will not degenerate into another Road Fund—that they will not be raided to refresh other Treasury expenditure, but will all be used for the purpose for which it is now stated they will be used? Secondly, will he assure the House that the total grant paid to all industries—not just to the engineering industry—will exceed the total levy that is drawn from those industries; in other words, that the Treasury will make a contribution and industry will benefit to a greater extent than the actual levy that is collected?
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: I welcome the Order, but I have a few
  858
  specific points which I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would deal with. First, can he state what will be the total cost of the levy? Presumably he has an estimate of the figure—namely, 2½ per cent. of the total emoluments of those in the engineering industry. Can he give us some idea what is the total income?
  Secondly, is it intended to introduce the provisions under Section 5 of the 1964 Act, whereby the Treasury may help with expenses if it wishes? My reason for raising this specific point arises from a letter I received recently from a company in my constituency relating to this levy and the purpose to which it is to be put. I shall give the House a brief summary of this letter. The firm states that on 8th September, 1964, it was advised by the Ministry of Labour that it came within the scope of the Engineering Industry Training Board. Straight away the firm wrote to the Ministry of Labour and said that as it was engaged only in the rubber industry it disputed the assessment that it came within the scope of that Board.
  It was not until three months later that it received a letter from the E.I.T.B. that its letter had been carefully considered and that it appeared that the firm was in the engineering industry. This company took the trouble of referring to S.I. 1086, which defined those companies which were concerned, and as it happened the view of the company was quickly confirmed. It wrote to the E.I.T.B. on 15th January to say that according to this Statutory Instrument it was excluded from participation. Again, it was not until three months later—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member is discussing another Statutory Instrument, which defines what is an engineering firm. He must come back to the question of the levy.
  Mr. Farr: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, my purpose in raising this point was to discuss some of the purposes to which the levy will be put, and to show that there is a certain amount of laxity at the moment in the running of the E.I.T.B.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There may be. I do not question the right of the hon. Member to raise this matter on the appropriate occasion, but this is not the occasion.
  Mr. Farr: I immediately bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As time is short I will content myself by saying that I will take an early opportunity of sending this correspondence to the hon. Member, and trust that he will study it.
  Will he be good enough to answer my two earlier questions? I assure him that I welcome the Order.
  11.15 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Richard Marsh): I must apologise to hon. Gentlemen who, I can see, would like to take part in this debate, but I am sure they will appreciate that I must take some time to answer some of the points which have been raised so far. We may well, I hope, since this is an important subject, have other opportunities of debating it either on the Adjournment, or, if the Opposition feel strongly about it, they may even care to devote a Supply day to it.
  To answer, first, the specific points of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), the total cost of the Engineering Board levy is likely to be about £80 million in the first year as a result of the 2½ per cent. levy.
  The second point which the hon. Gentleman raised was answered recently in a Written Answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt), who asked whether the Treasury would, in fact, assist the boards. Direct Treasury assistance given to the boards up to 31st March is about £135,000, and, of course, a great deal of assistance has been given to the boards by providing them with staff, particularly senior staff, during this interim period.
  It is estimated that during the current year direct Government grant to the boards will be running at about £1½ million. It would be quite dishonest to suggest that it is anticipated at any stage that Government grants will equal the size of the levies. I think that when one considers the size of the levies, when one realises that we have another 25 or 28 boards to set up and that already, in this first year, the levies are running in total at not so far short of £100 million, hon. Members on both sides will appreciate that it would be unlikely that any Government would make that sort of grant.
  860
  At the moment, the position is that the Government have made grants of about £135,000, and in the current year the Government grant will be about £1½ million, but one obviously expects that eventually the boards will be self-supporting.
  If I may turn very briefly to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) may I say that I think he really is a little too sensitive on these points. He may disagree with me, but it seems to me an extraordinary attitude that the Opposition should complain that the Government spokesmen have not put their case for them.
  The discussion on this Industrial Training Levy Order arose in the course of a previous debate on technology, on 14th July. I think that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would agree that the proceedings developed into a brawl. I do not object to this at all, although hon. Gentlemen might have done. In that debate, I was reported as saying:
  "Under the Industrial Training Act, in the first year alone the Government will spend a sum not far short of £100 million."
  Whether I said this, I personally doubt, but I do not think that anybody could honestly have believed that a Parliamentary Secretary was throwing "off the cuff" Government expenditure of £100 million next year without anybody knowing anything about it.
  If the right hon. Gentleman did believe this he was soon disabused, because I told him the very next day that this would be a fantastic belief. In case there were any doubts after that, a written answer was given to him on the following Monday, the earliest opportunity, in which it was explained exactly what money had been spent by the Government on this.
  Mr. Godber rose—
  Mr. Marsh: Well, I had less than 20 minutes last time, so I suppose that it does not matter if I have only 10 minutes this time.
  Mr. Godber: A typical discourtesy. I wish that the Parliamentary Secretary would not adopt this attitude. In fact, the Written Answer was given at the earliest opportunity simply because I put

  861
  a Written Question down, but the Parliamentary Secretary seems to imply that a special attempt was made to put the thing right. This was not the main charge I brought against him.
  Mr. Marsh: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman gets so touchy when people hit back. I have made two attempts to speak on this subject. On the first occasion I was just bawled out by his right hon. and hon. Friends. On this occasion, I did not deal with the second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, because he got up and interrupted me. I then went on to say, in case there should be any misunderstanding:
  "Hon. Gentlemen opposite are in favour of this, because they are in favour of retraining."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 630.]
  It seems to me to put the position quite clearly. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman should be so sensitive—
  Sir Tatton Brinton rose—
  Mr. Marsh: This is intolerable—
  Sir T. Brinton: On a point of order. Many hon. Members have stayed here in the hope of discussing the size of the levy. Is what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying to the point?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Apparently there is a personal issue between the Parliamentary Secretary and the former Minister. To be fair to both sides, I have allowed them each the same amount of latitude. I hope that they will not take up the whole time on it.
  Mr. Marsh: I am sorry. I do not know whether one is entitled to reply to the allegations which keep being made. I agree that this is perhaps not the right time to do so, but the point was raised, and I thought that I might have an opportunity to deal with it.
  Then there was an interruption by the right hon. Gentleman the then Leader of the Opposition who said, "We passed the Act." I went on to refer to Prayers being down to annul the Orders. That does not strike me as being too serious a thing to have said, and I do not want to alter it. When the right
  862
  hon. Gentleman for Grantham (Mr. Godber) was dealing with similar Prayers in the past, he was able to make similar allegations, when he said:
  "This Government are pressing ahead, well ahead of anything which the party opposite has any intention of doing in this field."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 651.]
  However, I leave that, because this is becoming childish. I am quite willing to debate the matter at any other time but the right hon. Member is not the only one who feels aggrieved about it.
  The difference in the size of the levies is a very understandable point to make. In the construction industry, the levy will be 1·2 per cent. of total remuneration in the full year. In the iron and steel industry, it will be only £7 per employee in the year. In the Wool Board, it will be 0·75 per cent. of the payroll, and, as has been said, in the engineering industry it will be 2·5 per cent. So far, the other boards have not produced levies, although eventually they all will.
  It is reasonable that one should ask why there should be this variation for what would appear to be the same function. But it is not quite as much a problem as it might seem to be on the surface. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight made the point earlier, when he said that he wanted an assurance that the levies would not be another Road Fund that could be raided by any Government in the future, and that they would stay in the industries.
  The first point to be made is that none of the money will leave the industry. It will be raised by the industry and kept within the industry, and the industry will have control of it. It is not a tax, taking money out of the industry. The Government will have no claim on the money, because it is money which will be raised within the industry, and it will be distributed within the industry for its benefit. An even more important point—and it is why I say that it does not matter about the difference in the levies as much as might appear on the surface—is that wherever there is a high level of levy, there will be a high level of grant.
  Provided the employers are doing the training which is necessary—and that is particularly true of the foundry industry, where there is a real variation between the two boards—if they pay a low level

  863
  of levy, they will get back a small grant. If they pay a high levy and do the job, they will get back a high grant.
  Sir T. Brinton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that there ought to be a profit on the expenditure on a man who is training? May I draw his attention to the facts that there are 25 million employed people in the country, that the Government spend £1,500 million a year on education, or £60 per employed person, but that it is proposed to spend £20 on training? It seems rather high.
  Mr. Marsh: It is too late in the evening to deal with the details of how the grants were arrived at. The first thing which the Engineering Board has done and which, I hope, all the other boards will do, is to redistribute the costs of training. One problem has been that firms who have good training arrangements are subsidising firms with no training arrangements. I think that I am right in saying that this is one of the views of the Machine Tool Traders Association. Therefore, the distribution of training costs was a real feature of the scheme, as well as the establishment of standards.
  It should be accepted that the cost of training is yery high for the firm which is doing it properly. It is not just a question of apprenticeship training. It is a question of management training, of technological training, which is a very real factor, of subsequently the boards carrying out the responsibility for adult retraining, taking green labour and retraining it and giving people whose skills are in less demand the new skills demanded by expanding industries. It is a question also of carrying out inspections, of having a central inspectorate to act as consultants on training facilities.
  The whole thing is a very expensive job. The 2½ per cent of the Engineering Board's levy is virtually the amount of money which is being spent now. All that is happening about this is that some firms have been carrying the burden for other firms which have existed merely by pirating the skilled labour from firms which do this job. This is not a Government decision. This is a decision taken by both sides of industry.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: Would the Minister concentrate
  864
  particularly on the foundry industry, because similar firms are paying different levies? This will be unequal. What steps will be taken to study the problem?
  Mr. Marsh: This is the first year of the operation of the Act. There is the joint committee. We hope that we shall overcome at least some of the difficulties. The problem is not as large as it appears to be, because it does not matter how big the levy is. If a firm is doing the training, the grant which comes back to it will be correspondingly large. Therefore, it does not matter whether it is paying large levies or small levies, because firms will be getting large grants or small grants according to the levy.
  It would be difficult to say how far we have gone so far. In the first year the Engineering Training Board has done an incredible job, as have all the boards. This has been an enormous job. Twenty-seven thousand firms have had to be identified and registered. About 1,000 firms, as they are perfectly entitled to do, have objected to being included in the list. Their complaints are being dealt with. The boards have carried out an enormous and revolutionary change.
  I conclude on the note on which we started—or, perhaps, on a rather different one. No one disputes the right hon. Gentleman's contribution in this field when he was Minister of Labour. No one could dispute that he introduced the Bill, but I believe that if the party opposite had had the administration of this Bill, they would not have done what we have done or what we want to do. [Interruption.] I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree, but that is my belief.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I thought that we had left that. We are broadening the debate again.
  Mr. Marsh: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but we are not. We are dealing, with respect, with the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering) Order, surely?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The Minister must be courteous to the Chair. If he wants to dispute the Chair's Ruling, there are correct ways of doing it. I ask him to return to the Order.
  Mr. Marsh: I would merely leave the point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, by saying that

  865
  the Board has done an incredibly good job in a comparatively short time. The whole of the Act marks a complete revolution in industrial training in this country and in the years to come the position will be such that we shall have laid foundations, as a result of this Order, that could provide us with the highest standards of industrial training in the world, a thing of which due warning was given yesterday when, at the International Apprentice Competition, this country—I am sure that this is not out of order—came top out of every country competing.
  11.28 p.m.
  Mr. Godber: By leave of the House, may I, in the few remaining moments, say that I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the last remarks that he tried to make. I think that both he and I can leave the matter with honour there. I am sorry that that matter arose.
  We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the information he has given us about that Order. I am sure that he will agree that it would be of advantage if we could discuss in more detail the problems of these levies on a future occasion. We shall study what he has said with care.
  With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

    Clause 3.—(DUTIES OF THE BOARD.)
    Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 3 line 12, at end insert:
    "( ) In the exercise of their functions under this Act the Board shall have regard to the desirability of preserving the beauty of the scenery in the Highlands and Islands".
    11.30 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment simply puts a duty on the Board to have regard to the desirability of preserving the beauty of the scenery in the Highlands and Islands. It was pointed out in another place that this
    866
    is one of the most valuable assets that we have in the Highlands and Islands and that it ought to be preserved. It is desirable that we make this provision in the Bill.
    Lest anyone has doubts as the propriety of doing it in the Bill, there is a precedent for it. A similar provision is incorporated in the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Obviously, no one wants the beauty of the Highlands to be adversely affected. Oddly enough, this matter was not discussed in Committee, but it was discussed in another place. One point which did not come out in another place was that, while it is very desirable that natural beauty should not be spoiled, a similar provision in respect of the hydro-electric schemes of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board was used, on occasions, as a delaying measure rather than solely for the eminently desirable purpose originally envisaged under the Act.
    I hope that the Minister will assure that the present proposed provision will not be a hindrance to the Board. He will recall that it was suggested in another place that it could have been covered by Clause 3 (1, a) dealing with social well being.
    Mr. Willis: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that, in fact, we do not expect this to prove any hindrance at all to the Board in the performance of its duties. The Amendment would merely lay down in the Bill that, in performing its duties, the Board must take this aspect of the matter into account. That is all. It would not, so far as I know, give rise to the same sort of hindrance as arose under the hydro-electricity Acts.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 10.—(POWERS OF ENTRY.)
    Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 7, line 2, after "required" insert:
    "by the occupier or anyone acting on his behalf".
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment would merely limit the number of persons who would be entitled to require an officer of the Board to produce his written authority. It

    867
    seems to be a desirable Amendment, and I hope that the House will accept it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 7, line 3, leave out "before so entering".
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment would limit the power of entry provisions in the Clause and make it mandatory on any authorised person entering upon land to produce his authority on request not just before entering, but after he has secured entry. It covers the case of an officer who has made an entry in the absence, perhaps, of the occupier, and the occupier has come along to ask for his authority. It also obviates the difficulty that some people saw, that persons might be waiting at the entrance for the officer of the Board to arrive. The Clause was not too happily phrased in this regard, and the Amendment seems to us to be an improvement.
    Mr. Michael Noble: A question has just entered my head. Suppose an officer of the Board was wandering round a property, perhaps behaving in a rather suspicious way to a passer-by. Could a police constable ask him what he was doing there? Would he not have to show his authority to the police officer?
    Mr. Willis: The Amendment that we have just passed covers the people who are entitled to ask for the authority. The Amendment limits them to the occupier or anyone acting on his behalf. I imagine that a police officer who sees somebody behaving suspiciously has the normal rights of the police to find out what he is doing, and that would not, of course, be affected by this provision.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 7, line 4, after "unless" insert "at least".
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This makes clear what was already implicit in the Bill—that the period of notice specified in the Bill is the minimum period.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment No. 5: In Clause 10, page 7, line 5, after "purposes" insert "at least".
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment does the same as the previous Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 11.—(POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION.)
    Lords Amendment No. 6: In page 8, line 3, leave out "any" and insert "such".
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. Speaker, might we deal, at the same time, with Lords Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9.
    Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.
    Mr. Willis: The purpose of the Amendments is to provide that a notice requiring information should specify the functions for the execution of which the Board requires the information. We have always made it clear that there is no intention of giving the Board dictatorial or arbitrary powers. We have always maintained the belief that, although the powers given in the Clause are necessary, they must be used reasonably. The Amendments help to clarify the position. They make it mandatory on the Board to specify the function or functions for which it requires the information. This is not unreasonable, and I command the Amendments to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
    Lords Amendment No. 10: In page 8, line 14, at end insert:
    "In determining whether information is so reasonably required by the Board the sheriff may take into account the probable cost or inconvenience to the person who has been required to furnish the information".
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is to make it clear that it is open to a recipient of a notice under Clause 11 to appeal on the ground of

    869
    excessive cost or unreasonable inconvenience. The matter was raised during Committee and on Report in this House and in another place. The Amendment makes it clear, therefore, that if an appeal is made this is one of the considerations that can be taken into account. We think it a desirable provision to make.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I should like some clarification. The point was certainly pressed on the Report stage. There was a fear that particularly new or declining businesses which would be the subject of most interest by the Board in carrying out this function might be subject to excessive cost. Does the Amendment make it clear that, if the cost or the trouble were unreasonable, those concerned might be exempted from providing this information?
    Is there provision for a small business to be given professional assistance or even some kind of grant to enable it to provide the information that the Board may require? I appreciate that the Amendment might prevent the Board from getting information from a small business which it feels is required. Is there any provision in the Bill, by virtue of the Amendment or some other provision, whereby professional assistance by the Board's officers or some grant may be given to help the business provide the information?
    Mr. Willis: I said in Committee that we thought this point to be covered by Clause 9(1,d) and the hon. Member will find that that is so. The Board will have power to do what the hon. Gentleman wants.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 13.—(ACCOUNTS OF THE BOARD ETC.)
    Lords Amendment No. 11: In page 9, line 6, leave out "accounts of" and insert:
    "statement of account prepared by".
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Perhaps it might be convenient to discuss, at the same time, the remaining five Lords Amendments, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.
    Mr. Willis: This and the remaining Amendments are drafting, designed to bring the other subsections into conformity with the language used in subsection (1).
    Mr. J. Grimond: Do I understand that there is no difference between an account and a statement of account?
    Mr. Willis: As I understand it, no. At least, there is no difference so far as the intention of the Clause is concerned. Subsection (1) uses the words "a statement of account" and the Amendments bring the other subsections into line with that wording.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

  EUROPEAN LAUNCHER DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES)
  11.45 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the European Launcher Development Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1965, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th July.
  It might be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to take together this Motion and the next, also standing in my name, together.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the European Space Research Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1965 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th July.
  Mr. Speaker: That is entirely agreeable to the Chair if the House so pleases.
  Mr. Thomson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Both these Motions deal with Orders concerning diplomatic immunities and privileges. I am very aware that the House is properly sensitive about any extension of these diplomatic immunities and privileges. I hope to show that both these Orders are of very limited application in terms of the number of persons to whom they apply and, more important, that both tighten up considerably the kind of immunities which are granted,

  871
  and do so on the lines which the House has urged on the Government on a number of occasions. This is especially so in relation to motoring offences, about which the House has been particularly anxious on previous occasions and it is also true about arrangements for exemption from Income Tax.
  The Orders themselves are required to give effect to international agreements which Her Majesty's Government have entered into conferring privileges and immunities on the European Space Research Organisation and the European Launcher Development Organisation and persons connected with them. These organisations came into being in 1964 to co-ordinate European efforts in space research and technology and in the development of a European space vehicle launcher.
  I ought to say that both organisations are engaged in wholly peaceful work which enjoys the support of the House. Both have a secretariat concerned with administration and technical planning and establishments in member countries engaged on practical work. The headquarters of both organisations are in Paris. The organisations do not have establishments in the United Kingdom, nor is it presently envisaged that any will be set up here. There will be occasional visits by staff members and experts to this country and there may be meetings of organs of the organisations held here from time to time.
  The numbers involved, therefore, are very small and, in fact, consist entirely of temporary visitors. In general, the orders are similar to those in respect of other European organisations, but, as I said, there are certain important modifications and limitations as compared with previous Orders.
  For the first time, proceedings in respect of motoring offences and accidents are excluded from the immunity from suit of the organisations and, with the exception of the head of the organisation, of its employees. Our spokesmen at the negotiations of the protocols were insistent on these limitations. They had particularly in mind the concern which has been expressed in the House on these matters.
  This will mean that the organisations and their employees will be subject to
  872
  the jurisdiction of our courts in respect of proceedings, both criminal and civil, which arise out of motoring offences and accidents. I ought to make it clear to the House that while national representatives of the organisations which have no immunity in their private motoring, they will still enjoy immunity in the use of their cars in the exercise of their official functions.
  The second limitation is that the organisations will not have immunity from proceedings to enforce an arbitration award made against them. Under the international agreements to which the Orders give effect, each organisation is required to include an arbitration clause in all its written contracts. It will be required to submit to arbitration disputes arising out of its non-contractual obligations, or those in which it is otherwise involved directly or through an intermediary or any member of its staff whose immunity has not been waived. This is an important modification of the immunity from suit which the majority of international organisations enjoy.
  There is a further new limitation. The exemption of officials of the organisations from United Kingdom Income Tax is now to be conditional on the existence of an internal tax system within the organisations. This is the first time that this has been written into any of these Orders. This means that the salaries of officials will always be subject to tax. Either they will be subject to the tax of their own country or, when the Organisations have their own tax system, the benefit of the tax will go to the Organisations, and not to any one member State.
  The House may be interested in one other novel feature of the Orders. It is that the fiscal privileges of the Organisations are expressly tied to their official activities, as illustrated under Article 9 of the Orders. Thus, under the present provisions, such privileges cannot be extended to, for example, any commercial activities which E.L.D.O. may come to have when it moves beyond its present stage of development of its prototype space vehicle launcher. A final, and more general point is that in this Order, for the first time, the application of Part 4 of the Schedule of the 1950 Act, under which all Orders are made, is entirely excluded.

  873
  This is important to the House in relation to past anxieties. It means that families of the officials of the Organisations, and also the official staff, and the representatives of the official staff, and experts, will not enjoy privileges and immunities.
  I now wish to deal with the matter raised by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Committee has reported that the purport of these instruments calls for elucidation, and I would like to apologise to the Committee, and to the House, for what I certainly agree is some obscurity in the verbiage of the Orders. I understand that the particular point on which elucidation is considered necessary is that raised in Article 12 of each Order—relating to
  "a permanent member of the staff of the Organisation in any of the staff categories A, B, C and L."
  The Orders provide that persons so described shall enjoy limited immunity from suit and legal process in respect of their official acts, and exemption from Income Tax in respect of particular emoluments. The question is whether the contents of these categories may be changed by the Organisations without reference to this House.
  I should like to explain to the House why the provisions in question were drafted in precisely the present form. The House will recall that Section 1 of the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, lays down that any Order in Council made under it shall be so framed as not to confer any immunities and privileges to a greater extent than is required by international agreement. The object of the agreements, to which the present draft Orders are intended to give effect, provides that the privileges defined in Article 12 of the Order shall be conferred on categories of staff members which, and I quote, "the Council shall decide".
  Subsequent to the conclusion of the agreements, the Council for each Organisation has made a decision defining the categories concerning precisely the staff categories A, B, C and L. Therefore, the Orders, as they are now drafted, do no more and no less than give effect to the requirements of agreements as implemented by the decisions of the two councils.
  874
  I should remind the House that a provision in comparable terms, referring to all officers of grades 1 to 10 inclusive is already included in the Central Treaty Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1962.
  The present provisions, therefore, are not without precedent, although, as I have said, I apologise for the difficulties the House must have had in interpreting what was meant by these alphabetical categories of international servants. The categories in question are those employed in other European organisations. So far as possible, international organisations are encouraged to adopt standard rules in this matter.
  I can go into further detail if the House wishes after other Members have spoken Perhaps it will suffice at this stage to explain that these four categories comprise all staff occupying permanent posts in the Organisations, except the locally recruited staff, on hourly rates of pay. It is possible that the content of each category may change in that, for the purposes of the application of staff regulations, persons might conceivably be transferred from one of these categories to another. I am advised that for practical purposes the possibility can be disregarded that the overall content of these four categories will ever be extended to include any of the locally recruited staff, who are at present excluded.
  I would emphasise that the immunities that are given to these particular groups of members of the staffs of these Organisations are strictly limited. They do not affect the matters that normally give concern in this House, such as exemption from liability in respect of motor accidents.
  Mr. Graham Page: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of categories, by my asking a question now we may save time later. Does not the question of individuals moving from one category to another, or the number of individuals in that category increasing, relate to the question of whether the definition of the category could be enlarged by the Council after the date of the Order? Would he address his remarks to that point?
  Mr. Thomson: That is what I am seeking to do. I was explaining that the only group excluded at the moment from

  875
  these categories—and, therefore, from the immunities that go with them—is the group composed of locally recruited staff. I was seeking to reassure the House that it is inconceivable that any of the organisations would seek to extend the exemption categories in a way which would include the locally recruited staff. I hope that I have also been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee, on this point.
  Commander Anthony Courtney: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the strictly limited privileges and immunities which these Orders purport to give. I am sure that he will confirm the frequent mention in both Orders of the words:
  "… the like inviolability … accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power …".
  Surely one could have no greater measure of immunity or privilege than that?
  Mr. Thomson: I am referring to employees who do not receive immunities of that description. The immunities he describes relate only to one person in each organisation—the senior officer, the director general in one and the secretary genral in the other. They do not relate to the categories to which I am referring and which have given legitimate cause for anxiety among members of the Select Committee.
  I simply wish to point out that, apart from there being little risk of an open-ended commitment being involved here, these categories contain very limited immunities. Apart from the Income Tax exemption, which is now being severely limited, as I have described, they simply have
  "… immunity from suit and legal process in respect of acts, including words written or spoken, done or omitted to be done … in the course of the performance of official duties …"
  These are the minimum exemptions which are required for members of international organisations to be able to perform their functions. These privileges should be readily comprehensible to hon. Members because they are similar in character to the privileges which allow us to perform our duties in this Chamber freely and without fear.
  I am conscious of the fact that Orders of this type are never popular with the
  876
  House. It is right that we should always carefully consider legislation which puts any person or institution in a special legal position compared with other persons and institutions.
  I do not wish to delay the House, so I will content myself with saying that our representatives at the negotiations of the protocols, to which these Orders give effect, did their best to introduce into these agreements the new features which I have sought to describe. They did this precisely in response to the views expressed in past debates on similar orders, some of those views having been expressed by hon. Members who are taking part in this discussion tonight.
  I hope, in the light of my explanation, that the House will welcome the Orders.
  11.59 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are grateful to the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs for the care he has taken in trying to explain the two Orders, which are complex and lengthy. Had his hon. Friend and colleague the Minister of State sought to do the same, I think that he would have found the House much more restive, because, on the last occasion when we discussed Orders of this nature, his hon. Friend seemed for some reason to be impatient that the House should be anxious about diplomatic immunities and privileges that are accorded. As the Minister of State rightly told us tonight, however, the House is sensitive about these matters. It is for that reason that we have the affirmative Resolution procedure, which gives hon. Members on all sides a chance to ask certain questions.
  One of the first questions with which all of us must always be concerned is how many persons are involved in the Orders, in this case concerning E.L.D.O. and E.S.R.O. The Minister of State said that it would be a very small number and would concern only what he described as temporary visitors. I suggest that that is not a satisfactory explanation. The two Orders are of considerable length. They would not come before the House unless it is intended that there shall be a meeting shortly concerning important questions of technology and research in launcher development programmes. We are, therefore, entitled to have a more

  877
  accurate assessment of how many persons are involved.
  We appreciate that these Orders are more restrictive than any other Orders that we have recently considered, namely, those relating, for instance, to the Council of Europe, Western European Union or the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as the International Development Association and the Customs Cooperation Council. We welcome the fact that the Government, through their representatives, have also sought to try to establish greater restrictions in three important categories, in response to opinions expressed by hon. Members, on all sides of the House.
  The Minister of State mentioned, in particular, a category of more restrictive provisions concerning motor vehicles, which has always aroused hon. Members to great personal concern. I understand that the Organisation is immune from suit and legal process within the scope of its official activities except, under these Orders,
  "in respect of a civil action by a third party for damage arising from an accident caused by a motor vehicle belonging to, or operated on behalf of, the Organisation, or in respect of a motor traffic offence involving such a vehicle".
  That is an advance. Article 11 applies also, I understand, to the Secretary-General or his representative if he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and it applies also to a permanent member of the staff of the Organisation in any of the staff categories A, B, C and L. I shall refer later to these categories, which are the result of comments by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.
  First, however, I think that I am right in saying that these greater restrictions on motor offences also apply to experts who are under contract to the Organisation, to any expert
  "who is a member of any committee or organ of the Organisation or is employed on a mission on behalf of the Organisation".
  Therefore, one is bound to ask the obvious questions: how many of these committees are there, how many organs are there, what is meant by "organ" and which organs are they? These questions of motor traffic offences always arouse strong feeling.
  878
  We must welcome the greater restrictions that apply to tax. I understand that whether or not one is a citizen of the United Kingdom or Colonies, no person shall receive exemption from Income Tax in respect of emoluments until these are subject to taxation by the Organisation itself. These, again, apply to the categories, A, B, C and L, but for some reason they do not apply to experts. Therefore, I should like to know, why not?
  Then we come to arbitration, which once more is more restricted. Article 3(1,c) lays down that the Organisation within the scope of its official duties shall have immunity from suit or legal process, except
  "in respect of the enforcement of an arbitration award made under Article 25 or Article 26 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the Organisation …."
  That being so, it means, as I understand it, that the Organisation itself can be made to submit to arbitration disputes arising out of contracts entered into by it, otherwise involving its responsibility or that of its staff.
  I should like to turn to the question commented on by the Minister of State which concerns the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in a Report dated 27th July. It referred, of course, in particular, to Article 12, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will refer to this if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. What the Minister of State pointed out was that both the Orders, in referring to Article 12 and the particular immunities and privileges enjoyed by the staff, refer to categories A, B, C and L.
  But in no instance is reference made to any document in which those categories are defined. I myself have examined the Protocols; I have examined the Conventions; I went to the Library to search. In none of those documents was it possible to discover what those categories A, B, C and L are. I suggest to the Minister of State that it is not sufficient to bring Orders of this kind before the House if we cannot have either a definition order or else a schedule defining these particular categories. I am well aware that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reply to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, pointed out that these categories applied

  879
  on the whole to permanent staff and not to those locally recruited.
  That is so, and it has been reinforced by the Minister of State tonight, but I would suggest to him that even if we pass these Orders tonight—as I hope we shall, because they are more restricted in their general application—nevertheless, he should consider whether it would not be possible to bring forward an amending Order which would clearly define, for all who study these matters, exactly what is meant by the words "categories A, B, C and L". Surely, as it stands, this is not the way by which we can easily understand legislation.
  That was one point. The second one was where the Committee wished to be assured that Article 12 in each Order does not legislate by reference to a category the content of which may change. This is very important, because in the official reply to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments the Secretary of State pointed out this fact:
  "There seems to be no possibility that a decision taken by either council would have any substantial effect on a distinction between the staff presently included in the categories specified in Article 12 and other staff of the Organisation."
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "This means in effect, that no person who was excluded under this Article from privileges and immunities would be likely"—
  I emphasise those words, "would be likely"—
  "to be brought within the scope by any subsequent decision of the Organisation."
  I submit to the House that those words are very vague. It does not say that it is impossible to bring in other categories or to change staff from one category to another, and I think that the House needs reassurance on this point.
  The Secretary of State sought to assure the Select Committee by pointing out that a precedent exists under the Central Treaty Organisation Immunities and Privileges Order which, incidentally, is wrongly numbered in the exchange of correspondence as 133. I suggest to the Minister that he should correct that, because it causes trouble to our librarians. The real number is 137.
  All this Order says is that the staff refers to Grades 1 to 10 inclusive, and
  880
  no one is any the wiser. How is one to know what is meant by Grades 1 to 10 inclusive, or by Grades A, B, C and L? I suggest to the Minister that it would not be too difficult to bring forward a short amending Order for the purpose of defining the categories clearly, and, secondly, to make quite sure that there cannot be a variation between the categories without control of Parliament, because that is really the point at issue.
  Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Orders set out the various privileges and immunities in respect of the official activities of the Organisations, and their official activities are set out in paragraph 9 of the Orders. If one takes the first Order, that of the European Launcher Development Organisation, paragraph 9 says that the
  "official activities of the Organisation shall be its administrative activities and the design, development and construction of prototype space vehicle launchers."
  The definition in paragraph 9 of the Order relating to the European Space Research Organisation says that the
  "official activities of the Organisation shall include its administrative activities and those undertaken in the field of space research and space technology in pursuance of the purposes of the Organisation as defined in the Convention for the Establishment of the Organisation."
  When one looks at the Conventions one observes how large and growing are these particular activities. For instance, it is suggested that the European Space Research Organisation shall aim during an initial eight-year period to achieve,
  "the firing, at a rate building up to a steady level of the equivalent of about 65 medium sized vehicles per year by the third year of its existence, of a variety of types of fully-instrumented vertical sounding rockets containing mainly nationally financed experiments;
  (b) the successful launching, annually, from the fourth year of its existence, of two fully-instrumented small satellites in near-earth orbits;
  (c) the successful launching, from the sixth year of its existence, of two fully-instrumented space probes or major satellites (i.e., requiring large launching vehicles)."
  The location of the establishments from which these launchings shall take place or the administrative locations are to be in the Netherlands, in the German Federal Republic, in Sweden, and in Italy.
  If one takes the Convention which governs the Statutory Instrument which

  881
  we are discussing tonight concerning the establishment of the European Organisation for the Development and Construction of Space Vehicle Launchers, one perceives that the Organisation is required to undertake as its initial programme
  "the design, development and construction of a space vehicle launcher using as its first stage the rocket 'Blue Streak' and with a French rocket as its second stage,"
  and that
  "the development firings of the first stage and of the complete launcher shall be conducted at Woomera, Australia."
  Therefore, it will be observed that what we are discussing tonight is the question whether we shall accord greater diplomatic immunities and privileges to what is without doubt a growing and important part of our technological and space research. Quite apart from the categories of persons that we have discussed, and whether or not one can enlarge these categories without reference to Parliament, or Parliamentary control, it is also important that the House should recognise that in a growing industry of this kind it is very likely that the actual numbers will grow to a very large extent.
  If the Minister of State sees fit to reply, by leave of the House, I hope that he will tell us what, in his estimation, are likely to be the kinds of conference that we shall see here in London, and the number of people who will take advantage of these diplomatic immunities and privileges, and what are the numbers which are likely to increase, and for which we shall have granted diplomatic immunities and privileges without any Parliamentary control. These are matters of great concern to the House.
  We welcome the more restrictive character of these two Orders and the manner in which the Minister of State has introduced them, but there are several questions which my hon. Friends will wish to probe further.
  12.16 a.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: Before becoming critical of these two draft Orders I want to make some complimentary remarks. We welcome some of the unusual limitations upon immunities contained in both Orders. It might be worth while to group these as they appear in the Orders. There are the group of limitations on the immunities when using
  882
  motor vehicles, which appear in Article 3(1,b), Article 11(1,b(i)), Article 12(a) and Article 13(1,a). These are all limitations on immunities granted in other Orders to those driving vehicles on the roads.
  Then there is the limitation from immunity to arbitration, which is included in Article 3(1,c); the limitation on the immunity of the Organisation from taxes on the importation of goods, prohibitions on importation or exportation, the limitation on the immunity to cases of official activities of the Organisation, which again is a welcome limitation, and the limitations on the immunity from taxation, which appear in Article 11(1,a(ii)) and Article 11(1,b(iii)). Finally, I mention in particular Article 13(2), which excludes Part IV of the Act and therefore prevents immunities from spreading to the official staff and the high officers' families.
  Having welcomed the Order containing those Articles I must now become critical in respect of Article 12, which was referred to in the Select Committee's Report. I would remind the House briefly of the duties of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. It examines all Statutory Instruments which are subject to Parliamentary procedure and is charged with the duty of reporting them to the House if it finds that there is an unusual or unexpected use of the Minister's powers in subordinate legislation; if it finds that they are retrospective, and if it finds certain other things in its terms of reference, one of which is that the contents of the Order require elucidation. It is under that term of reference which the Report on these two Orders is made.
  The objection which the Select Committee found to Article 12 of both these Orders was that it included a category of staff undefined, and a category which might be changed by some document coming into existence or some decision made by the councils of these bodies at a date later than the date of these Orders.
  There are recent precedents for the Select Committee's objection to this type of subordinate legislation, two recent occasions when similar efforts at subordinate legislation by reference to some future documents were brought before the House. There was the recent case future documents were brought before

  883
  of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations, 1963, Statutory Instrument 1897 of 1963, in which the Regulations required builders to comply with the British Standard code of practice, not only the British Standard code of practice in existence at the time when the Order was made, but the latest edition and any amendment thereto.
  This was a reference to an existing document, but a document which might be changed by the British Standards Institution, a body not responsible to this House, and therefore able to alter subordinate legislation approved by this House without reference to this House.
  The debate on that resulted in the Regulations being altered. The offending phrase was deleted. For the purpose of reference, this debate was in the OFFICIAL REPORT, of 10th February, 1964, at cols. 161–186. This was only so long ago as February, 1964. The other precedent was in April, 1964, reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 20th April at cols 1017–1054, and this was the case of the Weights and Measures (Equivalents for Dealing with Drugs) Regulations, 1964. In this case the Regulations referred to the British Pharmacopoeia and the British Pharmaceutical Codex, and required the manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of certain drugs to apply a metric equivalent to an order expressed in grains when it referred to certain drugs, and it defined those drugs by saying those which had a monograph in the British Pharmacopoeia and the British Pharmaceutical Codex, and
  "any amendment or new edition thereof".
  Again, this was a case of the Minister responsible to the House for the subordinate legislation abdicating his powers to some outside body, because these two documents, the British Pharmacopoeia and the British Pharmaceutical Codex, are produced by the General Medical Council and the British Pharmaceutical Society, and can be altered at any time by those bodies.
  In this case the result of the debate was that the Regulations were amended by a simple, single Order, the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Regulations, 1964, which removed the offending words
  "or any amendment or new edition thereof".
  884
  I have spent a little time mentioning these two precedents because it has been mentioned that there is a precedent for the Orders which are before us tonight, the Central Treaty Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1962. But I would call attention to the date of that Order—1962—and to the fact that these two other precedents I have quoted were only last year, 1964, and that they have, I would say, overidden whatever might have been included in the Order of 1962. They have overridden the principle which the House did not consciously approve in 1962, because that Order did not come before it.
  I think it has been clearly established that no Minister to whom the House grants the power to legislate by Order can legislate by a document which is not in existence or by any decision which has not been made, when that document or decision falls to be made by some body other than the Minister.
  In the case before us, it is quite clear, both from the memorandum of the Department and from what the Minister of State said in presenting the Order to the House, that the councils of each of these bodies could alter the staff regulations at any time and thereby alter the categories which are described in the Order as A, B, C and L. That must surely mean that not only does the House not know how these categories are decided and what are the qualifications of anyone included in them—that is to say, there is no definition in either Order of the categories—but also a body outside the control of the House can vary a Parliamentary enactment to those Statutory Instruments without notice to Parliament at all.
  The importance is not only that the Minister is delegating his powers of legislation to some body outside the control of the House, but that the House is also charged by the Act under which these Orders are made to see that they do not extend to certain persons. Unless we know who are included in categories A, B, C and L, we cannot say in the House that the Minister is keeping within the powers of the Act.
  As the Preamble says, these Orders are made by virtue of the powers given to the

  885
  Minister under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950. Section 1 of that Act has a proviso, to which reference has briefly been made already. If I may read the actual words of the proviso, having given the Minister power by Order in Council to grant the immunities, it says:
  "Provided that the Order in Council shall be so framed as to secure that there are not conferred on any person any immunities or privileges greater in extent than those which, at the time of the making of the Order, are required to be conferred on that person in order to give effect to any international agreement in that behalf"—
  and these are the important words, at the end of the proviso—
  "and that no immunity or privilege is conferred upon any person as the representative of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or as a member of the staff of such a representative."
  We cannot be sure, as the Order stands, that a member of the staff of a representative of Her Majesty's Government may not come within these categories described merely in the Order as categories A. B, C and L. If the Order contained a definition of the categories, I should have no complaint, nor should I if the Order had said that the whole staff of these organisations has immunity. But it does not define them in any definite manner like that. It defines certain categories by capital letters which mean nothing to us. The definition may be changed at any time. This comes exactly within the precedents of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations and the Weights and Measures (Equivalents for Dealing with Drugs) Regulations.
  I am sure that it would not be the wish of my right hon. and hon. Friends to delay the making of the Order in draft as it is before us. It would be a simple matter for the Minister of State to give an undertaking, as was given on the occasion of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations and the Drugs Regulations, that he will make a simple amending Order defining these categories. I am sure that they can be defined, otherwise they would not have been stated as categories in the Order. They can be properly defined. An amending Order should be properly drafted and presented in due course. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that that will be done.
  12.30 a.m.
  Sir Douglas Glover: I congratulate the Minister of State on the way he presented the Order. His presentation was very different from that of the Minister who presented the last Order of this type. On that occasion the House became very annoyed. I do not agree with my colleagues on these Orders. I understand that under the 1950 Act the Government are quite in order in bringing these Orders forward, but it is time that the Government, who claim that they are a great reforming organisation, approached their colleagues in the international sphere and asked them to reconsider whether this sort of Order and this extension of diplomatic immunity is necessary.
  I accept that the immunity granted in these Orders is much more limited than that which has been granted in many previous Orders, but these Orders nevertheless grant some form of diplomatic immunity to another band of people. I hope that I can carry the House with me in my submission that a new look should be taken at these matters. E.L.D.O. is an international organisation because more than two nations are involved in what it is doing. Because more than two nations are involved, it has a council and it becomes an international organisation. Because it becomes an international organisation, those concerned in the organisation must have some diplomatic immunity.
  If this is the case, why should not those who work on Concord have diplomatic immunity? Why should not the French people who come over here or the English people who go over to France have exactly the same diplomatic immunity as they would get under the Order if we asked the Italians or the Germans to come and join us on the project and form an international organisation?
  To take the argument a stage further, the great organisation of I.C.I. is now building a complex in Holland costing £100 million. If the people working for I.C.I. there come to this country and engage themselves on a new project, why should not they have diplomatic immunity? I know that the Minister of State will probably smile at what I am saying, but the world is becoming far more international. Unless we think again about

  887
  these things, within the next 20 or 30 years a vast plethora of these people will be scattered all over the world. Because it was thought right to form a governmental international organisation, the people involved in its activities are accorded some form of diplomatic immunity. But they are no more entitled to diplomatic immunity than people in any similar commercial activity in the world.
  What will the people covered by the Orders do? Their work is no more confidential or deserving of diplomatic status than what goes on between the French and the English aircraft manufacturers producing the Concord. They are doing virtually the same thing, though the result of the efforts of one lot will go up into space and the other will fly horizontally. They are dealing with the same sort of problems and technological questions, yet one group of chaps will have diplomatic privilege if they come over here for a conference while the other group will not, being treated as ordinary commercial people not deserving of any sort of diplomatic status.
  There is a real point here. I am inclined to think that hon. Members on both sides who have experience at the Foreign Office get into a sort of miasma on this subject and think that people connected with anything which has an international label attached ought automatically to have the status of diplomats. But we are coming to a stage when the growth of international co-operation between two nations, or sometimes three, on various projects will be so much the normal state of affairs that a fresh look will have to be taken at the whole question of what justifies diplomatic immunity.
  As I understand, all the activities on these two projects go on outside this country. There is no question of people coming to a plant in this country so secret that they ought to have protection on that account. If they come here, the most that they will do will be to attend a conference round a table, with nice pencils and pads for notes put out by the Foreign Office each morning. But they will be discussing the same sort of technical problems which are being discussed between the French and English working on the Concord.
  888
  I am convinced that the right answer is that neither group should have diplomatic protection, They are not doing anything which needs protection. They are not in possession of information beyond the sort of information which every commercial firm dealing with a large new project has and tries to protect all the time in its international dealings. I am sure that the I.C.I. complex in Rotterdam will have just as many secrets which the company would not like to get out, and I am equally sure that I.C.I. would love to be protected by diplomatic immunity.
  It is only too likely that, during the next, 10, 15 or 20 years, this sort of development in international co-operation will mushroom into virtually the normal state of affairs as more and more enterprises of this kind involving projects beyond the ability of one nation alone are undertaken. This is the time to look at the matter again with a severely critical eye to consider whether the previous concept of diplomatic immunity is right to be carried into the future.
  We are already very disturbed in this country about the number of people who have some diplomatic status, and I am sure that all the other countries which help to form these associations would take the same view. Nothing in these industrial or technological projects justifies diplomatic immunity. I shall not oppose these Orders tonight—they are covered by the 1950 Act—but I take this opportunity of raising the question and asking the hon. Gentleman to consider the whole matter afresh. The problem will grow, and the issue will become a very live one quite soon. Both sides of the House would be wise to direct a searching eye into it now, knowing how likely it is that so many vastly expensive new projects will not, as in the past, be one-nation projects but will be undertaken in co-operation between two or three. There is certainly no reason why one should have diplomatic immunity and the next one should be excluded. I beg the hon. Gentleman to have another look at this.
  12.40 a.m.
  Commander Anthony Courtney: I very strongly endorse and support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who has said much that I would

  889
  like to have said far better than I could ever do it.
  I would ask for the indulgence of the House to broaden the subject a little and introduce a feature which has not been mentioned in the debate. According to the title of the Orders, we are dealing with diplomatic and international immunities and privileges. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look again at the point which I mentioned in my intervention earlier when I referred to the number of times in these Orders—it is a total of eight, four in each Order—when individuals belonging to E.L.D.O. and E.S.R.O. are accorded inviolability equivalent to that of an envoy of a foreign sovereign power.
  The Orders, as we have heard, are based on the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950. That is accepted on all sides of the House. But surely that Act and, therefore, these Orders have been overtaken by a Measure passed last year, the Diplomatic Privileges Act, which gives the force of law in this country to, and ratifies, the provisions of the Vienna Convention on International Relations which was originally signed and initialled by about 97 countries in 1961 and covers diplomatic immunities and privileges in their most general form wherever these are applied.
  Does the hon. Gentleman consider that when we deal with matters described as diplomatic and international immunities and privileges they should in the ordinary meaning of words come within the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations? I believe that if hon. Members will look at the Convention in the light of these Orders and the 1950 Act they will perhaps come to the conclusion which I have, which is that the Orders should come under the Vienna Convention. If this is so, it seems to me that the right, or international, side of the Foreign Office does not seem to know what the left, or diplomatic, side is doing if it has happened that these two Orders based on the 1950 Act have been made without any reference to, seemingly without any knowledge of, the existence of the Vienna Convention.
  Both Measures give immunities and privileges to different people in different ways. My hon. Friend the Member for
  890
  Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) have already drawn attention to certain anomalies in this respect. I will give certain examples. In these Orders representatives of E.L.D.O. and E.S.R.O. have immunity, for example, from seizure of personal baggage. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that with Article 36(2) of the Vienna Convention, where diplomatic agents within the definition of that Convention are subject to search of their personal baggage by Customs authorities when there is good reason to believe that they are carrying dutiable goods?
  The Minister of State claimed that there are certain innovations in these Orders. He referred to motoring offences and said that the immunities have been tightened up. Admittedly motoring offences are not covered in the Convention. Conversely, I ask why the ability to search a diplomat's baggage in the Customs is not covered in the Orders. Would that not be an equivalent tightening up to that which he described in relation to motoring offences?
  It is noticeable—and the attention of both E.L.D.O. and E.S.R.O. should be drawn to this—that their classifications of individuals who come within the categories to which these privileges and immunities apply are quite different in each case. The Vienna Convention has three basic categories of individuals—diplomatic agents, administrative and technical staff and service staff.
  In these Orders we have another three categories. First, there are representatives, who are given the status of envoys in certain cases. Secondly, there are officers, who are also given the status of envoys in certain cases. Thirdly, there are the so-called experts who are a kind of minor envoys in the way in which they are to be given diplomatic immunities and privileges.
  Why could not these Orders have defined experts as "technical staff", for example, and so brought them within the provisions of the Convention? Why is there no mention of this international Convention to which we rather belatedly subscribed a year ago? I ask the hon. Gentleman to clear up these points, which bother me very much, as other and associated points bother my hon. Friends. I should be most grateful if

  891
  he could give proper elucidation of these rather complex matters.
  12.47 a.m.
  Mr. George Thomson: By leave of the House, perhaps I may answer hon. Members, beginning with some of the questions of fact.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) asked if I could try to be more precise and said that I owed a duty to the House to be so about the numbers involved. I will gladly give her all the information I can. I was imprecise because it is very difficult to give any sort of accurate assessment about this. E.L.D.O.—to use the biblical-ish title—has 175 employees in the categories that come within these immunities; E.S.R.O. has 500.
  As I have said, neither organisation has any establishment here and these Orders simply apply to casual visits for one purpose or another. This is the difficulty in arriving at an estimate. The best estimate I can give—and, quite honestly, it is only a guess—is that perhaps there will be 50 or 60 visitors a year here for varying short periods who may come within the scope of the immunities in the Orders.
  The hon. Lady asked if I could give the House more information about the committees and organs mentioned in the Protocol and the Orders. E.L.D.O. has two committees with seven members each and one organ—the Council—with seven representatives. E.S.R.O. has four committees with up to 13 members each and one organ—again the Council—with 13 members.
  The hon. Lady also asked why the tax exemption provisions do not apply to the experts and there were a number of other questions about experts. In looking up this matter before the debate, I tried to find out the legal definition of an expert and found that it is somewhat difficult to discover. The other day I heard another current definition of an expert as being a man who had flown over a country by day. Perhaps that is relevant to some of the doubts which have been expressed. I remember once signing the visitors' book in an African country and finding that the man who had signed the book before me in the column marked "Occupation" had written the one word
  892
  "expert". I thought that that was the final accolade. The reason why experts are exempt from the various provisions of these Orders is simply that by description they are men employed part time on short-term contracts of one kind or another.
  The main point made by the noble Lady and by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) was that raised by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments—the question of elucidation of these alphabetical categories which are used in the Orders. I can give the House fuller information about what the categories involve. Category A includes staff engaged in administration and professional work; category B the executive, technical and clerical staff; category C the staff in minor technical and service grades and category L translators and interpreters.
  Sir D. Glover: The people covered by these Orders seem to be those without technical or secret knowledge. The people who are excluded are the experts, the people with some secret or technical knowledge. All the others are administrative officials.
  Mr. Thomson: The experts are excluded only from the taxation provisions. They enjoy the other immunities and I was going on to say why these immunities are granted to people of these types. Perhaps I may finish trying to give the House more information than I am conscious hon. Members were able to get from the Orders about the categories.
  These categories were established in 1957 by international agreement, to which we were a party, between the Council of Europe, N.A.T.O., O.E.E.C. and Western European Union in order to standardise the grading structure and salary scales. In an extremely erudite speech, the hon. Member for Crosby raised very large issue of delegated legislation with which, frankly, as a Foreign Office Minister, I am not competent to deal adequately. If he will allow me, I will refer some of the main issues which he raised to my right hon. and learned Friends the Law Officers.
  However, he asked whether there might be some possibility of an amending Order including some more precise definition on the lines which I have just given to

  893
  the House. There would be difficulties about that. The trouble, as I think we are all agreed, is the danger of the existing area of immunity being extended more widely. I have explained that, to put it at its very least, this is unlikely—I do not think that it is likely at all—because the only exclusions are local employed, hourly-paid workers and it is inconceivable that any international organisation would try to bring them within the ambit of immunity. The difficulty about laying down descriptive definitions, therefore, in the Order, as the hon. Gentleman wished, is that any time an international organisation wished to change the definitions within the categories enjoying these immunities, it would be necessary to introduce a new Order, which would greatly complicate our procedure.
  Mr. Graham Page: That is what I say is absolutely necessary constitutionally in the case of the Building Regulations and the Drug Regulations. The hon. Gentleman's argument is rather like that of the housemaid when she had an illegitimate child—it is only a very small one—only very few people are likely to be involved. But constitutionally it is a very important matter and if these groups were defined in 1957 by the international organisations themselves, cannot we use that definition now in some amending Order?
  Mr. Thomson: I hesitate to cross legal swords with the hon. Gentleman, but I think he argued that there were precedents in relation to this, in the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations and in the Weights and Measures Regulations. I followed with great interest the argument he put on this point, but with respect, I do not think that they are exact precedents, because both these cases dealt with matters of domestic legislation as distinct from matters involving, if I may so call it, international legislation. In the Building and the Weights and Measures Regulations one was dealing with an outside council inside the United Kingdom. Here one is dealing with an international body, in which we are partners, and to which we are bound by the kind of international agreements made in setting it up.
  This makes a material distinction between the cases the hon. Gentleman
  894
  quoted and these immunity Orders. I am conscious that the House was put in a difficulty by the alphabetical definitions, and I appreciate the problems that the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South had in pursuing her research in the library, although I must say that despite all her difficulties she is a very formidable researcher, and I hesitate to think how much more ammunition she would have had if we had made it easier for her to find all the information she wanted. I will do my best on future occasions, in dealing with Orders of this nature, to make sure that more adequate information on this kind of matter is provided to the House.
  I do not want to be too precise in my undertaking at this stage, but what I had in mind was that there might have been a more adequate explanation included in the Explanatory Memorandum. There are far too many initials going around in the international field these days, even for those of us who try to follow them. We get very bewildered and I think we might all join in a bit of abolition of capital letter punishment, if I might put it that way. I will try to do my best on future occasions.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: My hon. Friends are very appreciative of the trouble the Minister of State has taken to go into this matter, but he seems to imply that this is rather a complicated matter because it is subject to international agreement. Surely it is not too difficult, to have, as part of the Order, a definition clause on categories A, B, C and L. It is not necessary to have it in the Explanatory Memorandum. While we appreciate the care he intends to take in future legislation, could he not consider having a short amending Order, which would define the particular categories of these two Orders, even if we pass them tonight?
  Mr. Thomson: I had hoped that my assurance to look at this in the future might have satisfied the House. The difficulty about defining these categories inside the Order—it is a difficulty I have described already—is that every time these international organisations wanted to make any administrative change within the categories which enjoy immunities, without any question of extending the categories, there would need to by a fresh Order, a fresh affirmative procedure. This raises very big issues with

  895
  regard to Parliamentary business and delegated legislation, and it is not a matter on which I could give any undertaking, as the House will understand.
  The easy way is to try to make sure that the explanation is more adequate, so that one can understand the matter. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby was good enough to say that if the Order had contained adequate definitions he would have made no complaint. I will look at it in that sense. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) raised some very wide issues with regard to the growth in the numbers of international bodies. I was rather disappointed to hear him take such a gloomy view of the growth of these international bodies because I know that he is a distinguished member of one very notable such body, that which deals with the abolition of slavery.
  Sir D. Glover: We have no diplomatic immunity anywhere in the world.
  Mr. Thomson: In the smaller world, so to speak, in which we live, it is important to create effective international organisations. We in Britain may be proud of the rôle we play in this matter, although it is rather paradoxical to think that a country like Britain, which has done so much over the years to create international institutions, should house within this country so few of them. Indeed, the problem in regard to immunity for international civil servants is a very limited one for this country compared with some others. Many of us feel that it might be useful in certain circumstances for Britain to act as host to more, rather than fewer, international institutions.
  These international institutions enjoy immunities for basically the same reason as we in the House of Commons enjoy certain privileges. It is primarily to allow them to fulfil their international functions more smoothly and efficiently and without undue outside interference. However, I entirely agree that with the spread of international organisations, which is a welcome phenomenon in the world today, we must ensure that we do not create within the general class of public servants throughout the world two classes, a priviledged international class and a very much less privileged national class of civil servants.
  896
  In this connection, the House might like to know that the Government have circulated 24 other Governments with a memorandum suggesting that fresh thought should be given to the whole problem of privileges and immunities to international organisations. The Committee on Legal Co-operation of the Council of Europe and the International Law Commission of the United Nations have the matter down for consideration. This subject is, therefore, receiving a considerable degree of attention.
  I hope that these general remarks may also partly answer the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) who, as we know, has a long and deep interest in these matters. To answer his main point, I do not think that the Vienna Convention comes into the issue we are discussing.
  Commander Courtney: If it is correct to say that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations does not apply to these matters, what would be the position in the following example? Two Frenchmen come here from Paris. One is a representative of the European Launcher Development Organisation and has rights of immunity from seizure of his personal baggage under Article 10(1,b) of the Order applying to that organisation. The second Frenchman is a counsellor of the French Embassy, but his baggage is subject to search under Article 36(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Is that not the position of the second Frenchman, if it is believed that he has dutiable goods in his baggage? Is that not a paradoxical situation?
  Mr. Thomson: That point is outside the scope of these Orders. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to write to him and give him a detailed answer. The general answer to the case he mentions is, I think, that the Vienna Convention applies to diplomats in the full international definition of that term. These Orders do not apply, by and large, to diplomats within the definition of the Vienna Convention, with the exception of the secretary general and the director general; the head of each organisation in each case. That is the reason for the difference, to which I have drawn attention. With the explanation I have given of the position, I hope that the House will now approve these Orders.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the European Launcher Development Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1965 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th July.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the European Space Research Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1965 be made in the form of the daft laid before this House on 14th July.—[Mr. George Thomson.]
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  CLYDE TUNNEL WORKERS (CAISSON DISEASE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]
  1.5 a.m.
  Sir Myer Galpern: It is with feelings of deep concern that I raise one of the most tragic human problems that I have encountered in over 30 years of public life. It concerns the misery and suffering of men of tough physique who hitherto have always enjoyed perfect health but who, as a result of working in compressed air during the construction of the Clyde Tunnel, contracted what is known as caisson disease of the bone and are now permanently disabled.
  Generally speaking, workers in compressed air know the common health danger associated with the work, namely, decompression sickness, referred to colloquially as the "bends", of which there are two types. The symptoms of type one are severe pains around the knees, elbows and wrists coming on within an hour or an hour and a half of decompression and invariably relieved by the sufferer entering a recompression chamber. Type two, unfortunately, shows more severe symptoms: for example, an onset of paralysis within an hour.
  The gravamen of my case this morning is that whilst knowledge of the bends is available to the workers in compressed
  898
  air, they have no prior knowledge, nor do they receive prior warning, of an additional and more serious hazard to their health, namely, caisson disease of the bone.
  A statutory obligation is placed upon employers under Regulation 16 of the Work in Compressed Air Special Regulations, 1958, to supply compressed air workers with a prescribed leaflet. I have a copy of the leaflet with me. It is Statutory Instrument 1958 No. 61, and I wish to read two short extracts from it. It is a leaflet prescribed by the Minister of Labour for issue to workers in compressed air for the purpose of Regulation 16, and it states:
  "Read these rules carefully. Make sure you understand them for your own sake—follow them. Compressed air workers sometimes get pains in their joints soon after leaving the workings. These pains are called 'the bends', 'caisson sickness' or just 'pains'. They can"—
  this is in heavy type—
  "be almost always avoided."
  Overleaf is stated:
  "If you obey these rules you will safeguard your health. If you do not—you may become seriously ill."
  I pose the question whether it is regarded as adequate warning to ask workers, who in some cases may not be the least bit literate, to study a document of this kind, and why, if they have read it, if their employers ensure that they comply with it and they ultimately contract caisson disease, they have no legal claim for compensation. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will, I think, agree that this leaflet confirms my contention that the worker is not warned of this hazard of bone lesions.
  I have discussed the problem of bone necrosis in detail with Dr. J. K. Davidson, consultant radiologist, Southern General Hospital, Glasgow, a leading authority on the disease, who has been a member of the Medical Research Council Decompression Panel for three years. He carried out a radiographic investigation on 241 men on the completion of the compressed air work on the Clyde Tunnel in December, 1962. This showed that 47 men had already developed one or more bone lesions of varying severity which could lead to total disability and incapacity for work. It has recently become obvious that bone necrosis is a major hazard in

  899
  compressed air work, since it can transform a perfectly healthy man into a permanent cripple.
  The bends rate of 0·19 per cent. of all decompressions while at work on the Clyde Tunnel is the lowest on record, while bone lesions have been shown to be unusually high. Estimates of the prevalence of bone necrosis are not easy because there is a high turnover of the labour force due to the peripatetic tendencies of the men. The bone lesions become evident about one to three years after work in compressed air has ceased. It could well be that the incidence of bone lesions in the Clyde Tunnel is in fact higher than preliminary figures indicate.
  The existing Regulations are obviously unsatisfactory and grossly inadequate in preventing the disease. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to tell us that he proposes to have them amended. I understand that all the relevant data regarding the development of this disease are now being collected at the central registry in Newcastle, but what is ti6 happen in the meantime to the poor unfortunate men who are now helpless cripples, whose lives have been shattered as a direct result of blasting their way under the Clyde? They have observed all the Regulations. I say in fairness to the contractors that they insisted on the Regulations laid down; they have been thoroughly observed. Yet no legal compensation is available to these unfortunate victims, though actions have been raised in the law courts.
  I wish to give examples with abbreviated case histories of a few of the people who have suffered. I mention one man by name because he is the individual who raised an action in the Court of Session for £8,000, which he lost. His name is James Patterson, an ex-coalminer, aged 39. He has caisson disease in both hips. He has already had one operation on the right hip, and between July and September, 1963, he was in hospital. In March, 1964, he began light work in a bakery, but found it impossible to continue. He is now unemployed. He is married, with three children. While in hospital he had a 100 per cent. disablement pension, presently reduced to 30 per cent. His net loss of income taking into account disability pension, unemployment benefit
  900
  and hardship allowance, is somewhere about £14 below his earnings of £28 a week, after deduction of tax, when he was engaged in this work. Unfortunately it is unlikely he will ever work again. He raised an action for £8,000 in the Court of Session, which he lost on legal grounds because it was established that his employers had discharged all their statutory obligations, but I should like to quote from the judgment of Lord Hunter:
  "The pursuer has suffered considerable pain and will probably continue to suffer further pain and discomfort. He has had one fairly serious operation and may have to undergo at least one other. He is now a man of only 39 and but for the disabilities caused by caisson disease of the bone he might have expected to continue in hard and well paid work for many years yet. If I had found for the pursuer the award of damages would have been a total of £8,000."
  But he gets nothing whatsoever. Then there is the case of J. D. aged 41 who is affected in both the shoulder and hip joints. His disability is extremely severe. He is married, with three children, and his disablement pension has varied between 40 per cent. and 70 per cent. H. R., aged 25, has spent a year in hospital undergoing two operations on his hip. He receives an 80 per cent. disablement pension. He is at present in Bridge of Earn Hospital. He received from his employers an ex-gratia payment of £500. D. McD., aged 44 has the disease in his hip. He has an 80 per cent. disablement pension. He has six children, and he received an ex-gratia payment of £750.
  The question that I pose is this: had these tough, physically perfect specimens of manhood, known as Tunnel Tigers, examined by the site doctor and passed as fit for work in compressed air, been warned that there was a possibility of developing this crippling disease, would they have bartered their physique and health for a lifetime of pain, poverty and distress for the big money that they could earn for a relatively short period? My investigation shows that if these workers had been warned that they were liable to contract caissons disease of the bones, not a single tunnel would have been built, and I do not blame them. There is no doubt that everything possible will be done to minimise, and I hope ultimately to eliminate, this hazard. Surely we have a moral, if

  901
  not a legal, obligation to make adequate and just recompense to these men for their suffering and disabilities?
  In America they seem to have an entirely different, but more just, yardstick, because during the construction of the third tube of the Lincoln Tunnel in New York, despite the use of a new method of split shift system working, they paid out no less than 2½ million dollars in compensation to the tunnel workers who developed similar bone lesions?
  Is it unreasonable to ask that my hon. Friend should do something by way of providing compensation for these unfortunate victims? My plea for these unfortunate crippled men is that some means should be devised for the payment of adequate compensation, and that it should be made retrospective. If exgratia payments have been made to two workers, why not to the others? I hope that my hon. Friend will make some investigations among the contractors to ascertain why there has been this difference in the treatment of the men concerned. I have heard it rumoured that Paterson and one other worker were not considered for ex-gratia payments because they raised actions. If this allegation is correct, something ought to be done about it, because I regard that method of discrimination as grossly unfair.
  Lord Hunter assessed the damages in Paterson's case at £8,000. We have a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, and it should not be difficult to devise an Industrial Injuries Board, supplied with funds from the tunnel contractors themselves, and if necessary supplemented by the taxpayer, to whom such cases as I have mentioned can be referred. It must be remembered that many more cases are likely to occur, but the victims may not associate their complaints with the fact that for a few short months they worked in compressed air in the digging of some tunnel or other. Surely it would not be too much to set up such a Board to whom these cases could be referred?
  We have a moral duty and responsibility to provide compensation for these men. That is the least that we can do for erstwhile fit men now condemned to a life of misery and pain. At present we do not know how to prevent the onset of this disease, and I ask my hon.
  902
  Friend to give this real human tragedy serious and more than ordinary attention to see how far we can go to alleviate the plight and some of the suffering, by providing compensation for these men, and, unfortunately, the plight in which many more will find themselves as a result of having worked in compressed air.
  1.20 a.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ernest Thornton): I have listened with deep interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), and I have been deeply moved by the humanity of his remarks on this most disturbing subject. I assure him that we will study very closely all that he has said tonight. I can assure him, further, that my right hon. Friend and I share his concern that everything practicable should be done to protect the health of workers in compressed air. There is not time for me to describe what the existing requirements are and what are the problems of work in compressed air, other than to say that this type of work is subject to special Regulations made in 1958 and amended in 1960 under the Factories Act.
  I should also mention that compressed air disease has been notified under the Factories Act since 1939. The object of these Regulations is to protect workers from compressed air disease, caisson disease, or decompression sickness, as it is variously known. The best-known form of decompression sickness is what is commonly known as the "bends", to which my hon. Friend has referred. It must be admitted that the Work in Compressed Air Regulations, even when conscientiously complied with, do not entirely prevent the occurrence of decompression sickness. The experience of the Factory Inspectorate is that the Regulations are usually faithfully observed. I was interested to note my hon. Friend's remark that the Clyde Tunnel workers, as far as he was aware—and it is obvious that he has gone into this matter very closely—observed the Regulations faithfully. We know that even if the Regulations are observed it does not prevent decompression sickness.
  As for the bends, expert medical opinion is that the implementation of the Regulations substantially reduces the

  903
  number of cases. In the case of bone necrosis there are theoretical—I emphasise the word "theoretical"—scientific grounds for presuming that the Regulations reduce the number of cases. Beyond that, nothing can be said with any certainty, since bone necrosis may occur in men who have never complained of an attack of the bends. I understand that, although the association of bone disease with work in compressed air has been known for many years, the precise details of this association and its causation are still in doubt.
  As the cause of the disease is uncertain it can be appreciated how difficult it is to know what special preventive measures should be taken. Hon. Members may think that this is an unhappy situation, and that it indicates plainly the need to strengthen the Regulations, as my hon. Friend has requested of me tonight. In principle I would agree, but unfortunately we do not know what can best be done to strengthen the Regulations. We will certainly consider any suggestions made here tonight, or any advice that is offered to us. At present, however, we know of no definite evidence that precautionary measures other than those already laid down in the Regulations would 'reduce the incidence of bone necrosis. But I must add that the Government have not merely been content to wait for something to turn up. The Medical Research Council has set up an expert panel on decompression sickness, and because of its great interest to our Ministry, it is attended by a deputy senior inspector of factories.
  This panel, among its other activities, has paid particular attention to workers on the Clyde Tunnel. It has carried out a survey there on bone necrosis. The report of this survey has not yet been published. Some parts of are not yet final, but I can briefly state the main findings. About 1,400 persons worked in this tunnel at one time or another and were exposed to compressed air, and it was possible to X-ray 241 men still employed on the job at the end of this contract.
  Sir M. Galpern: Whilst we accept all the medical evidence and the inadequacy of knowledge of the disease, what I am most concerned about is what we are
  904
  going to do. Are there any proposals to deal with the suffering and misery by financial compensation?
  Mr. Thornton: I was coming to that. I am afraid that the question of financial recompense will not be for me to deal with, but I will make passing reference to it before I finish. I think it is important that I should put on record this evidence that has been revealed so far, because it is disturbing evidence.
  Bone changes were found in 47, and that is 19 per cent. of those 241 men who were X-rayed. These include the cases to which the hon. Member referred. Twenty-three of the 47 were unfortunate in having lesions at the head of the femur or the humerus, and this means that they might suffer from pain or disability sooner or later. It is known that four of them had already had to undergo surgical treatment on that account, and these are probably the four to whom my hon. Friend referred.
  Sir M. Galpern: What I am anxious about is financial compensation.
  Mr. Thornton: There is no evidence, for example, that limiting exposure to compressed air to shifts of four hours or less diminishes the risk of bone lesion. As regards pressures, the survey has shown that the decompression tables scheduled under the Regulations do not prevent the occurrence of bone necrosis. But at the same time there is no new evidence on the basis of which these tables could be revised.
  The general conclusion which might be drawn from this work is that the evidence does not indicate any changes which might be introduced which could be expected to improve protection against bone necrosis. This is indeed disappointing. It does, however, show that much as my right hon. Friend and I would like to strengthen the Regulations, they afford as high a degree of protection as can be achieved on the basis of the existing state of knowledge.
  Let me make it clear, though, that efforts to improve the position will go on. For instance there is to be an international meeting in London this autumn in a continuing attempt to establish the best schedule of decompression, and the Medical Research Council has recently

  905
  awarded a research grant to enable further surveys of this type to be carried out among compressed air workers.
  The prescribed leaflet which the Regulations require, and which my hon. Friend quoted, is being revised so that it gives a more realistic warning—and I take my hon. Friend's point here—to those a bout to take up work in compressed air of the hazards to which they are subject. In this connection the points made by my hon. Friend will be taken into account, I assure him.
  With regard to financial compensation, I am afraid that this does not come within the scope of my Ministry's responsibility. It will be a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. The Factories Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour is concerned with protecting persons from damage and from injury to their health. That is the main purpose of the department. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on the judgment given on a claim for damages by a man who had worked on the Clyde Tunnel, but I have taken a very careful note of what he had to say, and I have seen a copy of the judgment.
  I assure my hon. Friend that we shall give the closest continuing attention to this disturbing problem. We shall not hesitate to take further action in the light of improved knowledge. I assure him that we will study very carefully all the
  906
  suggestions that he has put forward tonight.
  Sir M. Galpern: While I recognise that these people are entitled to receive disability pension from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, surely the proposal that I put forward is something that the Minister of Labour could look at. It is that contractors who employ physically fit men who ultimately contract the disease, causing them complete disability and misery, should contribute to a fund set up by themselves. Surely that is a matter that his Ministry could look into, and decide whether something along those lines could be done.
  Mr. Thornton: When I assured the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I would give careful consideration to his suggestion, I had in mind the point which he has made. I should also be interested if my hon. Friend has any information on the American experience of compensation to which he referred, because I should be very pleased to look at it. But I am sure that he will understand my not being able to go further than that tonight. I undertake to look very carefully at all that he has had to say and to consider all the suggestions that he has made that come within the range of my right hon. Friend's responsibility.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Two o'clock.

BOARD OF TRADE
  Development Districts
  Development Districts
  Chemicals
  Chemicals
  Imports
  Imports
  Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement
  Yachts and Pleasure Craft (Safety Appliances)
  Yachts and Pleasure Craft (Safety Appliances)
  Overseas Trade Fairs (Scotland)
  Overseas Trade Fairs (Scotland)
  Freedom Group
  Freedom Group
  Nuclear Merchant Ship
  Nuclear Merchant Ship
  Company Directors (Emoluments)
  Company Directors (Emoluments)
  London Rubber Company
  London Rubber Company
  Merchandise Marks
  Merchandise Marks
  Shipping (United States)
  Shipping (United States)
  Common Market (Shipbuilding)
  Common Market (Shipbuilding)
  American Paint
  American Paint
  Door to Door Salesmen
  Door to Door Salesmen
  Weights and Measures (Packaged Goods)
  Weights and Measures (Packaged Goods)
  Pressed Steel Company
  Pressed Steel Company
  Shipbuilding Orders (Credit Facilities)
  Shipbuilding Orders (Credit Facilities)
  Consumer Council (Regional Centres)
  Consumer Council (Regional Centres)
  Ford Motor Company
  Ford Motor Company
  Antique Dealers
  Antique Dealers
  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  King's Lynn Docks
  King's Lynn Docks
  Industries (Employees and Output)
  Industries (Employees and Output)
  Patents
  Patents
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Location of Offices (Scotland)
  Location of Offices (Scotland)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Postgraduate Business Schools, Manchester and London University
  Postgraduate Business Schools, Manchester and London University
  Students (National Insurance)
  Students (National Insurance)
  Space Research
  Space Research
  Teachers (Supplementary Employment)
  Teachers (Supplementary Employment)
  Schoolchildren, Norfolk
  Schoolchildren, Norfolk
  Painting by Sir Joshua Reynolds (Special Government Grant)
  Painting by Sir Joshua Reynolds (Special Government Grant)
  Postgraduate Studentships (Awards)
  Postgraduate Studentships (Awards)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Crimes (Maximum Penalties)
  Crimes (Maximum Penalties)
  Detective-Sergeant Challenor (James Committee Report)
  Detective-Sergeant Challenor (James Committee Report)
  Gambling Machine Tokens (Illegal Use)
  Gambling Machine Tokens (Illegal Use)
  Ghulam Shabir
  Ghulam Shabir
  Ammunition (Control of Sales)
  Ammunition (Control of Sales)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Dividends
  Dividends
  Book Publishers (Prices)
  Book Publishers (Prices)
  North-West Study Group (Report)
  North-West Study Group (Report)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  3½ Per Cent. War Loan (1946 and 1965 Prices)
  3½ Per Cent. War Loan (1946 and 1965 Prices)
  Export Rebate Scheme
  Export Rebate Scheme
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Petrol (Octane Rating)
  Petrol (Octane Rating)
  British Iron and Steel Federation (Proposals)
  British Iron and Steel Federation (Proposals)
  Colliery Closures (Compensation Units)
  Colliery Closures (Compensation Units)
MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY
  Organisational Structure
  Organisational Structure
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Retail Prices Index (Percentage Rise)
  Retail Prices Index (Percentage Rise)
  DEFENCE (MEETINGS WITH MEMBERS OF HER MAJESTY'S OPPOSITION
  DEFENCE (MEETINGS WITH MEMBERS OF HER MAJESTY'S OPPOSITION
  INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS
  INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS
  HEALTH SERVICE, WALES
  HEALTH SERVICE, WALES
  COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS (FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS)
  COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS (FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS)
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  NATIONAL SECURITY
  NATIONAL SECURITY
  GIBRALTAR (DISCUSSIONS WITH SIR JOSHUA HASSAN)
  GIBRALTAR (DISCUSSIONS WITH SIR JOSHUA HASSAN)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (SALARY)
  LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (SALARY)
  REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  RADFAN OPERATIONS (GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL)
  RADFAN OPERATIONS (GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Guarantees
  Agricultural Guarantees
  Cocoa (Annual Average Import Price)
  Cocoa (Annual Average Import Price)
  Meat and Livestock Commission (Statement)
  Meat and Livestock Commission (Statement)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Viscount Crash, Liverpool
  Viscount Crash, Liverpool
TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS
  Administration of Justice Act, 1956
  Administration of Justice Act, 1956
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Welfare Officers
  Welfare Officers
  Pharmacists (Payment)
  Pharmacists (Payment)
HOSPITALS
  Casualty Cases, Wellingborough
  Casualty Cases, Wellingborough
TRANSPORT
  Heavy Vehicles
  Heavy Vehicles
  Transport Users' Consultative Committees (Financial Information)
  Transport Users' Consultative Committees (Financial Information)
SHIPPING
  Harbour Dues, King's Lynn
  Harbour Dues, King's Lynn

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich

ROAD REPAIRS WARNING SIGNS ON MOTORWAYS
3.6 p.m.
LORD STRATHCARRON: 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 action can be taken to improve the advance warning signs before road repairs on the motorway by making them more explicit in the interests of safety.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, new signs for giving warning of road works are prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations 1964, following the recommendations of the Worboys Committee. Advice on the use of the signs will be given in the Traffic Signs Manual, which will contain a special chapter on this subject to replace the Traffic Safety Codes. Pending the issue of the Manual, authorities responsible for road works on motorways have been advised to operate the existing motorways Traffic Safety Code and to use the new-type signs if the old ones need replacement.
LORD STRATHCARRON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that in the interests of safety drivers approaching road works would like to see such notices as "Slow lane closed", "Medium lane closed" or "Fast lane closed". Furthermore, is he aware that an international type of road sign has been adopted saying that the road narrows, but that this is obviously borrowed from the two-lane motorway and does not apply when three lanes are in use?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I think it would be difficult to adopt the first suggestion of the noble Lord. In regard to the second one, it does not matter whether it is on a single carriageway carrying two lanes of traffic or whether it is on a single carriageway carrying three lanes of traffic. One of the problems is that we are now in an interim period in which we have two sets of signs in use. One arises from the Anderson Committee, which was set up in 1957 and reported in 1960, and then we had the Safety Code established in 1962. Now we have the Worboys signs, which are symbolic, as compared with the Anderson Committee recommendations of wording, and we are just in the period in which both signs are being used. When we get the new Manual in use I hope that we shall have only one.
LORD STRATHCARRON: My Lords, I again thank the noble Lord for his reply, and I hope it may be possible to incorporate my suggestion in future road signs.
LORD LINDGREN: It will certainly be considered.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, does not another difficulty arise from the fact that signs which are perfectly legible and clear when first erected tend to get displaced in the course of road repairs? Could the noble Lord ask local authorities to carry out regular inspections to see that signs are constantly kept in order?
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, my Lords. The local authorities act as agents for the Minister on construction and works. The supervision is by the responsible engineer on the job for the local authority, and enforcement by the police doing their motorway patrols.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, will the local authorities be given definite instructions as to the placing of these signs so that they will be placed far enough in advance of the actual work?
LORD LINDGREN: Everything is included in the Manual, including prescribed distances, and, in fact, in so far as the 1962 regulations are concerned, distances and places are included in the diagrammatic regulations.

PROPOSED SALE OF U.S.A. COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM TO INDONESIA
3.10 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: 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 make a statement on the United States proposal to sell to Indonesia an advanced electronics communications system, what assistance this system is likely to provide to the Indonesian campaign against Malaysia and what representations they are making to the United States Government on this matter.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, I presume that the proposal to which the noble Lord refers is the possibility which has been reported in the Press that certain radio communications equipment may be sold to the Indonesian Army by an American commercial company. The United States Government have kept us informed, and as I understand their official position in this matter, it is restricted to the question of approving or withholding an export licence. Under the American Military Aid programme to Indonesia, which was terminated when the Indonesians embarked on their current policy of aggressive hostility towards Malaysia, twelve radio communications ground stations were to be equipped for the Indonesian Army. At the time of termination three of these ground stations had been completed, but the radio equipment itself had not been installed. What is now under consideration by the American Government is whether an export licence should be granted to an American firm which wishes to sell to the Indonesians radio equipment for installation in the three completed ground stations. Although it is unlikely that this equipment can directly help the Indonesians to prosecute their so called "confrontation" activities any more successfully than hitherto, it will improve to
1432
some extent the communications between three of the Indonesian Army's headquarters. Naturally while confrontation lasts Her Majesty's Government are opposed to anything which may improve the capabilities of the Indonesian Army. The United States Government have been made aware of this.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for this statement, which shows that Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the situation and taking a firm line. May I ask the noble Lord whether he will make quite sure that the Malaysian Government are aware that their attitude in this matter has this Government's firm support? Also, may I ask the noble Lord whether his attention has been drawn to some criticisms by Malaysian Ministers of the attitude of the West in this particular matter?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the Malaysian Government itself has made quite clear to the United States Government its own feelings in this matter. We, both as a fellow member of the Commonwealth and as an ally of Malaysia, have approached the United States, which is a fellow member of NATO, and in that capacity we have expressed our views strongly and clearly to the United States Government.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has any idea when this matter will be decided? This is a matter of great importance. Anything which makes the Indonesian Republic more capable of waging war is something which we should greatly deplore. I hope very much that the Government have told the United States Government in no uncertain terms what we would feel about this. Can the noble Lord say when he is likely to know the result of his conversations with the United States Government and whether it will be before Parliament rises, because this is a matter of great importance?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I think it may well be that a final decision will be taken before Parliament rises, and if the noble Lord wishes I will undoubtedly let the House know as soon as we hear from the United States.

NATIONAL PARKS AND ROAD SCHEMES
3.12 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: 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 guidance or instructions they have given to planning and highway authorities responsible for National Parks to ensure that, in the efforts to cater for the ever-increasing motor traffic, by a policy of widening and straightening all the by-roads, they do not do irreparable damage to areas whose character and value depends essentially on freedom from "development" and engineering works.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, none. I know of no policy of widening and straightening all by-roads. Indeed, I understand that it is the view of the Minister of Transport that the location and design of such improvements as are necessary should blend in as well as possible with the landscape. I am confident that the park planning authorities and the National Parks Commission are alive to the need to reconcile, wherever possible, the demands of traffic with their responsibility for the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the encouragement of the enjoyment of the national parks.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his Answer is highly unsatisfactory; that there is often great difficulty, in that the planning authority and the highway authority within National Parks are not the same authority but different county authorities? Further, does he not appreciate that, with the ever-increasing motor traffic on our roads—and we want the greatest number of people to come and enjoy the National Parks—there is a danger, through a policy of over-improving byroads, that those who come to enjoy them will also come and destroy them by turning these areas into vast car parks. Other countries are tackling this problem. Will he have another look at it because it really is urgent?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we appreciate the real importance of this matter, and I agree its urgency. It is primarily the business of the National Parks Commission, as I see it, and we shall have to consider that in the course of the development of National Parks. In one sense, there is an inevitable conflict between the demands of traffic and the use of National Parks for amenity purposes. There is statutory power to restrict traffic in certain cases. But this is a complicated matter. The situation differs in different areas. I hope that the noble Lord will take it from me that it is much in the minds of the Ministers concerned, and in their minds as an urgent matter.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords one last point. May I say that I appreciate that there is a conflict, but would the noble Lord read the last Report of the National Parks Commission, in which the need for action on these lines is set out quite clearly?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I am sure that there is a need for action, and I have read the Report.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, all I want to ask the noble Lord is whether he does not agree that there are far too many differing authorities in this country dealing with far too many similar matters? And does he not think that the Government should take some steps to effect a greater concentration of power, so that decisions can be taken by one authority instead of by about 23?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, that is what we are concerned with now. It is in order to get one authority that we have had the National Parks Act and the authority which looks after National Parks. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, would not wish the Ministry of Transport, for instance, to have unrestricted power over National Parks. They regulate the traffic through them, but there are other considerations. I should have thought that in a modern community conflicts of interest and functions of this kind were inevitable, and that it was the business of a wise and sensible Government to do its best to reconcile them in the public interest.
LORD BOOTHBY: It will take ten years.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, while I sympathise greatly with my noble friend's anxiety, would the noble Lord not agree that when the development of Park Lane, with plans for the North and South lanes in Hyde Park, was announced, there was a terrific outcry? It was said that irreparable damage would be done to the Park, but in fact, there was no such irreparable damage?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, all I can say is that, in spite of its name, Park Lane is not a National Park.

THE CONSUMER COUNCIL AND REGIONAL OFFICERS
3.16 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have yet reached a conclusion on the proposal of the Consumer Council to appoint regional officers to assist their work outside London, and if so what it is.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has carefully considered this proposal and has come to the conclusion that, in present circumstances, it would not be right to approve this extension of the Council's activities.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, and ask him, first of all, whether these present circumstances are likely to last for long? Is this proposal being turned down purely on financial grounds, or on the grounds of the proposal itself? I wonder whether the noble Lord could answer that question?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, yes, indeed. The Molony Committee envisaged the Consumer Council as a central body concerned with consumer interests at national level. The Committee saw no need for the Council to have local offices. The present arrangements have been in
1436
operation for slightly under two years, and we think it would be wrong to alter them radically now, before they have had an adequate opportunity to be tested.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the drawbacks damaging the work of the Consumer Council is that it has not provided advice and guidance, through Citizens' Advice Bureaux to the consumer, as laid down in its terms of reference? Is he further aware that the establishment of regional offices, as at present envisaged by the Consumer Council, would not deal at all with this fundamental problem of advice and guidance through Citizens' Advice Bureaux, but merely extend the empire of the Council?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, the answer to the second part of the question was in my previous answer. I would agree that, although in this respect the Citizens' Advice Bureaux are being steadily strengthened with assistance from public funds, they are not complete or strong enough yet. But we are hopeful that they will be.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise how difficult, if not impossible, it is to cover the whole country from a central office in London, and that in order to be of assistance with the education programme and with the protection of consumers throughout the country, it is really necessary to have more than simply one central body, from which you cannot operate throughout the entire country?
LORD RHODES: My right honourable friend appreciates that contacts with local bodies throughout the length and breadth of the country would be a very good thing, but he is not satisfied at the moment that the benefits would be entirely commensurate with the expense.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask this final question? In the debate we had on this matter the noble Lord was good enough to commend the idea that there was a great educational job to be done which the Consumer Council could do. Could he say whether the Citizens' Advice Bureaux are carrying out, or can continue to carry out, this aspect of their work outside London? Might it not be a good thing to allow at least one experimental appointment

1437
of an officer outside London to see what good could be done in the educational sphere, as well as in the sphere of direct contact with the consumer, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, referred?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, that is a constructive suggestion which I will carry back to my right honourable friend.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, in view of the fact that London is to be largely decentralised and that a number of New Towns and L.C.C. estates are envisaged, would the noble Lord give further consideration to at least one of the New Town centres having the kind of set-up which my noble friend is suggesting?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, if the noble Lord can suggest which New Town, I will see that some inquiries are put in hand for the establishment of a citizens' advice bureau.
LORD AUCKLAND: Stevenage.
LORD RHODES: I thank the noble Lord.

FUTURE BUSINESS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Shackleton will be making a Statement on the Government's plan to reorganise the Reserve Army.
Perhaps I might take this opportunity to make a Statement about forthcoming Business. So far as to-day's proceedings are concerned, it is proposed to conclude the Committee stage of the Rent Bill. It is recognised that this may mean a late Sitting. In those circumstances, it has been arranged that there should be a break for dinner between 7.30 and 8.30. The Committee stages of the Race Relations Bill and the Redundancy Payments Bill have been set down for Monday and Tuesday next week respectively, with italic notes indicating that it is the Government's hope, if the House agrees, to take the remaining stages on the same day. This, of course, is if the House accepts that advice. I should like to stress that the Government attach particular importance to obtaining the Royal Assent to the Redundancy Payments Bill next Thursday. Finally, I should like to
1438
tell the House that, subject to progress on Business, this House will adjourn for the Recess on Thursday next, August 5.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
3.24 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD) rose to move, That the Earl of Listowel be appointed Chairman of Committees of this House from August 1 next for the remainder of this Session in the place of the Lord Merthyr, who has signified his intention to resign on July 31. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising to move this Motion this afternoon I have two purposes. The first is to record the debt of gratitude which I am sure that the whole House feels to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who for nearly eight years has filled the office of Chairman of Committees. Those who are intimately concerned with the conduct of our business will not need to he reminded of the conscientious manner in which he has carried out the duties of this important office. Those who are less involved in the day-to-day affairs of the House may perhaps be insufficiently aware of the extent to which we are indebted to Lord Merthyr. In addition to his work in the House itself, he has, of course, carried out many other duties, having been Chairman of our sessional Committees and having had the responsibility for Private Bill legislation in this House.
In all his many tasks Lord Merthyr has shown a devotion to duty and a scrupulous impartiality to which we have now become so accustomed that we take them for granted. But even his extreme modesty has not been able to conceal from us his exceptional combination of gentleness at all times and firmness, when it seemed to him necessary. We have indeed been fortunate to enjoy for so long the service and counsel of so wise and disinterested a man. I am sure that the whole House would wish me to extend to him our best wishes for the future—I will not say in his retirement, because we all hope that he will be in his place very often to give us the benefit of his wisdom and experience.
My second purpose is to move the other part of the Motion which stands in my name. I feel sure that the choice of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, as successor

1439
to Lord Merthyr, will commend itself to the House. The noble Earl has been a Member of the House for more than thirty years and is well known to all your Lordships. He has discharged many high responsibilities both at home and abroad, for example as Secretary of State for India, Governor General of Ghana and Deputy Leader of this House. I feel sure that this fact, combined with his well-known personal qualities of kindness and consideration, and tolerant friendly understanding of human nature, will fit him admirably to carry on the high traditions of the office of Chairman of Committees. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Earl of Listowel be appointed Chairman of Committees of this House from the 1st August next for the remainder of this Session in the place of the Lord Merthyr, who has signified his intention to resign on the 31st July.—(The Earl of Longford.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like most warmly to support the Motion which has been moved by the noble Earl, the Leader of the House. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has been known to many of us for very many years. I had the honour, some fourteen years ago, I think it was, to follow him as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. Anybody who knows the noble Earl will know that he will do the job of Lord Chairman of Committees as well as anybody could possibly do it. He has had, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has said, a distinguished career, both here and in the Commonwealth. I have absolutely no doubt that he will carry on the traditions of this important job. I know that all your Lordships will wish him every possible success.
As regards the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, if I am not reminiscing too much, I would say that it may surprise some of your Lordships who have not been here for very long to hear that once, when I was a Conservative Whip, Lord Merthyr took the Conservative Whip; and on no single occasion that I can remember did he ever vote for the Conservative Party. Your Lordships will therefore not be surprised that, as Lord Chairman of Committees, he has been impartial, fair and courteous. I think that we are all very
1440
sorry that my noble friend, if I may so call him, has had to resign: he feels that he must do so. In thanking him, everyone in the House will hope that he will have a rest, but that at the same time he will often attend this House. Although, as Leader of the Conservative Party here, I am quite sure that it will make no difference to me whether he turns up or not, his presence will certainly be greatly appreciated by all his friends, who include every single Member of the House.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to join in the tributes which have been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and in the welcome given to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in this new arrangement of your Lordships' Business. It has been a happy tradition of this House that, certainly throughout the few years I have been a member—some seventeen years—the Lord Chairman combines, charm, competence, knowledge and great patience. And Lord Merthyr, has certainly upheld this high standard very well indeed. As the noble Earl, the Leader of the House has said, I do not think it is realised what a tremendous amount of work is put in by the Lord Chairman outside this Chamber—in the Moses Room, in the other Committee rooms, and in his own office: it is a very hard job indeed. I think that it is perhaps sad, in the case of Lord Merthyr, that he is such a conscientious man he probably gave himself no let-up at all. We wish him very much happiness in his retirement and thank him most gratefully for what he has done.
I feel it would be impertinent for a young Member of seventeen years' service to congratulate an older Member of thirty years' service on the new office to which he has been appointed, but at least during those thirty years the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has made himself a favourite of us all. He is absolutely reliable, is most good-natured and has fairness. Even on strictly Party political matters, he has never strayed over the borders of fairness, and that, indeed, is a great qualification for the very arduous office which he has taken on. I sometimes wonder whether he realises what a job it is going to be. In any case, may I say that I am sure that the whole House

1441
joins with me and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in welcoming him and in being glad that a Member sitting opposite to us should be so eminently suited for this high office.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, I should like very briefly to echo the tributes paid to the retiring Chairman of Committees by previous speakers. I do so both as a voice from the Cross-Benches and as one who has been a colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, as Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chairman of Committees. Those who have worked most closely with Lord Merthyr have learned to admire, to value and to rely on his profound knowledge, his unstinting conscientiousness, his scrupulous impartiality and his perfect consideration. We shall all miss him very much, and the whole House is deeply indebted to him for the service he has rendered over these years. Like previous speakers, I also wish warmly to welcome the appointment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, as his successor. I am sure that we shall be very happy under his guidance.
On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente.
3.34 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I should like, first of all, most sincerely and very deeply, to thank your Lordships for all that has been said this afternoon, and in particular the several noble Lords who have just spoken. I feel that I do not merit what has been said, but that does not in any way diminish my gratitude.
When I became Chairman I took a little trouble to find out a little about the history of my office, and I wonder if I might be allowed to say that, having studied it somewhat, I felt in all humility very proud to hold this office. It is an office which, like many other things in this country, and many things especially in your Lordships' House, has just grown. It was towards the end of the eighteenth century, when each Committee had its own Chairman—a system which did not seem to work very well, I understand—that a post of Chairman of all the Committees was first established.
The first Chairman was appointed in the year 1800, since when there has been a very considerable degree of continuity in this office. I believe that continuity
1442
in this particular post is extremely important, because the work has many precedents to follow. It is most valuable that it should be carried on and (if I may venture to say this) that there should not be too many changes in the holder of the post. I was very surprised to find that in all these 160-odd years the average length of incumbency of this post has been no less than sixteen years; but that, I must add, is partly accounted for by the fact that two noble Earls—Lord Shaftesbury, and Lord Redesdale—occupied the post for a combined period of no less than 72 years. I also learned that my office is really quite respectable. I say that, because it was once held by a right reverend Prelate—namely, a Bishop of Bangor. I have often wondered exactly how he carried on the work of Chairman of Committees and of Bishop of Bangor at the same time; but no doubt in those days life was a little less hectic.
Be that as it may, I feel, as I have said, that the holder of this post, whoever he may be, may well be proud of it. I cannot sit down without thanking very much indeed all those noble Lords who have acted as Deputy Chairmen of Committees. They, I would remind the House, act in a completely honorary capacity, and certainly in these days they do very much work. To all of them I am most grateful. It may be of interest to remember—I can hardly believe this myself—that less than twenty years ago there was no Deputy Chairman of Committees at all. I do not know how we got on without one. I am sure that we could not get on without many of them to-day.
Then, my Lords, I should like just to say that I could not have held this post at all but for the great support I have always had from the staff of my Department, in particular, from my learned counsel, Mr. Talbot. He is one of those people who, apparently, is never ill. I suppose that he could not get ill, because if he did his work would completely stop. But I am most grateful to all the staff.
Finally, I would say this. Another part of my researches established the fact that this post has been mostly held, though not of course entirely, by Irish Earls. The first Chairman that I can remember was Lord Donoughmore. My

1443
immediate predecessor, for whom I had an immense respect, and at whose feet I learned much, was the late Lord Drogheda, and I am happy to think that another Irish Earl is to follow in their footsteps after this afternoon. I am only extremely sorry that I broke the continuity. My Lords, I wish my successor every possible luck, and I hope that he will receive from your Lordships the same measure of support that I have received.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I rise only to thank my noble friends who have spoken for the far too kind words which they have said about me, and to thank my noble friends in all parts of the House for the great honour they have done me by appointing me Chairman of Committees. I assure the House that I shall try to deserve this confidence, and that I shall not follow the example of Lord Shaftesbury, or Lord Redesdale; that being one of the occasions when even a Chairman of Committees can be allowed to break a precedent. I should also like to say that I will do my utmost to follow the example set by my noble friend, the retiring Chairman of Committees, whom I would thank personally for his patience with me during my apprenticeship.

INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND DEFENCE ORGANISATIONS (DESIGNATION AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1965
3.38 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) Order 1965, which was laid before your Lordships' House on June 30, be approved. I hope your Lordships will find it convenient if I deal with this Order and the next one on the Order Paper together, as they are to a large extent complementary. Your Lordships will recall that under the previous Administration we approved the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1964, thus enabling the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligations as a member of NATO to confer on international head
1444
quarters and defence organisation having units in this country certain capacities, immunities and privileges. To make the Act effective, however, we need to designate the bodies to which it is to apply, and this is achieved by Article 2 and by the Schedule to this Order. Three supreme headquarters, three headquarters and one defence organisation are designated. Of these, SHAPE is familiar to us all, but the remaining descriptive abbreviations are, in my view, better read than pronounced.
It is necessary to draw a distinction between the different types of organisation because of the difference in the privileges which are conferred on them. Thus, Article 3 gives inviolability of archives to all six designated bodies, but Articles 4 and 5 relate only to supreme headquarters. These two Articles are designed to meet the requirement of Article 10 of the 1952 Protocol set up pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty, which provides that supreme headquarters must be given juridical personality with power to make contracts and acquire and dispose of property, and the requirements of Article 11(2), which provides that they should also have immunity from acquisition or seizure or attachment of property and funds. These capacities and privileges are not accorded to the headquarters in Part II of the Schedule, since, as they are subordinate to supreme headquarters, they will perform all functions in respect of which these capacities and privileges are relevant as agents and in the name of the supreme headquarters.
In granting immunities of this kind, we are, as your Lordships will be aware, following established precedent. As was explained when we debated the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act, these particular capacities, immunities and privileges are similar to those which may be conferred on international headquarters organisations generally by Orders made under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950. But it should not be supposed that, in consequence of the immunity which they will be accorded in respect of certain forms of process, supreme headquarters will not in practice comply with any judgments that may be made against them. Your Lordships may wonder why it is necessary to designate SHAPE and SACLANT,

1445
since they are not established in this country. They do, however, have functions to perform here. SHAPE, for example, has certain radar and communications installations here. But, quite apart from these considerations, it is desirable to designate both these supreme headquarters so that the other headquarters may be able to act as their agents and in their name. So much for the Designation Order.
As to the Visiting Forces Order, our obligations to the Protocol require us to confer upon headquarters and defence organisations, as upon visiting forces, such privileges and immunities as they need to achieve their efficient organisation and operation, and this is the purpose of the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order, which I summit for your Lordships' approval. This extends to the designated headquarters and the Channel Committee, in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Schedule to the 1964 Act, the exemptions, immunities and privileges enjoyed by visiting forces in this country in pursuance of Section 8 of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952. We have also taken the opportunity to consolidate and amend the Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Orders of 1954 and 1956, bringing them up to date by including the necessary references to more recent Statutes, such as the Road Traffic Act, 1960. This Order is in part a consolidation of provisions to which Parliament has already agreed and which have been working well for a number of years; and in part it brings the previous Orders up to date by adding references to new Statutes or statutory provisions, or replacing the old ones, where appropriate.
Inevitably, and as your Lordships will observe, this makes the Order rather bulky and complicated, because we have to set out, individually, all the departures from the normal requirements of the Statute Law of which the home forces might take advantage. Thus, visiting forces and the headquarters and defence organisations listed in Article 3 of the Order will be entitled to take advantage of the benefits accorded under the remaining Articles and Schedules. The visiting forces concerned are those of the other independent countries of the Commonwealth and foreign countries which are
1446
members of NATO. Apart from countries such as the United States, which may from time to time maintain substantial numbers of troops in this country, there may on occasion be contingents or detachments of the forces of the other countries here for training and joint exercises.
I am sure it will be in accordance with your Lordships' wishes if I do not deal in detail with the remainder of the Order, since it largely reproduces provisions which Parliament has already approved. It is only right, however, that I should emphasise that the Status of Forces Agreement ensures that our forces in the countries to which the Order applies enjoy the same main privileges and immunities as are conferred by the Order. The other immunities and privileges conferred by the Order are matters of international courtesy and arrangement, and as such are also enjoyed by our forces abroad. As regards international headquarters, those British personnel who are on the staff of similar headquarters abroad already receive the same privileges and immunities as the draft Order confers on servicemen and civilians from other countries who are serving at such headquarters in the United Kingdom.
My Lords, these two draft Orders are essential if we are to continue to meet our obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty and to play our full part as members of the Alliance. We are dependent upon NATO for our defence, and I am sure the House will agree that we should do everything that is necessary to enable the headquarters and forces of the Alliance to operate efficiently in this country. The Orders will, subject to your Lordships' approval, come into operation thirty days after the day on which they are made. The intention is that the United Kingdom should ratify the 1952 Protocol on the day on which the Orders are made by Her Majesty the Queen in Council, and that ratification will then take effect on the same day as the Orders come into operation. My Lords, I beg to move that the first of these two draft Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Draft International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges Order 1965, laid before the House on 30th June be approved.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REORGANISATION OF THE RESERVE ARMY
3.47 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with permission, I should like to intervene to repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence in another place, about the Government's plans to reorganise the Reserve Army. It is as follows:
"It has become clear that the tasks of the Reserve Army have changed so radically as to require a reorganisation no less comprehensive than that introduced by Lord Haldane nearly 60 years ago. It is no longer realistic to think in terms of the Territorial Army for the defence of the United Kingdom itself or as providing a framework on which general preparations can be made for a major conventional war aboard. This leaves the role of aid to the civil power after a nuclear attack as the sole remaining commitment for some sixty per cent. of Reserve Army manpower. The Government have decided, in the course of the current review of home defence, that this cannot of itself justify the retention of the Territorial Army in its present form.
"The future rôle of the Reserves will be to provide, first, some individuals and a few units to be called out at any time to reinforce the Regular Army; secondly, the reinforcements needed to support the Regular Army in limited war; and, thirdly, such reinforcements for NATO as our commitments require.
"To meet these requirements, the Government propose a force of about 50,000 volunteer reservists. It will incorporate both the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve: and it might be called the Territorial Reserve. Volunteers of the Territorial Army have served this country well in two world wars. I pay tribute to what they and members of the Army Emergency Reserve have done in the past and hope that the same spirit of service can be maintained in the future.
"Most of the units of the new Territorial Reserve will be based on areas of the country like the present Territorial Army units; and some, like the present
1448
Army Emergency Reserve, will be recruited, trained and administered by central headquarters. A substantial proportion of the force will consist of logistic units, as the Regular Army has the greatest need for reserves of this kind.
"In order that the liability of the reorganised Reserve may be more closely related to the tasks to be performed, it must be similar to that of the present Army Emergency Reserve (Category I). This liability for service will be recognised by a bounty of £60 a year. Those volunteers who accept a Territorial Army Emergency Reserve, 'Every-Ready', type liability will receive a bounty of £150 a year. We foresee a need for about 8,500 of these volunteers, and we intend to give ex-Regular soldiers on the Reserve the opportunity of volunteering for the 'Ever-Ready' liability on the same terms as Territorial reservists. We also propose that Regulars enlisting in future should, when serving in the Regular Reserve, have call-out liabilities similar to those of the Territorial reservists. The higher state of readiness which we shall expect will be reflected in training and equipment.
"It is estimated that this reorganisation will ultimately produce a saving of the order of £20 million a year.
"Legislation will be needed to give effect to the changes we propose. Meanwhile, the Government hope that all existing Reserve Army units will continue to function. Training will continue in 1966–67 as planned and we have under consideration some interim increase in the rates of training bounty for next year. We shall now consult with representatives of the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations about the means by which our proposals should be given effect.
"The reduction we shall be making in the size of the Reserve Army will mean that a much smaller number of Regular Army officers and men will be needed to help in its training and administration. Officers and soldiers who are required to retire prematurely will be given fair compensation.
"The majority of the civilians employed by the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations and some Army

1449
Department employees will become redundant. So far as we can, we shall offer them alternative employment; but, failing this, the normal superannuation arrangements will apply to Ministry of Defence (Army Department) employees and compensation will be provided for Territorial Army Association employees.
"It is the intention to publish details of our proposals in a White Paper in the late Autumn, but I thought it important the House should be told their main outline now."
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, in view of the prudent and anodyne references made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to this subject under previous pressure, this is to us a rather startling Statement; and the impression we have is that its content is more the result of a lack of money following a mismanagement of our economy by the present Government than a planned streamlining of a well-disciplined and valuable force. This is not simply a reorganisation, in the anodyne phrase of the noble Lord; it is, it seems to us, an emasculation. There are one or two questions which spring immediately to my mind. The noble Lord spoke in his Statement of a "substantial proportion" of the new force being in the logistic units; and we should like to know how many of the 50,000 will, in fact, be in the fighting arms; that is to say, the infantry, the armoured and artillery corps.
We should like also to know what the noble Lord and the Government suppose may be the effect of these decisions on the Regular Army career structure, taking into account the fact that, as I understand it, 50 per cent. of the regimental sergeant-majors of the Regular Army are at present employed with Territorial units. I should like also to know what the noble Lord sees as being from now on the rôle or purpose of the Territorial Associations. Will they have any administrative rôle to play? I should also like to know what is to happen to the Territorial Army parachute units. Will they continue to exist?—because, as the noble Lord has said on a number of occasions, these are a very useful means of recruiting. A fact from which he and I have taken considerable satisfaction in the past is that
1450
these units should be a lode-star for recruitment.
I should also like to know what would be the possibilities of training in the force now visualised and, in particular, the training of those belonging to or enlisting in units in country districts; and also what, in view of one part of the noble Lord's Statement, will be the Civilian Defence component of the Territorial Army. Will, in fact, this present rôle of the Territorial Army cease to exist, or will it continue in some form?
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to answer those questions and let me make my observations later? Or shall I give him a whole "dishful"?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, had carefully prepared his questions on the Statement, I think perhaps I should give him a chance to have answers. I think we must ignore his rather polemical opening statements. I hope the House will regard this as a serious attempt to deal with a problem which I think the House in a recent debate surely acknowledged: that the present Territorial Army does, in fact, in its present form waste men and money on forces that we do not need while it fails to provide the forces we do need. Two-thirds of its members are committed to a home defence rôle which, in our view and according to the best advice, is not justified and has little to do with what most of them volunteered for. The other third cannot easily be used for the purposes for which they are really needed and for which they joined, because they have the wrong sort of liabilities and inadequate training and equipment. We are proposing instead a streamlined force, specially-tailored to meet the real military needs—and we shall save the nation £20 million on the way.
I may not be able to answer all the particular points that the noble Lord raised without notice, but I would stress that this is not a Reserve Army but a Reserve for the Regular Army and therefore there will be about half in the "teeth" arms including Signals and Sappers, and a half logistics. I do not think I can answer the detailed questions on particular units because this is a matter on which consultation must very properly take place with the Territorial

1451
Army Council; but there will be a number—probably a great majority—of independent Territorial units. The future of the Territorial Army Associations is, again, a matter for consultation. Our present thinking—and this is a matter on which I would not wish to prejudge the discussions with the Council—is that we expect they may be able to continue some rôle; but I think I should not be drawn further on this.
Equally, I do not want to go deeply into the Civil Defence side. I think perhaps I might say this about it. The Territorial Army in its home defence rôle is there to fight an invading army and help the civil authorities after a nuclear attack. We cannot prepare for every conceivable contingency. The first we think is too unlikely to be worth spending £20 million a year on; and the relevance of the Territorial Army in conditions of the catastrophe of a nuclear attack is very speculative. We are 'anxious to get reserve forces which will be relevant and of help to the Regular Army in fulfilling its rôle. There may be other points which I fear I have not answered, but I think that I have covered most of the points raised by the noble Lord.
4.1 p.m.
Lord REA: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for giving us this Statement, which we certainly accept as a serious attempt to improve matters. But I must say that it is a very long Statement and we cannot possibly analyse it this afternon. Many of us have received it with some misgivings. We are not sure of the implications. It seems like the end of the Territorial Army, and that is a thing which cannot lightly be undertaken. I was a little surprised when the noble Lord said—I may not have quite understood him—but I think he said—they would now consult representatives of the Council of the Territorial Army and Auxiliary Forces. With respect, I should have thought it would have been better to consult before coming to such a sweeping conclusion.
I think the noble Lord said that they were not pre-judging the matter. But this very Statement seems to indicate a certain amount of pre-judging. I see that towards the end of the Statement the noble Lord promises a White Paper in
1452
the late autumn. I ask him most seriously to give the House an opportunity to discuss the matter in full—the demise of the Territorial Army and all the implications—before such a step is taken. It might be possible to have a discussion in late October on what is called the spillover of this Session, or at least very early in the new Session, before the White Paper is proceeded with.
4.3 p.m.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to make a very few remarks in my capacity as Chairman of the Territorial Council. In my humble opinion we have listened to probably the gravest Statement that has been made in this House for many years. It is one of national importance. As I see it, it will be the end of the Territorial Army as we know it to-day, and therefore there will not, in this country, be a reserve, a volunteer reserve force. From what the noble Lord said, one gathers that it may also be that there will be no bridge left between the military authorities and the civilian population.
On hearing of this review, we formed a working party within the Council and during the last week of May we handed a paper to the Ministry of Defence. I feel somewhat hurt that we were never invited to consult with anybody on the terms of that paper which we believe even now would give a better answer and provide a better plan, and possibly a greater saving, if its contents were implemented. We are now told that there will be consultations. I shall immediately call a meeting of my Council and we shall have our own discussions pending the discussions which are to take place. In my on view, this plan will not work. After the sixty years of glory of the Territorial Army and the associations within the counties, I hope that, during the months of discussion, some sense will come back and something may be saved from the wreck.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, as a former Director-General of the Territorial Army and as a member of the Council of the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces' Association, may I endorse every word which has been said by the noble Duke the Duke of Norfolk? I could not have said more; I will certainly not say less. The Statement has been made

1453
considerably in advance of the White Paper and, in turn, the White Paper will be considerably in advance of legislation. It seems to me, therefore, that, despite what I would call a thoroughly bad start to which these negotiations have got off, there is still time for common sense to prevail and for the views of the Territorial Council delegates (that is to say, those who have spent their lives in the Territorial Army and not a short time) to be listened to before the White Paper is published. So, my Lords, may I say that I have not given up hope.
I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, one other question. The reorganisation of the Territorial Army which has just been announced will have very considerable impacts on the pre-Service organisations. Can I have an assurance (I am not going to ask for consultations; that has become a thoroughly dirty word) that those responsible for the pre-Service organisations, the Army Cadet Force Association and the Combined Cadet Forces Association, will have opportunities to express their views on the impact of these proposals on the pre-Service organisations before decisions are firmly taken in the Defence Departments?
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is in a position to give information concerning the Officers' Training Corps in the universities? They have been part of the Territorial Army for the past fifteen years, but when Lord Haldane set up the Territorial Army in 1906 they were a different part of his reforms and not then attached to the Territorial Army. There is, of course, great interest in the universities about the future of the Officers' Training Corps, and I think their fears and alarms should be cleared up or quietened.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has had any consultations with Lord Lieutenants and Deputy Lieutenants of counties regarding this matter? I should like to draw attention to the words used by one who was in at the founding of the Force:
"The Territorial Force was founded first, last and all the time on a county basis. County patriotism is a real and abiding thing, far more so, I believe, in England than in any country in the world."
4.8 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I fully appreciate the concern and, indeed, the sorrow in the remarks of noble Lords. I hope the House will accept that the decision which has been taken to reorganise the Territorial Army into the Territorial Reserve was one which was not taken lightly. I hope that noble Lords will accept that everybody, and certainly my right honourable friend, who has been concerned with this, as well as all those in the Ministry of Defence, are deeply aware of the significance of the Territorial Army, its part in history, the contributions it has made in wars, and, indeed, the very real contribution it makes in social terms to our way of life and to our society. Therefore, this is not a decision which has been taken lightly.
I should like, very briefly, to deal with some of the points which have been made, including the question of consultation. I think it has been made clear (I certainly made it clear in this House when the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, pressed me on it) that it must be for the Government to take responsibility for its own decisions in matters of national defence and national strategy. The shape of our forces is clearly not something which can be settled by any one section of the community. Only the Government and their advisers can look at the strategic position as a whole. It is against that background that the Government made this Statement and, in due course, will publish a White Paper.
The assessment of the operational requirements for the Reserve Force must be one that is outside the competence, with the greatest respect, of the Territorial Army Council, admirable though it is and gratefully as we acknowledge its services. I would not go so far as to say that it would not be right to bring it into any type of consultation. Once decisions on operational needs are taken, then it is right to bring it in. I very much welcome the statement of the noble Duke which, if I may say so, is what we all would have expected from him, that he will immediately consult his associates in this matter, and I am sure will give the benefit of their advice to the Government.
Obviously we have a real problem in reorganisation and it is in the details of the organisation that we shall particularly

1455
need this help. I should not like the noble Duke to think that the plans put forward by the Territorial Army Council were not considered. They were received two months ago and were very carefully considered. But the Government were unable to accept them, because there was very little financial saving. I am not blaming them, because they did not know the operational requirement that the Government had accepted and thought necessary. But only one-third was useful and that had a pattern of units unsuitable for military needs, and therefore, although it was considered, we were not able to accept that particular plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, who is so well informed on these matters, rightly pointed out that O.T.C. and similar bodies are not affected by this reorganisation, although administered by the Territorial Army Associations and run as part of the Territorial Army system, except in so far as other administrator arrangements or adjustments may be necessary. The future of university O.T.C.'s and Air Squadrons does not arise out of this particular reorganisation.
Deeply as this House feels in a matter of this kind, much as we acknowledge the glory of the Territorial Army in this world, as I am sure all noble Lords will agree, we cannot live on glory alone, and the Government have put forward these proposals because we believe them to be relevant to the present defence needs of this country. We shall need all the help we can get in carrying them out. It may be that noble Lords, with the great width and depth of their experience, may like to go into this matter in more detail, and although it is unlikely that there will be an opportunity to do so before the House rises for the Summer Recess, and the implications will need careful consideration by those who have only just heard the proposals for the first time, there are opportunities always open to noble Lords to make it possible to have a debate when we come back in the autumn.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? As he has said, it must be for the Government to decide these things. There can be no dispute about that. But I understood the noble Lord to say that he did not think it proper or right that the Council of the Territorial Army
1456
Associations should be consulted about this. Then he went on to say that the Council had put in a memorandum which the Government had considered. Is it not rather discourteous, to say the least of it, not to have had any contact with this body after having considered the memorandum, and to let them hear this now? Is that not rather a sharp way of treating an organisation which has served the Government and country faithfully and well?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely wrong. They have not heard about it for the first time to-day. This set of proposals came in at the end of May, rather less than two months ago, and had to be considered carefully. The Territorial Army Council—certainly the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk—was told about a week ago what the attitude of the Government was. This seems to me a good acknowledgment. I do not know whether an actual letter was sent, saying that we had received their proposals and would give them consideration. I really think that the noble Lord is making heavy weather of this. I can only say that there has been no intention at any time to treat the Territorial Army Council other than with the utmost seriousness and respect which they merit. If the Government are to make their own decisions, as the noble Lord accepts, it is right that they should do so and it is right that this House, like another place, should be the first to be publicly told of the matter.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, in the sphere of Government generally, it has become an established principle for the Government, before reaching a conclusion, to consult the various bodies which, by tradition or by association, can help to a conclusion. I, for one, am as much disturbed as many noble Lords opposite by what appears to be an absence of that consultation. Consultation is not so effective after a decision has been come to as before it is come to. The question I want to ask is this. Would anything be lost by the consultation which is so greatly the desire of this House, taking place before the publication of the White Paper? Would it not rather tend to allay the feelings which must have been somewhat embittered by the Statement made here? I do not

1457
personally accept the principles of authoritarian government which to-day are being more and more obtruded on the community, and I think it is a reasonable thing to consult interested parties before decisions are made rather than after.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: My Lords, may I be allowed to intervene for one second on consultation? I have tried hard to play extremely fair over this and I should not like anyone to think that I have not been received at the Ministry of Defence and by the Deputy Minister of Defence very courteously. The only point I want to make is that we were not consulted about this plan. We were told last week of the details which were coming out to-day. The paper which we put in was not discussed by myself or, so far as I know, any of my colleagues with anybody else. Had it been, that is what I should have called consultation. in other words, it is a question of the interpretation of the words "consultation". Personally, I would put it that you discuss a thing before and not after a decision has been taken. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, does not think that I am trying to make out that I have not received every courtesy from the Minister. But, on my interpretation of the word "consultation", it has not yet taken place.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that we ought not to continue to debate this. We could go on doing so for hours. It is open to noble Lords to use their influence through the usual channels. There are plenty of opportunities for debate. But it is unusual for a Statement to lead to a general debate, and I think that my noble friends on the Front Bench and other noble Lords who are responsible for maintaining the order of this House would greatly regret it if we turned this into a debate.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I do not wish to continue the debate, but may I remind the noble Lord that I asked a specific question on the effect of the Statement on pre-Service organisations. Does he intend to answer it or
1458
did he intend his answer to my noble friend Lord Balerno to cover my point?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I thought I had answered the noble Viscount by saying that this particular reorganisation did not affect the A.T.C. or the O.T.C. There will be certain adjustments in the administration of the Cadet Corps, but they are not part of the Territorial Army as such, and are not part of the reorganisation. I said this in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, who I am sure will be pleased to explain to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, its significance.
May I say to the noble Duke and my noble friend Lord Citrine that I have made clear—and I think this was accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—that there are certain decisions in the defence field, particularly in establishing the operational need and the shape of the forces, that are not suitable for consultation. I have made clear in debates before now that the actual decision, from the defence needs point of view, must be the responsibility of the Government, but the method of implementation is a matter on which we wish to consult with those most concerned. I will repeat, in case my noble friend, Lord Citrine, did not hear me, that there will be consultations before the White Paper is published in the autumn. I very much hope your Lordships will leave the matter there. I should be quite happy to continue discussing this matter, but I do not think it would be appropriate now.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, whether or not my noble friend would be happy to continue to discuss this now, I cannot think that we should. There will be a day on Wednesday after the House resumes when, through arrangements that have been made, it will be possible to discuss this matter. We have immediately on hand a Committee stage of the Rent Bill that might take us until 11 o'clock, and I think the House should move on to that.

VISITING FORCES AND INTER NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS (APPLICATION OF LAW) ORDER, 1965
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move this Motion.
Moved, That the Draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1965, laid before the House on 30th June be approved.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911 read 1a, and to be printed.
SEVERN BRIDGE TOLLS BILL
Committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

RENT BILL
4.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 21:
Registration areas and rent officers in England and Wales
(3) A scheme under this section—
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved, in subsection (3)(a), after the second "the" to insert "Minister with the consent of the". The noble Lord said: Having regard to the constitutional and usual practice as between the Treasury and Ministers, this is a formal Amendment. But may I be allowed to make a short personal statement about a point which arose in Committee on Clause 13? It is to be found
1460
in cols. 1074 and 1075 of Hansard for July 26. On reading my first answer, in col. 1075, to a question by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, I think my answer was confused and embodied a mistaken impression in my own mind. I am glad, therefore, that I promised to check it and to let the noble Lord know the result, as I have done privately. The question was whether the second succession provided for in Clause 13 will apply only to tenancies at present under control, or whether it will also apply to the new regulated tenancies. Subject to modifications and exceptions, the Bill applies the Rent Acts to regulated tenancies, and accordingly the right answer to the question is that the second succession applies to regulated tenancies, since there has been a first succession and they are, therefore, statutory tenancies. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 19, after ("the") insert ("Minister with the consent of the").—(Lord Mitchison.)
LORD HASTINGS: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, the Parliamentary Secretary, for having made this statement. I think it is important and useful that he should have done so, because, after all, we in this Committee need to know the meaning of the main clauses of the Bill, and, even more important, it is desirable that landlords and tenants should know their rights, and the limitations on their rights, in this matter. We now know where we are.
I do not blame the noble Lord for having misinterpreted the clause; I myself was doubtful about the meaning. While he did say that he found the language quite clear, the noble Lord managed to misinterpret its meaning, and therefore I submit that the language was not quite clear. Anyhow, I need not say any more about it, although it is rather an important clause, because now such rights as accrue on the second transmission on death are to be enjoyed by regulated tenancies and not only by the succeeding controlled tenancies. T should have seen the purpose of including the latter, because that would be dealing with cases of real hardship among the poorer sections of the community. I am less convinced of the necessity in so far as regulated tenancies are concerned. That has now passed, and we shall watch how it works in the future. I am obliged to the

1461
noble Lord for clarifying this matter, and I have pleasure in agreeing to the formal Amendment he has moved.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (c), to insert:
"() shall require the clerk to the local authority to appoint at least one rent officer or deputy rent officer for the area from among such persons as have had practical experience in the valuation of dwelling-houses;"
The noble Lord said: I do not wish to spend much time on this Amendment. We had a long discussion on the Amendment, moved by my noble friend Lord Molson, on the question of having rent officers experienced in property valuation. I have put down this Amendment to correct what is perhaps a false impression created in my mind by the proceedings in another place, where there was much argument on this matter.
After reading the Report of those proceedings, I felt strongly that the Minister, although not actually saying so in so many words, had given an impression of being prejudiced against the employment of people experienced in the valuation of dwelling-houses. This impression may flow over to town clerks who have to appoint the rent officers and deputy rent officers in their registration area, and I want to make quite sure that town clerks will not feel themselves debarred from appointing people as rent officers or deputy rent officers who have experience in the valuation of dwelling-houses. I think it would be most undesirable if they were considered to be biassed. Surely it should depend on the stature of the person concerned. I should have thought that if a man has such experience, so much the better.
When it comes to the number, I have proposed that the clerk to the local authority should appoint at least one rent officer or deputy rent officer. It is impossible to judge what the number should be, because it brings one into a consideration of the number of registration areas and their size. I do not know—perhaps the noble Lord can tell me—what is in the Minister's mind as to how many rent officers or deputy rent officers are likely to be appointed in registration areas. Is it likely that there will be any case where there will be only one; or must there be a rent officer
1462
and a deputy rent officer, as a minimum? Is there any case where there will not be more than that? We should like a little enlightenment on this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.)—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD CHAMPION: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that there is no prejudice in the mind of the Minister against people who are knowledgeable in this field. He has said that he is not asking for anyone who would have a definite qualification but, as I understand him, someone who has experience in the matter of valuation. If my noble friend had had such a prejudice against them, he would not have stressed the necessity to get them on the rent assessment committees. I am sure he is aware of the valuable services that could be given by people who are knowledgeable in this field.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will remember that I stressed this point in replying to his noble friend Lord Molson on Amendment No. 27. So far as the number of rent officers in each area is concerned, this is bound to depend on many factors. The county borough, a comparatively closely-knit affair, might need many less than would a huge county. As I say, it will be necessary for the clerk of the local authority to think out his area, and in the preparation of the scheme with my noble friend—because consultation enters into this very much—to decide how many rent officers he will require. I can well imagine that in some fairly large and populous counties four, five or even six might be needed. But this is a matter for consultation, and I am sure that my noble friend will go carefully into it when he is deciding on the scheme.
There is the factor to which I referred when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that it is not easy to get people who are completely qualified in this field. The noble Lord mentioned qualification, but it is not easy to get people who are experienced in the way that I am sure the noble Lord and the Minister would like to have, if it were possible to get them. A pretty formidable task is placed upon the Minister, because there will be some 172 registration areas in this country. There are, in England and Wales,

1463
58 county councils excluding London, 82 county boroughs, and 32 London boroughs and the City. We feel that it would be better to leave this question to the Minister to decide, in consultation with the clerk, and I can assure the noble Lord that there is no prejudice in the mind of the Minister against people who have the necessary experience, if he can possibly get them to do this job.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: May I ask the noble Lord whether it is possible for a rent officer, or deputy rent officer, to be employed on a part-time basis? Is it intended that such officers should be employed on a whole-time basis? If there was arty difficulty, as suggested, in getting an experienced person, and experience may well be necessary in the valuation of dwelling houses, it might be possible to get on a part-time basis a person who was more efficient than those who could be got on a full-time basis, particularly if a large area is concerned. A valuation officer might have specialised or particular knowledge of a local area rather than a larger area. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give us guidance on that point.
LORD CHAMPION: In answer to a question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, on Tuesday, I said that the Minister would not rule out the employment of part-time people in this field. Of course, so far as the part-time employment of people is concerned, he will need to have in his mind a number of factors. He will need to know what they are doing in the other part of their time; whether it might prejudice them against landlords or against tenants? All these are factors. But what the Minister has in mind here is that, as a result of retirement of people from the local government service and so on, we may be able to find just the sort of people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, has referred.
LORD ST. HELENS: May I make a short point on this? In another place, Mr. MacColl, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, went rather further than the noble Lord, Lord Champion, because he said during the Committee stage:
"We recognise that a valuer should normally be available and hope that enough valuers will
1464
be available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, col. 1041, June 17, 1965.]
If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary went as far as that in another place, would it not be as well to make it mandatory?
LORD CHAMPION: I think I have gone as far as I ought to go on this matter. It has been very carefully considered. I have been carefully briefed upon it, and I gave a fairly full reply. I stand by the reply I gave here to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, on his Amendment on Tuesday last.
LORD HASTINGS: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his answer. May I take up a point made by my noble friend, Lord St. Helens? I am not sure, but, speaking from memory, I think that referred to the appointment of valuation officers on the rent assessment committee, rather than rent or deputy rent officers, which we may come to later. In view of what the noble Lord has said—and I am obliged to him for the additional information with regard to registration areas—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.7 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved in subsection (3)(d), after "shall" to insert "allocate or". The noble Lord said: I hope we shall be able to discuss Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 together, because clearly they run together. In some registration areas, such as rural counties, there will be several rent officers, each of whom will be allocated a sub-area and will keep the register for that part of the area. Under Clause 21(3)(d) the scheme providing for the appointment of rent officers is to confer on the clerk to the local authority the duty of allocating work as between the rent officers. It may be appropriate, though, in some cases, for the scheme itself to specify the sub-areas into which the registration area is to be divided, and to specify the sub-centres where the parts of the register are to be kept, rather than to leave the clerk the duty of allocating the work. The first Amendment will enable this alternative course to be adopted when appropriate by providing that the work as between the rent officers may be allocated by the scheme. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Pag 14, line 26, after ("shall") insert ("allocate or").—(Lord Champion.)
LORD NEWTON: This seems a very sensible improvement, and certainly we have no objection to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 27, after ("and") insert ("shall confer on the clerk the duty").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: Since rent officers are to be statutory officers and not employed by the local authority, it is necessary that we should include this Amendment in order to ensure that they will be insured under the appropriate Acts. This could have been done by regulation under the National Insurance Act, but it was thought that this would be perhaps the most convenient method of doing it, and would save a further waste of Parliamentary time by introducing a small regulation to cover this point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 35, at end insert ("and for the purposes of the National Insurance Acts 1946 to 1964 and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts 1946 to 1964 they shall be deemed to be in that employment under a contract of service").—(Lord Champion.)
LORD NEWTON: Again we are obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Registration areas and rent officers in Scotland]:
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), to omit "without consulting the local authority". The noble Lord said: This is a small matter. The Minister has power to revoke a scheme and to make another if something has gone wrong involving the local authority or the town clerk, and it says in the Bill as it stands at the moment that he may make another scheme without consulting the local authority. I only wish to remove the words "without consulting the local
1466
authority". I simply think that, otherwise, it is rather an unnecessary and a gratuitous insult to the local authority. I know, having worked in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, that in practice local authorities would be taken into the confidence of the Minister, even in an unfortunate situation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 4, leave out from ("and") to ("make") in line 5.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD CHAMPION: What is intended here is really the procedure to be adopted in the event of a default by the local authority concerned. It seems that to some extent it might make a nonsense of the default provisions if, in the event of a local authority refusing to have anything to do with the scheme, one had to go back and consult them about the scheme that one is going to introduce on one's own responsibility.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not want consultation, but, on the other hand, I do not want a definite lack of consultation.
LORD CHAMPION: I can see what the noble Lord means, and I do not want to go over the whole of the arguments because I am sure he understands the position. By reason of the wording of line 3 of subsection (1), it would be open to the Minister to consult the local authority if he wanted to do so before making another scheme. The word "may" in this context would, I think, cause the Minister to consult them if such consultation looked as though it would serve any useful purpose. I do not think this Amendment is necessary and I am fairly sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has said, that if the Minister could possibly get consultation with a local authority that would be useful in the preparation of this scheme, he would be a fool if he did not do so.
LORD HASTINGS: I entirely agree with the last sentence of the noble Lord's remarks. I do not think the words in the Bill are in fact necessary, but I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Register of rents]:
On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am sorry I have not given noble Lords opposite any advance notice of this question, but I should like to put one question about this clause. It relates to the word "specification" in subsection (2)(b). I have a letter here from the Law Society, which seems to be a reputable source of authority to ask a question for clarification in the wording of the Bill. They found it difficult to imagine exactly what the word "specification" of a dwelling-house in the register would involve. I am bound to say that I do not know, either. Is it going to be the shape of it, or how many rooms it has, or whether the front door is green or blue? What does it mean?
Rather dependent upon what it may mean in the minds of those who are preparing the register, one has to look at Clause 43, where the Minister is given power to make regulations, and, among other things, in subsection (1)(a) he can prescribe the form of a register. One knows the sort of thing that happens in the case, perhaps, of a valuation list. The hereditament is set out, it is described: the owner occupier, the valuation and so on. I imagine that the register would take something of that form, but then we have this curious word "specification". Is the Minister going to prescribe something in Clause 43 which will make the form of the register take a particular shape so that it will contain certain details as to the things which are going to be specified under Clause 25? What is in fact in the minds of the Ministry on this? I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell me now, but it seems to be a slightly strange word to use in this particular context, and I should be grateful for clarification.
LORD MITCHISON: I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will not think I am in any way criticising his point if I tell him that I notice he has not suggested any other word.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I would be happy to suggest another word after I have heard the noble Lord tell us what "specification" means. I will then do my level best to see if I
1468
can draft an Amendment to put it into effect.
LORD MITCHISON: The noble Viscount can do that by all means, but it is not easy to decide upon a collection of words because there are so many types of houses to deal with. I read this as meaning something like "two down and three up", termed into more official language. I thought it might go with a direction from the Minister that the number of rooms should be specified, or something of that kind. I do not think we ought to try to exclude things and I think this is a case where one cannot get very great uniformity, and indeed one ought not to try to get it. I should not have thought that this was in any way an opening for oppression; one could not use the regulations which the Minister may make to ask for an unreasonable amount of detail. I think that would be going beyond the ordinary meaning and intention of Clause 43. I tried to think of an alternative word as the noble Viscount was speaking and I think all that one could put in is something like "description", which really is less indicative than "specification". I suppose it is conceivable that on some occasion the court might be called upon to say whether what was required in this register was in sufficient compliance with the terms of the Bill, but I think in the great majority of cases there could be very little doubt about it. I do not say that almost anything would do, but any fairly simple kind of description would do, and that is what was indicated.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. What worried me a little was that this is going to be a public document. You will pay your shilling or whatever it is, under subsection (4) of Clause 25 and you will go and look at the register. The "schedule of accommodation", if I might suggest to the noble Lord, would be perfectly all right, but the word "specification" seemed to me possibly to bring in wider things, for example, that the property had not been repaired very well—the sort of things in fact that one deals with when getting a surveyor's report on a house. I wondered whether in the register it would be commented that the staircase was dirty, or something like that.

1469
I simply had no idea. After all "specification" is a technical term in the building and property world, as the noble Lord will realise, and certainly if what is intended is that there should be an indication of how much accommodation and how many bathrooms are contained in the house there could be no possible objection to it. I simply wanted to know whether it would go further than that. I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to think about it.
LORD MITCHISON: I am sure the noble Viscount's comments will be considered by my right honourable friend when the regulations are made prescribing the form of any register. But I do not think one ought to try to tie this too tight. That was what occurred to me as the first thing. I can see parts of the country where possibly there might be some reason for asking for a little more information. I think that it is a matter which ought to be left to local discretion within reason, and subject to general directions. I do not think it would he right for us to try to provide details. I did not regard "specification" in this clause as having any connection with the specification one has in mind in a building contract.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I hope the Government will take another look, because "specification" is a detailed description in highly technical terms dealing with thickness of walls, size of doors, kinds of materials and woods and so on. I should have thought that words such as "description of the dwelling-house" would be better, because anybody looking at this would consider that technical terms and detailed technical descriptions were required. I suggest it would be a good thing if the Government would take another look at it.
LORD MITCHISON: One is of course as courteous as possible in a matter of this sort, but it is very much a question of first impression. I did not get, and I have not got now, the noble Lord's impression that the word meant anything as detailed as a specification for building purposes. If I may say so, I think it would be a little ridiculous to put that into a rent register. It is the best word I can think of. If the noble Lord can think of a better one I should be very
1470
glad to consider it. I do not think the word "description" is better. I think it might invite the authority to ask for too much. I think "specification" is the more appropriate word, and I am sure my right honourable friend will consider this discussion when he comes to where it really matters, the regulations to be made.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do not want to prolong this discussion. I am very grateful to the noble Lord. The point is this. I have no doubt that what will be prescribed will be a form of register. There will be a series of columns, one of them headed "Specification". Unless some thought is given between now and that time as to what that column is going to contain, we are simply going to get regulations with that word at the top. "Schedule of accommodation" might be better. I leave it at that.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26:
Determination of fair rent
26.—(1) In determining for the purposes of this Act what rent is or would be a fair rent under a regulated tenancy of a dwelling-house regard shall be had, subject to the following provisions of this section, to all the circumstances (other than personal circumstances), and in particular to the age, character and locality of the dwelling-house and to its state of repair.
4.54 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON had given notice of two Amendments to subsection (1), the first being to leave out the third "and", and the second to add to the subsection:
"and to the cost of building and of house repairs at the time".
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Molson to move these two Amendments, as he is, unfortunately, unable to be present. This clause deals with determination of rent. We have had already a discussion on the subject of rents, and I think it is well known that rents vary enormously. The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, and I myself drew attention the other day to great discrepancies in Scotland, where rents are very much lower than in England; and in the north of England, of course, they are very much lower than in the south of England.

1471
What is a fair rent? The answer to that question is not easy to come by: there is nothing in the way of statistical argument to bring forward. One of the essential features is to consider what the landlord has to pay for repairs. Controlled rents under the 1957 Act are frozen at about twice the 1957 gross value, but the cost of repairs is only marginally less than four times the 1957 level. This was brought out in another place when they were discussing this clause, and I understand that the right honourable gentleman the Minister for Housing claimed that this was the reason why frozen rents must rise under this Bill. If landlords are expected to put houses into good repair, as I hope they are, this is going to cost a considerable amount more than in, let us say, 1957; and in different parts of the country it is going to cost more than in others. What I think my noble friend Lord Molson is concerned about is that if, as it seems, the Minister agrees that frozen rents must rise under this Bill, it is desirable to write into the Bill some words which will bring this into effect, and the words in my noble friend's Amendment would do this.
The Amendment would add the words: "and to the cost of building and of house repairs at the time" after the word "repair". This would mean that in any fixing of rents the costs which the landlord has incurred in putting the building into a really good state of repair, so that it is in a habitable and proper condition, would be considered when the rent was being fixed. This would apply not only to private landlords but also local authorities. I have spent many years on the housing committee of a local authority, and the costs of repairs have steadily risen—and I should imagine are still rising—and affect them just as much as they affect the private landlord. If the Minister would consider some form of words (whether these are the right words or not I do not know) in which the cost of house repairs is considered in the fixing of rents, it would be fair to private landlords and public authorities. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 38, leave out second ("and").—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD MITCHISON: I am much indebted to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for this Amendment, and I can assure them that we have given it most careful consideration. The conclusion we have come to about it is this. Under subsection (1) (it is a very important one, of course), regard has to be had to all the circumstances other than personal circumstances and then in particular
"to the age, character and locality of the dwelling-house and to its state of repair."
I think that is perfectly clear. That covers the question of what the state of the dwelling-house is at the time. It covers the question of its state of repair. And surely those are the facts that have to be looked at when trying to determine what is a fair rent.
The rent officer is specially directed by the subsection not to look at personal circumstances; he is not, therefore, to consider who may have done this or that, or how much money anybody has, or anything of that sort. He must simply look at the house itself, including particularly, for this purpose, its state of repair. I think it is all quite clear. Subsection (1) as printed calls the attention of those who have to operate the Bill to what they have to do; that is to say, to look at the house itself, its age, character, locality and state of repair. If we try to put in anything else we are getting into a quite different sort of field. I think the wording as it stands is right: and I think it is sufficient. With respect, it seems to me that the noble Baroness's addition would not substantially add anything, except some question about what somebody had spent at some time or another. I do not think that is a relevant matter in considering what is a fair rent.
LORD HAWKE: I do not know whether the noble Baroness will regard the noble Lord's reply as satisfactory, but I am quite certain that I do not, and I do not believe the noble Lord, Lord Molson, would either. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has argued the case with great skill confining the facts to be taken into account to the historic cost. But surely, when you are considering what is a fair rent, you must take into account the cost of replacing that dwelling, in other words, if you wanted to build more accommodation in the locality what would you have to pay? Of

1473
course, you would get a better type of accommodation. You would get something newer. But you must take into account something more than the historic cost, because otherwise you will get a completely false picture of the situation.
Lord Molson's Amendment would have brought in some element of replacing cost—"the cost of building and of house repairs at the time". In other words, if you are valuing an old house for a fair rent you would have to take into account how much it would cost you to build a new house there. Of course, the new house would command a much higher rent. You would then have to depreciate the rent of the new house according to the number of years the old one was up, and the two would have to have some relation to each other. I feel certain that in arriving at a fair rent you could not ignore the replacement cost.
LORD MITCHISON: This Is a slightly different point from the one that the noble Baroness put, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is really trying to tell the rent officer or the rent assessment committee, or whoever it is, how to do something rather than what to do. What they are trying to do is to look at all the circumstances. This would include, broadly, the sort of thing that the noble Lord has in mind. For example, one of the things is locality. Clearly if you are looking at a house and it is a rather old house, and you find some newer houses round the corner, that is the sort of thing that you may consider, whatever weight you attach to it.
But when you come down to the root of the matter you are doing two things. First, you are looking at an actual thing, a house, its age, its character, its state of repair, and where it is—its whole circumstances. You are looking at it as an object, and then you are applying your common sense or expert knowledge, whichever you like to call it, to what is a fair rent, subject to the matters you have to disregard given at the end of Clause 26. Therefore, I quite see the noble Lord's point, but I think it is open to a rent officer to do all that in any proper case; and that to direct him to do it in that particular way and with regard to those particular factors would really be confusing what are quite clear and, I think, most important directions.
1474
This is a vital part of the Bill. Therefore, one does not want to introduce any confusion, and I am afraid that this would have that result. For those reasons, I would regard the insertion of these words as a mistake, and in this clause as a really serious mistake—not because I differ much from the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, about the sort of thing that one would take into account, but because I do not think it would apply everywhere. I think the real nature of the task is more clearly indicated by the clause as it is.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining so fully the views of the Government. I have the impression that in another place the Minister was a little more sympathetic towards this point, though I may be wrong. In any event, I am not going to press this matter to a Division. But I think the Ministry might look at this point, because in a determination of fair rent, which I agree is the rubric of the clause, a great deal must enter into the words "fair rent". While I agree that there is a great deal down in the clause, I think there are variations and differences in different places which could, or should, if a fair rent is to be decided upon in different areas, be taken into account. However, we have discussed the point. I thank the noble Lord for his views. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for his support of this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD NEWTON: I did not move my Amendment No. 36, partly because I thought it would help the progress of the Committee if I did not, but mainly because I saw no prospect, in view of what the Government spokesman has said about this clause previously, that they would accept the Amendment, although I have never been able yet to understand why such an Amendment to include rateable value is unacceptable in relation to the clause. This clause is crucial to the Bill, and, as I argued on Second Reading at some length—I am not arguing it at any length this afternoon—it seems to me unsatisfactory because it is essentially so

1475
vague. I know that the Government want it to be vague, that they think it should be vague; but I personally think that it should not.
Just for a moment, I want to deal with the question of whether or not rateable value or gross value should be inserted into the clause. It has been said time and again by spokesmen for the Government in another place that in nine cases out of ten the rent officer and the rent assessment committee will, among all the steps considered, consider rateable value, and objection has been taken to inserting those words in the Bill. It is really rather odd when one recalls that the Minister himself, Mr. Crossman, said, I think in Committee in another place, or it may have been on Report, that rateable value is a way of assessing the rentability of a house based on its age, character and location. These three words are specifically inserted in the clause, yet the Minister is not prepared to put in another word which, according to his own mode of thought, is simply one word which defines and embraces those other three. So one is again driven to ask oneself, what is really the objection to mentioning rateable value? It is not making it a yardstick—nobody wants to do that—but writing it in and mentioning it. What I should like is to have something in the Bill which would give the rent officers and the rent assessment committees somewhere to start when they make up their minds as to what is a fair rent.
On Second Reading, I went out of my way to invite every single Member of your Lordships present, including the noble Lord, Lord Champion, to say how they would set about fixing a fair rent on the first occasion on which they had to sit as a rent assessment committee for that purpose. What did the noble Lord, Lord Champion, reply to me? I should like to remind your Lordships, because he answered me in winding up the debate on Second Reading. I am now quoting from column 1524 of Hansard of July 8. The noble Lord said:
"If I were appointed as a rent officer in my local town and district, I should start with a local knowledge of that town and district."
Of course he would. He then went on:
"I know the existing rents, both controlled and decontrolled, in the area."
1476
No doubt he does. But, as I understand the Bill and the philosophy behind it, he must precisely ignore his knowledge of the rents prevailing in the area, because if there is any shortage of rented accommodation in the area, that shortage will have affected the prevailing level of rents. So I do not see how the noble Lord's knowledge of "existing rents, both controlled and decontrolled, in the area", if he were going to carry out what I understand to be the duties of these officials or committees, would be of help to him.
He went on to say:
"I know the town sufficiently well to know which part of the town I would rather live in and would be prepared to pay more rent to do so than I would pay to live in another part of the town." [Ibid.]
No doubt that is so; but this still does not tell one where one is to start, or even where Lord Champion is going to start. It seems to me that the age of the house, its character, and its location are very useful criteria for deciding whether the fair rent fixed should be rather less than or rather more than the rent which would otherwise be considered to be fair if one had any reason to determine what the fair rent for a house of average age, average character, and average desirable locality was, which one has not. This is a major weakness in this Bill, and I personally have the gravest doubts whether this provision will work.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before the noble Lord answers, could I ask one other question which arises out of Lord Champion's reply as to what he would do if he were on a rent assessment committee? He said he would know the rents, both controlled and decontrolled. I wonder how. One of the people in any town or district who does know what the rents are, whether controlled or decontrolled, is the valuation officer. One of the things he has power to do is to serve forms on the occupiers of premises—the forms are, I think, confidential—and thereby he acquires all the necessary information which he needs in order to assess rateable valuation. This is essential to him, although I am bound to say that in many places where there are so few hereditaments let that information may not be of the same value as in other places.
Are the rent assessment committees or the rent officers going to have access to

1477
this sort of information? If not, how are they going to discover what are the controlled or decontrolled rents in any town? Are they going to go round to the estate agents and gradually build up a schedule? Is there going to be some list of rents which will be kept up to date and which will be compiled with the aid of various estate agents? How is the noble Lord going to find out the level of the rents? He says he knows, but how does he know?
LORD HASTINGS: I also have another question to ask on this matter. First of all, I should like to endorse what my noble friend Lord Newton said about the value of having a starting-point. I am well aware from the discussions in another place that the Minister and his colleagues do not want to put in rateable value because they regard it as, so to speak, a bad rent regulator; in other words, they believe that the gross value does not represent anything like the actual rents being paid. Therefore they seem to think that there is something misleading about rateable value. But, in point of fact, it is very useful for the rent officer to know whether in a particular district the rents are in fact about the same as gross value, or whether they are one-and-a-half times gross value, or even twice gross value. In that respect the rateable value will still act as a very useful guide and starting-point. Having achieved that knowledge in that way, it is up to the rent officers to decide, on the basis of scarcity or shortage of housing, whether those rents are too high or not. I should have thought that it was much the most valuable guide to put into the Bill.
The other point I want to make is this. I am interested to know whether the Government have thought out the effects in the long term of this particular clause on rating valuations in the future. If you are going to have regulated rents virtually over the whole field of housing, what purpose is a quinquennial rating valuation going to serve? How is it to be carried out? Do the Government wish to see the whole system changed? It seems to me that it is going to be very difficult for the rating valuation officer to fix a notional rent for houses which are subject to a regulated rent and to achieve an answer which is different from the regulated rent. Therefore, it will only be left to him to attach
1478
notional rents to owner-occupied houses which are not rented. Have the Government thought out the problem, and how do they see the future of rating valuation?
LORD SILKIN: All three noble Lords have referred to the relevance of rateable value, but in fact the rateable value includes the scarcity element. Under this Bill this element is specifically excluded. Therefore, to say that rateable value is a factor which should be taken into account is, in my view, misleading. Moreover, the noble Lords had an Amendment down and did not move it, and have not sought to argue it except in this indirect way. Furthermore, everybody who has considered the matter has now accepted the fact that rateable value is not a relevant matter in fixing rent.
In fact, of course, there is nothing to exclude the consideration of rateable value, for what it is worth. The officer is directed to take all circumstances into account. "All circumstances" would include rateable value, if he feels that it is relevant. If he does not feel that it is relevant, then it would be quite wrong to ask him to consider it. I have no statistics, but I should imagine that at least half of the rateable values which have been fixed are at present subject to appeal and they may not be heard for a very long time. That is only an indication of the fact that the rateable value is not generally accepted.
The noble Lord has suggested that the criteria in Clause 26 are vague. Are they? It seems to me that they include all the matters which a person who was trying to fix a rent would take into account. I will not state them, for they are set out in the Bill, but every possible consideration is taken into account. The valuer is directed to take them into account, and also all other circumstances—anything else which he thinks is relevant. Short of telling him exactly how he is to fix a rent, I cannot see what further directions or advice he can be given. He has everything there. There is no other circumstance which he ought to take into account which is not included in this Bill. Therefore, I think noble Lords opposite are quite right in not moving the Amendment to include a reference to rateable value, and I think the clause is perfectly all right as it stands.
LORD NEWTON: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is suggesting that the real reason I did not move my Amendment was that I have not got confidence in it. I hope that he does not think that. If he does, I will put it down on the Report stage.
LORD SILKIN: By all means do so and let us have a little argument on it, but I thought that almost every speaker in another place who referred to rateable value admitted that it was not a fair criterion. It is not a fair criterion because it includes something which the Bill specificially says should be omitted, namely the shortage of accommodation.
LORD NEWTON: It is probably my fault for not making clear what I had in mind. I do not want to make it the criterion, I do not want to make it the yardstick, for reasons on which we should probably agree. I merely think it ought to be one of the factors taken into consideration. The noble Lord said that rateable value must reflect an element of scarcity. Well, it may, if there is scarcity in that particular area, but I do not happen to believe that houses are scarce everywhere in the country. I would again remind the noble Lord of what the Minister Mr. Crossman himself said about this in Committee in another place. I am now quoting from column 706 of the proceedings in Committee on May 27. He said:
"What is gross value? It is a way of assessing the rentability of a house, based on its age, character and location."
Those are the exact words in this clause.
5.21 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: I agree with every word that fell from my noble friend Lord Silkin. I do not think it is mere coincidence that the same things have occurred to both of us. We are not at the moment, of course, discussing a particular Amendment. We can do that if one is put down and if noble Lords opposite want it discussed, but we are discussing Clause 26 as a whole. When the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said something that really related to the Amendment—I do not say this too seriously as a procedural point—I knew perfectly well what he meant. What is the position about rateable value? The
1480
noble Lord, Lord Newton, quoted some remarks of my right honourable friend which might lead towards the conclusion that rateable value had regard to the character, age and locality. Since, if that is so, those are the very things which the valuer in this case has to have regard to, then, obviously, the rateable value would be of great assistance to him thus far. There is no doubt about that. But there is no reason to put in a specific reference to rateable value, if all you mean is a reference to character, age and locality, because that is there already.
LORD NEWTON: It is no excuse for not putting it in.
LORD MITCHISON: If, on the other hand, you want to use the rateable value not as a yardstick but as some sort of starting point, then I think you have to consider several things. The first is the most obvious one. You are not in this case directing the valuer—I am using the word "valuer" rather loosely—to find the rateable value as it should be found by a rating officer, because you are specifically directing him to neglect the scarcity element, which is a different question. The object of this clause is not to tell him how to do it; it is to tell him what to do. The whole purpose of Clause 26, and the whole machinery of the Bill, means that for the first time in rent legislation we are going to take the judgment of what I may fairly describe as ordinary knowledgeable people, of what is a fair rent. That is the object of Clause 26 and of the whole Bill, and, personally, I think it is quite right.
We have had far too many efforts to relate rents to rateable value and various other things—it has almost always been rateable value in some form or another—and one after another they have proved unsuccessful, and I think one can find the reasons for that. But it seems to me a very startling step to take a Bill, the whole of which is directed to that broader purpose of human judgment rather than rateable values, and to seek to go backwards into these arithmetical calculations of rent, which confused and made insufficient and useless one Rent Act after another. The imaginative point here, the point on which noble Lords attributed courage to the Bill and to my right honourable friend, is that it does not do that. It does not take the rateable value

1481
as the method by which rent is fixed; it takes knowledgeable human judgment. That is what we are told was so courageous of us—or so I understood. I think it was courageous. I think my right honourable friend has taken a very big step. I had a good deal to do with rent legislation in Opposition, and I never thought that this kind of thing could properly be put into a Bill. But here it is in a Bill, and I think it is very well put. Really, what is being said now is the sort of reactionary impulse—I hope the words are not offensive; they are not meant to be—that is so very strong in Conservative thinking. You try to lead them forward, and you suddenly find that they go back into the arithmetical jungle: "Do not let us take the judgment of our fellow men on what is a fair rent. Let us instead go to rateable value."
There is a further objection to this, and I think I ought to make it quite clear. The Inland Revenue valuation officer is really looking at a different question. He is assuming, for one thing, a hypothetical form of tenancy which may by no means necessarily be the one for which a fair rent is to be considered. One has to remember that under the clause all the circumstances have to be looked at. They certainly do not exclude the rating valuation and equally, they do not exclude the terms of the tenancy. How could you fix a fair rent if you were to exclude those? At any rate, on this side of the Committee we do not want to pour people into a fixed mould of tenancies, any more than we want a fixed range of factors to be considered, and that is why the phrase "all the circumstances" was carefully put in. These are not just additional words: they are the important words, as I see it; the others are by way of instance.
There is one other point. This is not the right time to take rating valuation as the foundation of rentals, even if such a practice were not open to the type of objection that I have been describing. We all know that in one very large London borough there has been a question before the courts about the sufficiency of rating valuations. I make no further comment on it than to say that it is at least doubtful whether they are the right thing to found on at the moment. And there is more than that. We have had the Allen Committee; we have had statements from both political
1482
Parties throwing some doubt on the present rating system, and my right honourable friend explained in another place (I forget whether or not it was in connection with this Bill) that he has under review at the moment local government finance generally, and particularly the sufficiency and fairness of the rating system.
I can give your Lordships one very simple instance. I said previously that we are rather short of statistics dependent on sample surveys and things of that sort, but I have here the averages for new lettings of houses in 1964 known to the Valuation Office—they do not by any means include every new letting; only the lettings of which they do know—expressed as multiples of gross value. I am taking London boroughs which are pretty similar, and I imagine that they are the old boroughs. Chelsea has 1·05, Hampstead, South, has 1·55 and Islington has 1·62. I have other figures on the list, but I think your Lordships will see that there is at any rate enough doubt about the uniformity of the relation between rents and rateable values, to make it a mistake to rely too much on rateable values.
I hope that I have not spoken for too long. This is a very important clause in the Bill, and I repeat that the essence of it is to tell knowledgeable people, believed to be fair, as clearly as possible what they have to do, but to leave the method and the approach to them. I have known my noble friend Lord Champion for years, and I can only say this about him. However he tells your Lordships he may have approached the matter, I have much greater confidence that he would reach the right result than that his description of his own approach would necessarily be right; and that goes for a whole lot of people. He would get there and would get the right answer, and like many people who have to function under this Act, he would know that it was the right answer. But if you cared to press him as to exactly how he worked it out, he would be as puzzled as I would be if I were asked how what I call my mind was working.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord did not really deal with the main point that I was making, which arises on the Motion, Whether the clause shall stand part?—namely, that this system of fair

1483
rents by way of rent regulation will reflect upon the rating system as a whole. The only remark which the noble Lord made on that had the effect of casting considerable doubt on the rating system. That is a new thing. I know, of course, that there is a review going on between central and local government finance; that possibly a part of the rates will be transferred to the central Government side; and that other people who are especially affected—old-age pensioners, and so on—may well be looked after by means of rebate, or some other form of special treatment. But this is the first time we have heard from the Government that the Minister has it in his mind to change the rating system; and that is precisely what I was trying to get at.
When we had a debate not so long ago on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, we had a good deal to say about rating. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, then quite clearly turned down any ideas of site valuation, and he seemed to be speaking, on behalf of the Government, rather favourably of the present system. That is exactly why, on this clause, I queried whether the Government had in mind a complete change of the rating system; because, if not, that system is going to be made rather more difficult by the results of this clause.
LORD MITCHISON: If by the courtesy of the noble Lord I could answer him, rather shortly, perhaps I did not answer the question in quite the form in which he put it, but I think I answered it by implication. Of course, we are not discussing at the moment the rating system. What we are discussing is fair rents, and how far present rating usage concerns the basis for them. I do not see how this clause is going to affect the rating system as it is at present. I may be wrong, but I do not want to discuss it at length because it is so very far from the subject matter of the clause we are considering.
LORD NEWTON: I do not want to prolong this debate further, but since the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, attributed to me typical reactionary instincts on the grounds that I wanted to write into the Bill what I think he described as "a rigid mathematical formula", I must say I went out of my way to say that I did
1484
not want to do that at all. What I said was that I thought there ought to be some starting point. If that is typically reactionary, I am delighted to be so described by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. He took great pride in the fact that this clause is designed to tell the rent officers and the rent assessment committees what to do and not how to do it. This is part of the issue between us. Of course we recognise that that is what the clause does, but I still want to know how these people are going to set about their task. We have not been told. I do not know whether other noble Lords think they know how they are going to set about fixing a fair rent, but I certainly do not know, and I do not believe the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, knows either.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Amount to be registered as rent]:
5.35 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved to add to the clause:
"() For the purposes of this section any sums payable by a tenant to the landlord for services shall include, without prejudice to the generality any sums received by the landlord for the resale of electricity gas or water to the tenant in excess of the statutory charges which would otherwise be due by the tenant for the amount actually consumed."
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and to which I should like to direct the attention of the Committee. My Amendment is concerned with the payment made by tenants for electricity through meters hired from their landlords. This has been the occasion for some landlords making a profit on this transaction—a profit which is, in essence, an addition to the rent paid by the tenant for his accommodation. In a welcome attempt to try and stop this abuse, the Minister of Power required Electricity Boards this summer to fix and publish the maximum prices at which electricity may be resold for domestic purposes. However, the only sanction is a civil action against the landlord by the tenant if in fact a landlord sets a meter in such a way as to draw revenue from it over and above the charges fixed by the Electricity Board. How many tenants would in fact be prepared to pursue such a matter through the courts? I think very

1485
few. In most cases the sums involved will probably not he very much, although we have been told of cases where tenants have been paying for heating at a rate three to four times the maximum rates now fixed by the Electricity Boards.
The Consumer Council, of which I am Chairman, thinks that the tenant's position should be strengthened by more effective means of enforcement of the maximum price. It seems to us that it might be possible to bring these charges within the framework of the control over excess rents because, as I have said, the profit made by a landlord is in fact an addition to the rent. What my Amendment would do would be to enable rent officers and rent assessment committees to take into account in determining rents any excess payments for electricity enjoyed by a landlord through the use of slot meters. The Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have discussed our proposals with us, and I know that they do not think that they fit into the framework of the Bill, or, indeed, are easily worked.
I recognise that, as what the landlord is doing is reselling electricity, it may be difficult to regard any profit he makes on this as a form of rent. I recognise also the practical difficulties of inspection of meters in order to establish that they are set above the maximum prices fixed by the Board. Above all, I recognise that as, under this Bill, the only remedy which the tenant will have against rents in excess of those fixed by the rent officer or the rent assessment committee is to take a civil action himself in the courts against his landlord, he has no more effective weapon to hand than he has at present as regards his payments for electricity. This is an aspect of the Bill which, in general, I find rather surprising, although I recognise that the protection against eviction which tenants will enjoy does mean that they will be less hesitant about taking action against their landlords. There are ways, of course, in which a landlord can make the life of a tenant difficult which fall short of harassment but which, none the less, are very unpleasant.
Clause 28 of the Bill provides a criminal sanction if landlords do not produce information required by a rent assessment committee, but, rather oddly
1486
again, nothing is said about the giving of false information. These arrangements will evidently operate, in most cases, only within 28 days of the lodging of an objection to a rent assessment by the rent officer. I have been speaking about unfurnished accommodation. Furnished accommodation comes under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946. Under that Act, the services which can be regarded as forming part of the rent, and therefore fixed by a tribunal, are pretty widely defined, so that it might perhaps be possible for tribunals to take electricity into account. The problem of excess charges for electricity by landlords certainly affects furnished lettings more than unfurnished lettings.
The Amendment which I am putting forward was debated when the Bill was in Committee in another place. The Government spokesman pointed out some difficulties, and the Amendment was withdrawn; but the Parliamentary Secretary said that he recognised that abuses were considerable, although he believed that the introduction of maximum charges would bring a sufficient remedy. He said, however, that the Minister had said that his mind was open on the question whether, if the introduction of maximum charges proved to be inadequate, he would acquire legislative powers to enforce. I think that, in the nature of the case, it will be very difficult to establish with any certainty for a considerable time whether the maximum charges are effective or not.
I have been speaking in terms of electricity since, owing to the fixing of maximum charges, this has drawn the most public attention. However, the problem applies to gas also, although perhaps rather less since gas meters are always owned by the Gas Boards, who have the right to inspect them. Electricity Boards, evidently, have no such right—the electricity meters are the property of the landlords—and, indeed, one Board has already announced that it will check meter readings only if the landlord has consented to their being checked. Many tenants of the kind with whom we are concerned are not at all knowledgable about their rights; and, even if they are, have very little knowledge of how to go about enforcing them. Even if they have knowledge of how to go about enforcing them, they may be unwilling to do so.

1487
It is for this reason that we wanted to take advantage, if we could, of the Rent Bill. If the Government say that it is impossible to do so as the Bill is framed, then I urge them to give an assurance that some other measures will be taken, perhaps by an Amendment of the Gas and Electricity Acts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD CHAMPION: Of course, we are bound to have a lot of sympathy with the purposes behind the Amendment moved by the noble Lady; we all know of, and applaud, her interest in the consumer. I am sure that the noble Lady and her Council have very seriously considered this matter, and she has moved an Amendment to which we all listened to with tremendous attention. One could not fail to understand it. The noble Lady's Amendment is to the effect that where the landlords supply tenants with gas, electricity or water at a price which is higher than the tenant would pay as a direct consumer, the difference should be included in the registered rent.
As the noble Lady said, the position at the moment is that the Gas and Electricity Boards have fixed maximum resale prices for their products. I rather think that in one case that was partly as a result of the pressure from the noble Lady's Council. But in neither of the cases for considering the points that she seemed to me to be stressing particularly is it possible to bring a criminal charge if overcharging takes place; and, as she said, in both cases recovery is by the method of instituting court proceedings. What the noble Lady's Council is doing is trying to seek a way in which this Bill could afford greater protection to the tenant. Clause 27(1) of the Rent Bill provides that in the case of a regulated tenancy:
"The amount to be registered as the rent … shall include any sums payable by the tenant to the landlord … for services, whether or not those sums are separate from the sums payable for the occupation of the dwelling-house or are payable under separate agreements."
Although there is no definition, either in the Rent Acts or in this Bill, of "services," the services covered by this clause must be services provided by the land
1488
lord; and it is quite unlikely that any court would treat any profit made by the landlord on gas or electricity meters as a payment for services provided by him.
The Rent Bill—and this is really the answer to the noble Lady—would not, in the Government's opinion, be the appropriate vehicle to try to deal with overcharging through electricity and gas meters. We believe that this would be quite the wrong method of doing it. I have a lot of information about the position of furnished houses which does not appear to me to be relevant in this context, and I will not weary the Committee with it. But on the whole point of the tenant having to take action in the courts for recovery, we say (and the noble Lady recognised it) that there should be less reluctance on the part of tenants to take action against the overcharging of services because of the provisions in the Bill safeguarding tenants against conviction.
Personally I must admit that I have tremendous sympathy with the fact that, while it is all very well to say this, many tenants just would not know how to go about this business of taking court proceedings against overcharging. But I am bound to return to the point I have just made: that this Bill cannot be a suitable vehicle for dealing with this particular problem. We have looked at this question very carefully. The Minister of Power has said that if, in the light of the experience of the operation of the new arrangements for controlling the resale price of electricity, it were found that further action was needed, he would consider the introduction of legislation to strengthen the means of enforcement; that is, the means of enforcement of the maximum resale price which he has now fixed. What would apply to the electricity industry would, of course, apply equally to the gas industry.
I have answered this Amendment at some length because we realise, and very definitely welcome, the Consumer Council's interest in safeguarding the consumer. I am only sorry to tell the noble Lady that I fear that this is not the Bill in which we can put this provision with any hope of its having any success; and I hope that, after my explanation, the noble Lady will be prepared to withdraw her Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I thank the noble Lord for his sympathetic reception of my suggestion. His answer is similar to one which was given, I think, by the Under-Secretary in another place. I realise that he may be right in saying that this Bill is not the vehicle for this legislation; but this overcharging is something which often provides quite a serious abuse to tenants. For this reason, I hope that the noble Lord will get in touch with his right honourable friend the Minister of Power and see that the inspectors and the people concerned take this problem seriously; and should the abuses be proved to be quite considerable (as, sometimes, I think they are) I hope that we may in the future have some legislation to deal with them. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Unlawful eviction and harassment of occupier]:
5.47 p.m.
LORD REA LORD REA moved, in subsection (2), after "household" to insert:
"or serves a notice to quit which he knows to be illegal or invalid, serves a notice to quit other than in the prescribed form well knowing that a prescribed form is required."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Wade, I should like to move Amendment No. 38 and, with the Committee's permission, at the same time to speak to the next Amendment, No. 39, because it is an implementation of Amendment No. 38, should it be carried. Amendment 38 is an Amendment to Clause 29 which is the first of the clauses in Part III of the Bill dealing with protection against harassment and eviction without due process of law. This part of the Bill is obviously intended to deal with the activities of the Rachman type of landlord. Clause 29 provides:
"If any person with intent to cause the … occupier … to give up the occupation … or to refrain from exercising any right"
does certain acts specified in the clause
"he shall be guilty of an offence".
The purpose of this Amendment is to add an additional ground on which the landlord may be guilty of an offence; namely, that if he serves an invalid or illegal
1490
notice to quit, knowing it to be such, or if he serves a notice to quit other than in the prescribed form, knowing it is not in the prescribed form, he will be guilty of an offence. It would, of course, have to be proved that this was done with intent to force the occupier to give up possession or to refrain from exercising his rights.
The second Amendment, No. 39, deals with the form of notice to quit that must be given. There was some discussion in another place about the difficulties of laying down such a form; but this has been done in other legislation, and I suggest that there is no insuperable difficulty. It was also contended that if invalid notices were served frequently on a tenant, this would in itself amount to harassment. But the point of this Amendment is that it is just as well to make the position quite clear by putting this in the Bill.
An identical Amendment was put forward in another place in the names of two Liberal and two Labour Members, and was supported from the Conservative Benches. The debate is reported in Hansard of June 29. The Attorney General seemed to welcome the Amendment and thought it was a good one. He said that the matter was receiving the most active consideration, and hoped that a clause dealing with the form of the notice required would be produced by the Government when the Bill came to your Lordships' House. It is because that other form of notice, an alternative form, has not been produced by the Government that I venture to bring forward this Amendment, which I hope that the Minister will accept. If he prefers to say that he will produce an alternative form on Report stage, I shall be perfectly satisfied, and will withdraw the Amendment, though I should like him to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 17, after ("household") insert the said words.—(Lord Rea.)
LORD MITCHISON: The noble Lord, Lord Rea, described accurately what happened on Report in another place. The full words of my right honourable and learned friend to which I think I am entitled to refer were:
"Frankly, we have found the task of finding a form of notice that can be helpful and

1491
effective—and not be a mere bluff which I am sure the hon. Member would not want—a very difficult one. The matter is still receiving the most active consideration of my right hon. Friend and myself and those who assist us, and we hope that we may be able to produce a Clause dealing with a form of notice to quit for production in another place when this Bill goes there. I cannot give positive assurances that we shall succeed, but we shall certainly try, and I want to assure the House of our maximum good will in regard to this problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 715 (No. 143), col. 533, June 29, 1965.]
Then he said that we had inherited a situation that had been allowed to drift, and so on and so forth.
I do not differ from anything said by my right honourable and learned friend, including the sympathy, but I am afraid that we cannot find a suitable form of notice. The reason is fairly simple. The clause itself is in Part III of the Bill and does not apply merely to the kind of tenancies we have been considering in Parts I and II. It applies, in the broadest terms, to tenant licensees, and I could not find words more general than those in the description of a residential occupier in subsection (5). The noble Lord rightly said that there were already forms of notice to quit in connection with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. They are applicable to that Act and to the remedies in it. There are questions of electing on what to rely or on what is wanted. It is in relation to those matters that the prescribed forms of notice to quit are required. Similarly, there are agricultural tenancies. There are points to be considered in ending them, and so on, which are peculiar to the legislation about agriculture.
The result is, therefore, that not one form of notice to quit but a great many would be required, and even then you might not be sure you had found the right one. For instance, one of them would be a form of notice to quit directed, so far as I can see, to a licensee. That is rather a new idea, but I daresay that it would be all right, if only one could find in the middle of this jungle what the noble Lord and his friends are after and what I should very much like to see; that is to say, some simple thing which would just tell the man occupying the house, "You have to get out." I keep thinking of the notices
1492
on some Ministry of Aviation property which read, "Ministry of Aviation. Keep out—that means you!" In this case it would be, "Get out—that means you!" But that is not what is intended here.
What gets worse about this matter is that the person must be told what it is all about. In the words of the Amendment it would be necessary to send him:
"such an explanation of the relevant provisions of this Act as appear to the Minister requisite for informing the residential occupiers of their rights and obligations under those provisions."
What happens in respect of a man in an agricultural holding or some property subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act? It is not much use referring to this new clause; it does not tell him what we all want to tell him. We should have to set out the relevant provisions of whatever Act it was, and either produce a very long compendium or have a large variety of notices and hope to hit upon the right one to serve.
We have come to the conclusion that in these cases the right thing to do is to give as full publicity as possible to the Act itself, and we have already started to do that. To use a notice to quite for circulating provisions will not work because of their complexity. I ask noble Lords on the Liberal Benches to believe that I entirely agree with what was said about this point by my right honourable and learned friend. I should very much like to see something of the sort produced, and so, I am sure, would he; but I do not think that it would work.
The next point is this. The words in Clause 29(2) of the Bill, relating to the kind of thing we are now considering, are these:
"If any person with intent to cause the residential occupier"
to go, if I may use that term for the moment—
"… does acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household … he shall be guilty of an offence."
I should have thought that kind of thing, sending what I might call phoney notices to quit, or a constant bombardment with unnecessary notices to quit, would amount to what is stated in the Bill; and therefore it is a question of whether we are going to give anyone who is prosecuting in a proper case an easier and

1493
better definition of the mischief than is contained in the subsection.
That would present difficulties of its own, because it is a question of the service of a notice to quit which a person knows to be illegal or invalid, or (I paraphrase) which is other than in the prescribed form, well knowing that the prescribed form is required. I think there might be difficulty in establishing this in marginal cases; not in the case of a really bad landlord, but in the case of a landlord whom I might describe as rather naughty and not very knowledgeable. I think it would be easier and more correct to get him on the words in Clause 29(2) as it is, than to try this particular formula in this particular case. So I think that the words already in the Bill cover the mischief and that to pick out this case would be to select a peculiarly difficult one. Confusion when informing the occupier about his rights would be inevitable if we tried to do it in the way proposed, and I suggest that it is better to leave the matter as it is. As I have said, I am well aware of what was said by my right honourable and learned friend, and I have every sympathy with it; but it is no use attempting to do something in a way which would not help. I am afraid that that is my conclusion on these Amendments.
6.0 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lords on the Liberal Benches have not a monopoly of abhorrence of Rachmanism in all its forms. Reading their Amendment closely I came to precisely the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that these acts were covered by line 16, "Acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort …" I do not know how the courts would interpret "peace or comfort". Perhaps the noble Lords would like to have something in the Bill. Peace and comfort may be mental, as well as bodily, and if that were put in, it would be absolutely clear.
LORD MITCHISON: I think that the words imply that. I do not think it is a question of mere comfort like a eupeptic state after a meal. I think it means mental and general peace or comfort. If it does not, I agree with the noble lord, Lord Hawke, that we should have to add something.
LORD AIREDALE: Is not one of the difficulties here that a county court judge, when trying a case, is not allowed to read the words that have fallen from the Minister in Committee stage in your Lordships' House? If a county court judge were permitted to do that, and if a case of a notice to quit which was well known to the landlord to be faulty arose, and the judge were armed with the knowledge of the words of the Minister this afternoon, he would have no difficulty in deciding that here was an offence under Clause 29. But as things are, having to decide the case blind, so far as the House of Lords debate is concerned, the judge might well say that although he would like to think that these faulty notice to quit cases fell within Clause 29, he was doubtful about coming to that conclusion, because if Parliament had wished such cases to fall within the clause, there was nothing to stop it saying so in plain terms, instead of saying that it was to fall within the vague term "peace or comfort". If Parliament really does wish these cases to fall within Clause 29, surely the sensible thing for Parliament to do is to say so by an Amendment to Clause 29.
LORD MITCHISON: I entirely agree that a county court judge cannot consider what we say in this House, or the fact that an Amendment has been introduced and does not finally appear in the Act. Such matters are quite irrelevant for him. But I should have thought that it was our duty to make up our minds what we wanted, and if the county court judge was wise and reasonable, as I presume most county court judges are, then he would consider that the general words in Clause 29(2) would cover these cases of notices to quit as well as a good many others. I think that we must be careful about introducing specific instances of what are really Clause 29(2) cases, for fear of leading county court judges to suppose that, because we have left out the others, they do not matter so much.
The words "calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort" of anyone in the house clearly would include the kind of case that is intended to be covered by the Amendment. If the service of these wrong notices to quit, which are faulty in some form or other, were not calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the

1495
occupier, then I do not think any of us would have any reason to try to deal with it under what is, after all, a penal clause, dealing with the harassment of the occupier. This is a borderline case. I repeat that if I thought we could do this, I should be inclined to agree with the noble Lord and say, "Let us do it". But, for the reasons I gave just now, I do not think so. If we have a complicated provision producing a complicated notice to quit, or a set of explanations with the notice, then in the long run, we shall do more harm than good. I assure noble Lords that my advisers have tried to find a form for this, but they cannot do it. May I add that it has been pointed out to me that these cases would not come before a county court judge—though, of course, the point is exactly the same whatever court they go to.
LORD AIREDALE: If this clause did not include the words "persistently withdraws or withholds services", and if my noble Leader had moved an Amendment this afternoon to include those words, I would not mind having a small wager that the Minister would have had no difficulty in saying, "Those words are not necessary here because such acts would be covered by the general words 'calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier'." It all boils down to what are the practices which ought to be covered by this clause. If we feel strongly enough about it, we ought to put wording in the clause to guide whatever court is dealing with the matter.
LORD MITCHISON: I do not want to take up the Committee's time unnecessarily, but it really is no good going on if you know that the Minister says that he is thoroughly in sympathy with this, but cannot find an appropriate notice to quit. That has been the case all the time. I think that we have said every possible thing about this—I know that I have.
LORD AIREDALE: It is one thing to say that you cannot find a satisfactory prescribed form; for, notwithstanding that, we still get cases of the Rachman-like landlord who produces a phoney notice to quit which he knows perfectly well is phoney.
LORD REA: I can only thank the Minister very much for his most careful
1496
answer and I am glad of his personal sympathy. It is obvious that he sees exactly what we are driving at. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that we do not claim any monopoly of anti-Rachmanism. It is shared by every Party and every Peer in this House. As the Minister has been thinking so hard up to this point, I would beg him to go right on thinking about this through the further stages of the Bill. I beg your Lordships' permission to go on thinking myself and perhaps bring up something on Report stage. With these words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Prohibition of eviction without due process of law]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "premises" and insert "dwelling-house". The noble Viscount said: The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said that this was a jungle; I think it is. Though I do not particularly wish to stand by the words of this Amendment, I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the wording of Clause 30(2). I did not quite understand whether to take the expression "exclusive possession" or the expression "premises". The difficulty that I foresee is this. We are widening very considerably indeed the idea of notices to quit and the requirement to go to the courts, and we are making it subject to swingeing penalties if you do the thing wrong. What I should like to have cleared up—if it is conceivably possible for the noble Lord to help on this, or if he could go on thinking and produce something at a later stage—is where exactly the line is drawn.
"Exclusive possession" is a very unusual expression, I think, in an Act of Parliament. I looked up Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, which is usually a very fertile source of quotations, but there is no statutory reference to this phrase there. The only relevant references are to the Statute of Limitations and to people who have had exclusive possession for the requisite period in order to exclude another owner. "Exclusive possession" is a phrase that one gets frequently in the rating world; but there again, as the noble Lord will remember, it has caused the most

1497
appalling difficulties. For instance, there was a case where someone was an owner-occupier of a house. He agreed to give someone else the sole use of certain rooms together with the right with himself to use the entrances, bathroom and lavatories. The tenant, as he would be under the terms of this Bill, was not held to be in exclusive occupation of the rooms and therefore he was not rateable but the landlord was rateable for the whole hereditament. This is the sort of realm that one is getting into.
It may be the most dreadful thing to say, but some noble Lords and some members of the public employ people like an au pair girl to look after their children, or possibly have a domestic servant, to whom they give a room in their house. I am sure that this is unusual these days, but it does still exist, and it may not be such a dreadful thing to do. Equally, I envisage the case of an hotelier who has a guest in one of his rooms. It is possible that the "tenant" who is staying in a hotel room might come within the definition in Clause 30, and if he refused to go a court order would have to be obtained to get him out. The word "premises" is so vague that it might apply to anything. There is no question, as there normally is in legislation, of something like a separate dwelling, which is the expression used in the 1920 Act.
What, for the purposes of this particular clause, is the borderline? Is it the matter of the control of the house, the ability of the landlord, the owner, to go in and do what has to be done in the room? How is the noble Lord going to be able to give any guidance on what is exclusive possession, or, indeed, on what are premises? Quite frankly, the situation will be this. Nobody will be able to sack any employee who has a room which has been given to him by his employer, either in his house or in any other premises, without the fear of these appalling penalties under the Bill, unless he can be certain that he is not caught by this clause.
I think the clause is very vague. It does not seem to refer back to any of the kind of expressions used in the rating law, or the old franchise law, which was the foregoer of this difficult question on lodgers. I hope that the noble Lord can do something—probably not by accepting this Amendment, but by having another think as to the way the clause is phrased
1498
—to try to make it more clear to members of the public when they can and when they cannot sack somebody in their employ. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 3, leave out ("premises") and insert ("dwelling-house").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD MITCHISON: It was an ingenious effort, but not quite in line with what I was expecting. I thought that I should have to consider the difference between "premises" and "dwelling-house", and what I have to consider is whether "exclusive possession" in this context are the right words. I am not complaining; one has to take these things as they come. Let me try and see just where we are.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do not want to interrupt unnecessarily, but I do not mind whether the noble Lord considers "exclusive possession" or some such phrase as "separate dwelling". It comes to much the same thing; it is merely a different approach.
LORD MITCHISON: Let me deal, first, with the point in the Amendment. I found it, I confess, a little puzzling. What it purports to do is to take out "premises" and insert "dwelling-house". The difficulty about the word "dwelling-house" is this. The noble Viscount, when he consulted Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, might have found that there were five pages describing what a dwelling-house is.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I did.
LORD MITCHISON: It really is a word that is used in many senses. But in the Rent Acts it has a more limited meaning. It is defined by Section 12(2) of the Rent Act, 1920, which says that
"this Act shall apply to a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling … and every such house or part of a house shall be deemed to be a dwelling-house to which this Act applies."
Consequently, "dwelling-house" within the ambit of the Rent Acts has a different meaning from, at any rate, many of the meanings that it has in other contexts: it has a special meaning. Since this clause applies not only to Rent Act cases, but to many others, the omission of the word "dwelling-house" was quite

1499
deliberate, because it might be thought to have a different meaning in some cases as distinct from others, and it is used with the meaning it has in the Rent Act in Parts I and II of the Bill. It was a drafting point, rather, but I think a sound one.
Then one comes to the question of what is put in instead. I agree that "premises" is nearly as bad. But I would ask the noble Viscount—and I have tried time and time again to do it myself—to find a word that has the exact meaning wanted. When one looks at this clause and its object, one sees fairly clearly what is intended and appreciates the meaning of "premises" in that way.
I do not find the difficulty which the noble Viscount finds about it. This subsection (2) is a special case for the purposes of this Act, and it is the special case of someone who under the terms of his employment is in exclusive occupation of premises. What are the purposes? One has only to go back to subsection (1) to see that they are:
"Where any premises have been let as a dwelling under a tenancy which is not a protected tenancy"
and so on, you must not turn a person out without going to court. Subsection (2) goes on to say that for the purposes of this part of the Act this particular case is also included. If you take it like that—and, with respect, I suggest that that is the right way to take it—I think what is meant is clear. I do not think the case of a bedroom occupied by, say, a domestic servant, or, if you like, a relative living in the house, is intended to be covered here. In those cases there is no letting in an ordinary form, and I do not think there is exclusive possession under the terms of the employment. I do not think that is the ordinary meaning of it. I think a stockman who may be required to occupy his cottage under the terms of his employment is one type of case referred to; but somebody who gets incidental possession, as it were, of a bedroom, or something of that sort, does not seem to me to be intended to be covered. At any rate I find that this is as clear as it can be made, and I hope the noble Viscount will not take it amiss if I say to him that, if he thinks there is some other clearer form of words, there is no one better than he to produce
1500
one, except possibly the Parliamentary draftsman who has had a shot. I mean this quite seriously. If he really thinks that he can clarify it in any way, we will be glad to consider what he proposes for that purpose.
6.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I think that what I derive from his speech is this. If somebody has, either by letting, or in terms of his employment, or under a licence, something which is a residential unit, then this provision ought to bite, and you cannot get him out without going to court, unless he goes of his own free will. Where we have these very difficult lodger, hotel bedroom or domestic servant cases, they are not intended to apply. If that is so, then I think this is an extremely important clarification of the purposes of the Bill. I hope that is so.
It seems to me to be the sensible line to draw. If you can go inside with your own key, into your own residential unit, which is a complete unit, whether you are a domestic servant or whatever you are, then you have something which you probably ought not to be turned out of without the permission of the court. On the other hand, if you are living in one bedroom in the house, it seems perfectly ridiculous. I will certainly accept the noble Lord's invitation to see whether I can do better than this. I think it is most obscure. I say that with every respect to the Parliamentary draftsman; I am nothing like as good as he is. It is very difficult to see where this borderline, which I think we have established, appears in the Bill. I will not press this Amendment, but I should like to return to it, if I can, at another stage.
LORD MITCHISON: May I read out a single sentence that was handed to me by way of advice, because I think it puts it better than I have put it? It is this. The idea is simply that somebody is indistinguishable to the naked eye from a tenant but for some technicality is not in law a tenant. It may be a crude way of putting it, but I think it is very good.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am quite convinced that the clause does not say anything of the kind. I will try to produce something better, but

1501
meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved, in subsection (2), after the second word "tenant" to insert:
"unless that exclusive possession is reasonably necessary for another person engaged in his place in that employment".
The noble Lord said: This is a clause which extends protection against eviction to the class of persons who were described in the White Paper as service licensees. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that a licensee is a person who occupies premises of which he is not the tenant. He pays no rent, he is not entitled to notice to quit, but he is entitled to exclusive possession. The class of people who fall into this category of service licensees are as a rule persons who are required to occupy certain premises by reason of their employment. Let me say that this clause has nothing to do with agricultural labourers. As a rule, when this question is debated, it turns largely on the agricultural labourer. He is dealt with in a different clause.
It is easy to enumerate the classes of persons who fall within this category of service licensees. There is the matron of a hospital, who is usually required to occupy a flat in the hospital so that she is present there continuously day and night. Then, among the employees of local authorities—I speak of them because perhaps I know them best—most local authorities have members of their staff who are required to occupy dwelling-houses or accommodation of some sort in proximity to their sewerage works, where their presence may be required at any time during the day or night. Again, in another part of their undertaking, they have staff who are required to live in proximity to their waterworks. They are required to be available at the reservoir or the pumping station, where their services may be required at any time of the day or during the night. Then there are chauffeurs who commonly occupy premises above the garages where their employers keep their cars. I suppose in most office blocks there are caretakers, whose presence there is required by the landlord during the night in order to ensure that there is no damage done at the premises by fire or leaking water, or by burglars breaking in from outside.
All those, classes of persons will under this clause be given protection against eviction. It is perfectly true that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us the other day that the length of time which is required to obtain an Order from the county court is only seventeen days, and I dare say that may be so. Conditions seem to have changed a good deal since I was a county court advocate. But, even so, there may be a considerable period before the landlord is able to obtain possession of these premises.
The point of my Amendment is to provide that if the exclusive possession is required for the purposes of a person's employment then the protection against eviction which is otherwise given to him will not be effective. I rather agree with my noble friend that a certain amount of uncertainty appears to be introduced into this matter by the use of the expression "exclusive possession". I think the difficulty is the word "exclusive". Does it mean that he may exclude his employer? Does it mean that he may exclude his landlord? In the cases I have just enumerated, it is quite clear that the occupant of a premises would in each of these cases be entitled to exclude his landlord—not his landlord, because he is not a tenant, but his employer. The matron of a hospital could close her door and lock it, and say, "So long as I am in occupation of these premises by reason of my employment, I have exclusive possession, and I will exclude the other officials of the hospital from entering my flat."
I am not so confident of the sympathies of the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government about this matter to expect him to accept this Amendment. However, I should like him, and his right honourable friend, to consider whether an exception ought not to be made in the case of some of these classes. I hope the noble Lord will be able to assure us that some consideration will be given to that. If he feels it is not practical or right to exclude every service licensee, then I hope he will think it is possible on Report to exclude some of these service licensees whose services are essential to the public welfare, and have to be conducted when the original employee is discharged. I hope he will think that some of these classes should be excluded in the interests of the

1503
management of public institutions from the general protection against eviction which the clause would otherwise give them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 4, after ("tenant") insert the said words.—(Lord Ilford.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I should like to say one word in support of my noble friend. I am thinking not only of local government institutions but of housing societies for the aged and sick who let flats to custodians having duties in connection with those people. When those custodians take on their duties they do so well knowing that the flat is let to them in consideration of their duties, probably without any payment at all, and it would seem to go a very long way if a person of that sort were allowed to use this part of the Bill to do what might amount to real damage to the people who are in his custody. I hope this Bill will not favour people who are clearly going to try to be difficult.
6.31 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: It is perhaps just as well to look back at the old clause and see exactly what we are considering in this connection. In the first place these are cases of tenants who have held over after the occupation of their premises has been terminated, and the effect of the clause is to oblige the landlord to go to court and to prevent his turning them out otherwise. That protection was given temporarily under the Protection from Eviction Act and it is protection which has been available under Scots Law, as I understand it, for many years past. That is the main purpose of the clause and I imagine no one will differ from it.
LORD HASTINGS: May I just tell the noble Lord that this did not come under the Protection from Eviction Act because tied cottages were not included in that Act.
LORD MITCHISON: With great respect, I think I was perfectly right. I gave the first instance, the main case in the Bill, and I am now coming on to the second one. I think on this occasion I happen to be right.
LORD HASTINGS: I apologise to the noble Lord.
LORD MITCHISON: Then we get the extension of this to all classes of licensees and tenants who, under the terms of their employment, have this exclusive possession. I do not think any noble Lord would wish to deprive the tenant of that protection, and the point of this Amendment is whether it should be extended to licensees, and to a particular class of licensee—probably the largest class of people—whose exclusive possession is reasonably necessary in their employment. Therefore what we are deciding as regards these people is whether the landlord in this case should be entitled to turn them out without going to the court or whether he should be obliged to go to the court.
LORD ILFORD: May I point out that he is not a landlord and he has never been a landlord; he is the employer.
LORD MITCHISON: Yes, I quite agree with the noble Lord. I said the other day that the term "landlord" is loosely used. He is not technically the landlord—should we call him the licensor?
LORD ILFORD: But the point was there has never been any tenancy agreement.
LORD MITCHISON: I am well aware of that. I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. We are extending a protection which no one denies should be given to tenants, and are giving it to licensees. If I may say so, it is a somewhat legal point but a perfectly correct one to say that a licensee has no landlord—he has only a licensor. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that strictly speaking I should have used the word "licensor". I think the noble Lord knew what I had in mind.
The question we have therefore to consider is whether the licensor ought to go to the court or whether he is entitled to evict without doing so. I am afraid the answer to that is quite simply that if you look on this as a balance of what is right and wrong there is no real reason why he should not go to the court. The period of 17 days is no doubt an average and there have been very few applications for cases to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. But the most important thing is that the Scots have done this for centuries and I can see no practical reason why the English should not do the same.

1505
We are drawing a distinction in this case between people who are in this particular position and everybody else, and that distinction will depend on whether exclusive possession is reasonably necessary for someone engaged in that employment. We are drawing a distinction about an important right—the right to have the decision of the court on whether or not you should be kicked out, and it will all depend on whether something or other is "reasonably necessary". I suggest that if we are going to do anything as drastic as that we must then draw a far clearer line than one just depending on what is or is not reasonably necessary. People will require to know whether or not they have got the right to turn these licensees out without going to the court, and it is not what they think is "reasonably necessary" but what the court will think is "reasonably necessary".
It is not right to put people's rights to a decision of that nicety and I cannot believe that this particular case involves so much more hardship than any other to require that a special provision of this kind should be applied to it. One has to remember the other side of the picture. There is someone in this house or flat who has stayed on. I have a certain amount of faith in human nature and we all have some knowledge of housing difficulties. In most cases, at any rate, that person will have stayed on because he had nowhere else to go, and what you will be doing is to give somebody the right to turn him out, on the ground that the incomer finds it reasonably necessary to occupy that place for his employment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Would the noble Lord draw any distinction between licensees of a more commercial type and licensees whose work is of such a character that an emergency may be created if they are not there to do their work? I am thinking of the people who act as wardens of homes. There are schemes whereby a warden lives in a flat or a cottage, and unless that warden is there to help the old people an emergency position may arise. It seems to me there is much more reason for preserving a situation where there is somebody in charge of the sick and the old than there is for preserving the position—shall I say?—as regards the noble Lord's cook.
LORD MITCHTSON: I am not seeking to draw any distinction at all in this
1506
case. I am simply saying that whether a man is a tenant or a licensee, one ought to have to go to court before one can kick him out of his home, and I would add that in most cases, at any rate, he will have stayed on there when he has no further contractual right to stay, merely because he has nowhere else to go.
If I may say so to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, with great respect, he has a very warm heart in these cases—I sympathise entirely with him—but let him remember that if he has his way, someone is going to be turned out of the house he is living in, probably with out having anywhere else to go; and I do not see that you ought to do that without going to the court about it. Particularly I do not see it when I notice that the Protection from Eviction Act was intended to cover, I do not say all these cases but this kind of case, and that in Scotland at any rate this has been the situation for centuries. And when it comes to kicking a man out of the house he is living in without going to court, I do not see why what is right in Scotland is wrong in England. As for the time it takes to go to the court, we had the information the other day from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. But I am a more hopeful person; I think that now we are really beginning to look at the law and its administration more thoroughly and drastically than in the past there is some hope of beating the 17 days average, and we shall not have to go back to the state of things when the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and I went off to the county courts and wondered at their delays.
LORD ILFORD: It took more than 17 days at that time. Of course it is desirable that people should be told whether they are entitled to protection or not, and it was for that reason I suggested to the noble Lord that between now and Report stage he might like to examine some of the cases I have enumerated and see whether he could not make an express exemption in regard to some of those employments I mentioned.
LORD SOMERS: Could the noble Lord make one thing a little clearer, and that is the position I should have been in when I was still teaching? I occupied a flat within the grounds but for which I was paying rent. When I

1507
resigned my position there, would the council of the school under this Bill have had to go to court in order to persuade me to remove myself?
LORD LEATHERLAND: I hope that noble Lords will permit the clause as drawn to go through. I have come across cases of this kind many times in the sphere of local government. There are undoubtedly difficulties on both sides: difficulties on the side of the employing authority which wants the house for the succeeding employee, difficulties at the same time on the part of the employee who is physically housed in that particular house and has nowhere else for the moment where he and his family can go. It would seem unreasonable to me if a man and his family could be evicted merely on the instruction of the employer who happened to be the landlord or the licensor, without any humane regard for the man and his family. At the same time it would seem quite wrong for that man deliberately to stay on as a kind of permanent trespasser ignoring all requests that he should leave.
I speak with some feeling on this matter because back in 1915, when I was 17 and with the Army in France, my father and mother and brother were occupying a house of this kind. True, they were tenants paying a small rent. My father, for some reason best known to himself, decided he wanted to change his job. He did change his job. He changed it in the full knowledge that we would have to give up the house he was then occupying. But at the time it was difficult to find alternative accommodation, and the family was turned out into the street while I was out in France at the age of 17 in a front line trench, 25 yards from the Germans. So I speak with some emotion. Fortunately, however, at that time I had attained the rank of company quartermaster sergeant. My father was able to write and say he would have to buy a house and had I got £100 I could give him? Being a company quartermaster sergeant, I naturally had. But the fact was there, and the family was turned out, and I think that while we are debating legal niceties and the respective merits of the landlord or licensor, on the one hand, and the tenant or licensee, on the other, we must have some regard to the physical fact that a
1508
man and his wife and little children may be turned out into the gutter. The clause as drawn suggests that such cases should go to the court. I think the court is the proper authority to exercise a right in cases such as this.
LORD MITCHISON: The noble Lord, Lord Somers, asked me whether I suggested that the council would have to go to court in order to turn him out of his residence as a teacher when he had ceased to teach there. I should wish to protect even the noble Lord in those circumstances. I do not think it could be right to turn him out into the street if he had nowhere else to go. The question of whether there was greater hardship on one side or the other, and matters of that sort, are the kind of thing that involve an application to the court. All we are really considering here is in what circumstances one human being ought to be entitled to turn another human being out of his home without going to any court about it. I say that is the kind of case courts are for, and if that has not been the law in England for some time it is about time we made it so. The Scots have done it.
LORD ILFORD: Of course, my noble friend was a tenant and never a licensee. I must say I am disappointed at the noble Lord. I thought he would have seen the force of making exception in some of the cases I have enumerated. He does not seem disposed to do so, and in those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"() The preceding provisions of this section shall, with the necessary modifications, apply where the owner's right to recover possession arises on the death of the tenant under a statutory tenancy."
The noble Lord said: This is intended to remove an anomaly from Clause 30. Where a statutory tenant under the Rent Acts dies in circumstances in which there is no transmission of his statutory tenancy to his wife or other member of his family living with him at his death, the people residing with him in the house do not at the moment obtain the benefit of basic protection, as it has been called, under Clause 30, because the tenancy which has come to an end—that is to say, the

1509
former tenancy—is a "protected tenancy" as defined in Clause 32. There is no reason why people lawfully living in the house at the time should not be treated in the same way as regards protection, and the Amendment makes good the omission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31:
Special provisions with respect to agricultural employees. 1948 c. 47. 1949 c. 30.
31.—(1) The following provisions of this section shall apply where the tenant under the former tenancy occupied the premises under the terms of his employment as a person employed in agriculture (as defined in section 17(1) of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 or section 17 of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949).
(2) In this section "the occupier" in relation to any premises, means—

(a) the tenant under the former tenancy; or

(b) the widow or widower of the tenant under the former tenancy residing with him at his death or, if the former tenant leaves no such widow or widower, any member of his family residing with him at his death.

(5) In considering whether or how to exercise its powers under this section the court shall have regard to all the circumstnaces and, in particular, to the following, that is to say—
6.50 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (b): "for not less than six months." The noble Lord said: This is a point that I think came out during our discussion on the Protection from Eviction Bill, and it seems reasonable to insert a limitation of time here because otherwise, as was pointed out on the previous occasion, somebody could move into an agricultural cottage under false pretences and, as a result, get protected possession. You will notice that in Clause 13 these precise words are inserted. There is a limit of six months. Admittedly, it refers to a second transmission on death, but I do not think that is a relevant point; I think it is really comparable. As our special consideration is in respect of agricultural cottages, I would have thought there would be here a term of six months' qualification. I
1510
think it is quite reasonable to ask for it, and I do not really see why the Government should refuse it.
I would also remind the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that when we were discussing this on Committee in the Protection from Eviction Act I moved a slightly different Amendment. It did not refer to six months; it referred to alternative accommodation. But the discussion was the same, and the noble Lord, in fact, said, in column 457 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of December 16, 1964:
"I would make it quite clear, as I do now—and I hope not to repeat it too often—that it does not at all follow that because we treat one type of tenancy or one question in one way in this Bill it would be treated in the same way in a Bill intended to have permanent effect and not simply to last one year."
This Bill has permanent effect, and I think that in this case the addition of the words "for not less than six months" is quite a reasonable request, especially as they have already been used in a previous clause in the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 27, at end insert ("for not less than six months.")—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD CHAMPION: We recognise that the terms of this Amendment are not only mentioned elsewhere in this Bill but precedented in rent legislation. Section 13 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933 has just such a variation. Its primary object—and, of course, it is the object of the noble Lord—was to secure that special benefits are not secured by relatives who come purely temporarily to look after someone in an illness from which in fact he does not recover. What the noble Lord fears is that someone will sneak in, knowing that somebody is likely to die—coming in and trying to ensure possession of a cottage upon the death of the person who is ill.
There have been a number of cases decided subsequently to the passing of the 1933 Act. These cases have shown that the word "reside" implies reasonably permanent residence. The cases are referred to in Megarry under the title, "Residing With" in the following terms—and I quote:
"The word 'residing' indicates reasonably permanent residence and not, for example,

1511
occasional visits, or even seven months spent nursing an aunt, unless the claimant gave up any other house and made the house her sole residence. To reside is one thing; to pay a visit is another."
In the light of these cases, it seems that Parliament in 1933 was unduly nervous in not trusting the courts to use common sense. Although the cases are on the Rent Acts, there seems to be no doubt at all that the courts would be likely to follow these cases when dealing with this matter under Clause 31. But in this case—and this is a matter of some importance—there is in any event no question of a permanent security of tenure being granted to such a temporary visitor as would happen where statutory tenancies are transmitted. We are here dealing with cases where the courts will be able to judge whether the occupier of the farm cottage is, in law and in fairness, entitled to receive extra security. If they thought that it is a case of a relative on a temporary visit who is expecting to return to his or her other home, they are perhaps not likely to give more security than is needed to settle the deceased person's affairs. If, however, the relative has actually given up his home in order to help during an illness from which the former occupier of the tied cottage did not recover, they might be more generous.
In view of the fact that each case will be considered by the courts on its merits, and some hardship might be imposed if this Amendment were insisted on, it seems to us that the Amendment is not necessary and indeed should not be inserted. I am bound to admit the force of the noble Lord's argument that this is precedented elsewhere, with, it is true, similar words being brought in in a different Section of the Bill and for slightly different purposes; but we think that there is a reasonable safeguard here against what I have previously called the person who sneaks in with the intention of staying. This is not a clause which gives anybody the right to permanent residence; it is always for the court to decide. And it would be decided, I imagine, in the light of the advice that is given as a result of a careful consideration of all the cases that have appeared in relation to and since the date of the 1933 Act.
LORD HASTINGS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us this answer.
1512
It is much more satisfactory than anything we had during the discussion on the Protection from Eviction Act. I must say that it has done a great deal to allay my anxiety. Therefore, I beg to leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.57 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved, in subsection (5), after paragraph (a), to insert:
"() whether he has failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation."
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Atholl, who is not able to be present this evening. The Amendment deals with that part of Clause 31 which sets out the factors which the court shall take into account, when, having decided to award possession to a landlord, it is considering whether or not to stay the execution of that order. The factors set out in the Bill are similar to, but not quite so extensive as, those set out in Section 2 of the Protection from Eviction Act, 1964. The purpose of my noble friend's Amendment, which is to reinstate one of those five factors, deals with a situation which I can best describe by example.
Take the case of a landlord with two tenants in tied cottages. Tenant A is lured away into industrial employment in a town a few miles to the North. Tenant B is lured away to another town to the South, to work in a factory there. Let us assume that tenant A takes up his new employment, but does nothing whatever to find himself accommodation in the town in which he is now working. Tenant B, on the other hand, goes to considerable lengths but is unsuccessful. Surely in deciding whether or not to stay the execution of the order which the court has awarded to the landlord they should take into account the difference between these two men. Surely under this Bill it should be possible for the court to say that tenant B deserves, and should have, a longer stay of execution than tenant A. This Amendment seeks to put the matter right and to reinstate among these factors one which was already in the Protection from Eviction Act 1964. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 45, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD COLLISON: I think that your Lordships will be aware of the concern which the agricultural workers and their representatives have felt on the issue of the agricultural tied cottage. Your Lordships will know that for many years we have taken the view that there should be absolute protection. We talked with our friends in another place and reached an understanding that if such protection could be given it would be done. In the event we found that, in the view of our colleagues, this was not possible. It is interesting to know the reason why this view was taken. It was understood that alternative accommodation, if it were to be provided, would have to be found somewhere. One of the considerations which was to be taken into account was the possibility of requiring a local authority to find alternative accommodation if alternative accommodation was available from no other source. This was a project which protected the worker and his wife and family and also the farmer who might need the accommodation for another agricultural worker. In the event, it was pointed out to us that there was a great shortage of housing in the countryside, and that it might be impossible for a local authority to provide other accommodation if it could be found elsewhere.
Frankly, we had to accept this view. It would be clear to everyone, I imagine, that it would be impossible and socially wrong to enact a piece of legislation which required a local authority to turn out the tenant of a council house in order to provide accommodation for an agricultural worker. It might be considered equally wrong that the agricultural worker should be allowed to jump the queue, so we accepted that this was a very potent argument and presented a very great difficulty. Nevertheless, we felt—and I am speaking with great sincerity and with complete honesty—that we should maintain our position that absolute protection should in fact be given and that the understanding we reached that an attempt should be made to do this should be honoured. In the outcome, therefore, what has been arrived at in this Bill is a compromise.
There are three considerations which the courts are asked to take into account. The first is whether other suitable accommodation is or can be made available
1514
to the occupier. This is a consideration which we very much support, indeed we should like it to be the only one, although I appreciate that I am speaking with a sectional interest. However, the National Farmers' Union also put up their proposals which contained a number of suggestions, some of which we opposed and some of which have been accepted. One which has been accepted and is important to the farmers is whether the efficient management of any agricultural land or the efficient carrying on of any agricultural operation would be seriously prejudiced unless the premises were available for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by the owner. We did not like that clause and, for the reasons I have just explained, we opposed its inclusion. Then there is paragraph (c) which takes into account
"whether greater hardship would be caused by the suspension of the execution of the order than by its execution without suspension or further suspension".
What I am saying is that these paragraphs in the Bill are the result of a compromise between parties who took almost completely different views. We took the view, and we make no excuse for it, that we wanted absolute protection. On the other hand, the farmers in the industry took the view that they needed some elbow room to allow them to deal with the situation which required another worker to take over a house occupied by a farm worker. On the understanding that this would be the form of the Bill, we agreed as a union—and you will understand that we are emotionally involved in this and indeed have a sense of obligation to our members—that we would not oppose this Bill. Therefore, this is where I stand on this matter; but, in view of the fact that this was a compromise which was discussed at great length in another place, and discussed, too, between the representatives of the farmers and the unions, out of which consideration this compromise emerged, I would plead with the Committee not to press any further Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: I can put my point on this briefly. The point of this Amendment is to put back in the Bill what was agreed on the Protection from Eviction Act, That, again, was as a result of a compromise after discussion. We wondered

1515
why this particular provision had been taken out. After all, the other provision about the acceptance of alternative premises, and so on, is looked after under paragraph (a) as to whether suitable accommodation is available. It is quite clear from discussions in another place, and from what the Minister said, that this is a balancing objective. There is one thing in favour of the landlord or the farmer, one in favour of the employee, and a nicely balanced aspect about hardship. Therefore, this would upset the balance. When one looks at paragraph (a), one sees the words:
"whether other suitable accommodation is or can be made available to the occupier"
That puts the whole onus of finding accommodation on the farmer. It is not his job to do so; he is far too busy a man. It is a little unfair if there is no obligation at all on the employee to look for accommodation.
LORD COLLISON: May I say that that is not so? There is also, of course, a need, if not an obligation, upon the tenant to find alternative accommodation. In fact, my union always tells agricultural workers in this situation to do their best to find alternative accommodation.
LORD HASTINGS: I am quite sure that in most cases that is so, but there are cases, as the noble Lord knows very well, where the fault is by no means—and I must emphasise this, with due respect to the noble Lord—on the side of the farmer. I know of cases, about which I could tell the noble Lord, in his county and in mine where agricultural employees have stayed on quite inexcusably in a cottage and made no effort at all to find other accommodation. I know of one particular case that occurred last year, in Norfolk, one which seriously upset other agricultural workers, and where no effort was made at all. I do not want to engender any heat into the discussion, for it is true that there are faults on both sides.
I would not advise my noble friend to press this matter in the circumstances, but it is worth bringing up because it is something which was approved by the Government on the previous Bill and which has now been taken out. I think that this is part of subsection (5)(a) itself, whether other suitable accommodation
1516
can be made available to the occupier, and whether he has failed to make reasonable efforts. It is part of the same thing, but was put in as a separate item. I can see that there may be difficulties, if you get an unnecessarily awkward employee who simply makes no effort at all. I only hope that the court would take that into consideration among the other circumstances.
LORD CHAMPION: What we have heard has made it quite clear that this clause is based upon a balance of considerations. It is nicely balanced, it is delicately balanced, to meet something which clearly my noble friend and his union have felt for a long time. We have tried to do our best here, and we could have been much tougher about this. It might well have been that we did not give very much consideration to the N.F.U.'s point upon it, but I should have thought that quite wrong.
We have done something which we did not really like doing. We have broken a part of an Election pledge on this issue, because we realise that the Election pledge would have been unfair to the farming community, and as a result of the careful examination that took place this is an attempt on our part to secure fairness to both sides. I think it would be quite unwise of us to alter it, certainly by means of the first Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, moved and which represents what he obviously feels ought to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, mentioned the fact that the provision in the Protection from Eviction Act was different from this, but the noble Lord knows perfectly well, and so does the House, that that was purely a temporary measure. A little time had to elapse in order that all the consultations could take place between the workers in this industry and the employers, and we have now come forward with this Clause 31.
I have strayed a little from the precise terms of the Amendment here to the balance of considerations, which I might have to return to on the next Amendment, but in the context of the present clause we are not seeking to list all the factors which the court will bear in mind. The clause sets out the vital factors in a case for possession of a tied farm cottage, and seeks to give them in

1517
a balanced formula which does not lean heavily in one direction or another. In my opinion, that is what the whole clause is about. But, in any case, the court is directed to have regard to all the circumstances—I stress the word "all"—and not merely to some of the circumstances, and to the availability to the occupier of suitable accommodation. These two factors seem to us sufficiently to cover the point which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, had in mind when he moved his Amendment. Certainly, we think that to go on adding to the list of factors for the court's consideration might give the impression that the clause contained an exhaustive list of matters to be considered, but this is not so.
As I say, subsection (5) contains a balance of considerations, one favouring the occupier, one the landlord, and one directed to the balance of hardship as between the parties involved. It has been drafted in the light of the Minister's discussions with both sides of the industry, and while we cannot claim that the result has been entirely acceptable to either side—of course it has not been—it maintains a balance which it would be unwise to upset, certainly by the acceptance of this Amendment. So I hope that the noble Lord will consider accepting his noble friend's advice and withdrawing the Amendment which he has moved.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad that the noble Lord now recognises the un-wisdom, rashness and extravagance of his Party's Election pledge on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (5), after paragraph (a) to insert:
"() whether the occupier has found employment other than as an agricultural worker."
The noble Lord said: Notwithstanding the general views on this clause expressed just now by the noble Lord, Lord Collison, and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I must say that this is an Amendment which we consider to be of some importance. I hope that the Government will find it acceptable, because whether or not a compromise has been reached between the National Farmers' Union and the Agricultural Workers'
1518
Union I do not see how anybody can deny that it would not be right to give security of tenure of a tied cottage to a man who got that tenure in order to work in agriculture and then ceased to work in agriculture and found some other employment. Indeed, the Minister, Mr. Crossman, himself made it quite clear in another place, I think as early as the Second Reading of the Bill, that it was not his intention to give security of tenure of a tied cottage to a man in these circumstances. Obviously, to permit a man to go on living in a tied cottage while he was working outside the agricultural industry could well be a very great hardship indeed to a small farmer who had only one or two cottages. That seems to be so obvious that I need not elaborate the point.
In another place an Amendment was moved by some of my honourable friends to exclude such a man altogether from the benefits conferred upon him by this clause. That was resisted by the Government on the grounds that it would be unfair to the tenant, even in those circumstances, and this Amendment is an attempt to meet that objection. But it is also the purpose of this Amendment to give a little more protection to the farmer, particularly to the small farmer, because I do not consider that the risk of the man changing his employment is sufficiently covered by subsection (5)(b) because of the emphasis put upon the word "efficient". Obviously, it would be possible to argue that a small farmer who normally employed one man might, if he worked a little harder himself, be just as efficient as when he had one man working for him. So it seems to me that that does not sufficiently cover the risk which we are trying to cover with this Amendment. It seems to me an eminently reasonable Amendment and I hope that the Government will feel able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 45, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Newton.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I support my noble friend in this Amendment, but I should like to say a few words about the tied cottage in general. I am speaking partly as a Tory squire which is to-day a very unfashionable thing to be, partly as a member of a local authority, and partly

1519
from the point of view of one who is concerned with the housing associations. As a farmer, I know very well that unless I can offer a man a good cottage, and a well situated cottage, I cannot get or retain a good skilled agricultural labourer, who is very necessary in these scientific days.
Consequently, for a skilled man in full possession of his health and strength I cannot see that the alleged evils of the tied cottage system have any real meaning to-day. I feel that a very different situation arises when it comes to the old and ill agricultural labourer. As the owner of an estate, I have a certain pool of cottages, and I can usually place one of these retired labourers into a smaller, more suitable cottage, but it requires the solution of a jigsaw puzzle to do it. This state of affairs is not entirely satisfactory, but up to a point it works. With a small owner-occupier it does not work at all, because he has no pool of cottages and, as often as not, has to rely on the district council; and, as often as not, the district council has nothing to offer, for a considerable time, at any rate.
There is one further point that I should like to make on the provision of these cottages in these stringent times by local authorities. In order to conform to the points system, the local authority very often cannot consider an application from an old person unless that person is definitely threatened with court proceedings—and many farmers find it a very distasteful thing to threaten one of their old employees with court proceedings. It is a great pity that district councils have not been able to provide more cottages for these old, retired people. I do not think it is their fault; nor, I think, is it even the fault of housing legislation. I have known many cases where good schemes have had to be deferred because of some financial difficulty—a credit squeeze, and so forth. Although those things are very unfortunate, I do not think that the present Government are in a position to cast stones at the previous Administration on that score, because never throughout my local government experience has money been more difficult or more expensive to get—and I cannot see that a great stride forward will ever be made in housing until this financial stringency is over.
1520
The need of these old people is there. I happen to be the trustee of a housing association, which I think is the only one in the country specifically reserved for old, retired agricultural workers. We naturally have no difficulty whatever in filling our houses with most deserving cases, and if we had ten houses of the same kind in one county we should have no difficulty in filling them, either. That is the measure of the demand. It is against this background, it seems to me, that this Amendment ought to be considered. The clause as drafted seems to draw no distinction between the claims of a retired agricultural labourer, who may have spent fifty years in the industry, and those of a man who may have spent much less time in agriculture and who may have deliberately taken on an agricultural job with the idea of changing his profession as soon as possible afterwards. That, as the Minister has stated, is really jumping the queue, and the sufferers, so far as I can see, will again be these old workers. I am sometimes surprised that the unions have not taken up much more strongly than they have done the case of these retired people. I do not think it right to leave it to the county court judge to unscramble the problem as best he can. I think Parliament ought to give some direction, some very mild guidance, as to where the priorities lie. It is a very modest Amendment which my noble friend is suggesting, but it gives that bit of direction or suggestion to the county court judge—and, in the performance of his almost impossible duties, I think he will be very glad of it. I support this Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I do not want to delay the Committee for more than a moment, but I should like to speak in support of the Amendment. I entirely appreciate the views of the noble Lord who represents the agricultural workers' union, with which I am very much in agreement, because we all want to do the best we can for agricultural workers. But there is one point he has not made, and I wonder whether the noble Lord who is going to reply could deal with it. Many farmers have taken advantage of the schemes of reconstruction of agricultural workers' houses, or reconstruction by way of hill farming schemes, in Scotland, and

1521
so on. Grants have been given, sometimes by the local authority and sometimes by the Central Government, for schemes approved by the Central Government or by the local authority. Under those schemes, it is not possible to let a non-agricultural worker have a cottage that has been improved by means of a grant made in respect of an agricultural worker. You cannot do it; and it would be very difficult indeed, I think, if you were faced with the problem of somebody who would not go, or somebody who changed his employment when he was in a house that had been reconstructed by means of a grant given, in part, for the improvement of the dwelling as an agricultural worker's house. If the person who happens to be in it then suddenly decides to go off and work somewhere else, but wants to continue to live in the cottage, it will be very difficult. He would have to be put out. It seems to me that this point has not so far been raised, and it makes the problem of the agricultural worker's house even more important and, also, somewhat more difficult for legislation.
LORD COLLISON: Before the noble Lord, Lord Champion, replies may I make just two comments? First, I want to make it clear that I am conscious of the fact that there is a great misunderstanding about the whole question of the tied cottage. People on both sides of the industry talk very loosely about the abolition of the tied cottage. That does not mean, of course, that we want to pull them all down or destroy them all. We on our side recognise that in many cases a house or a cottage on a farm is a necessary part of the farm equipment. What we are concerned with is protection of the tenant, or the service tenant, of that cottage. We want to avoid completely farm workers' being evicted from such cottages. I will not go back to the question as to the difference of opinion between ourselves and the farmers on this matter, except to say that we believe that absolute protection ought to be given.
Next, I would say, having made that clear, that the emotions which are aroused about tied cottages are due to the fact that people are, in fact, evicted. You get several every year—men, women and children who are put out on the roadside. Frankly, I think that in this year, 1965, this is a very improper situa-
1522
tion. My right honourable friend in another place, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, believes that the introduction of this Bill—a balanced solution to this problem, as it has been described—will prevent evictions from taking place. Quite frankly, we do not think it will, although we certainly hope it will. But we are prepared to wait and see about that.
Coming to the Amendment now moved, we cannot accept this, because clearly, if it were accepted, it would destroy the whole intention of the clause. What would happen if a man were declared redundant by a farmer? Suppose he came to the man one weekend, and said: "John, I am sorry, but I no longer have any employment for you." If that man is not in a position to find other agricultural employment, he can be put out. His position is impossible. Of course, it happens very frequently nowadays that men become redundant—although I give the employers credit, that in the majority of cases they do not toss them aside; there is a paternal feeling in agriculture. But the situation is, nevertheless, that, having become redundant, such men must look elsewhere for employment; and I do not think that they should be confined to agriculture. I hope that my point is clear. I think it is a strong one. The man will be in a position either of having to find a job in agriculture or of being threatened with eviction from his cottage.
VISCOUNT GAGE: May I ask one question? This Amendment, as I understand it, does not suggest that these people to whom the noble Lord referred should be removed altogether from the jurisdiction of the court. It suggests simply that where a man is deliberately going out of agriculture, the county court judge shall take that fact into consideration. There is no intention of taking away the protection of the courts from the people to whom the noble Lord refers.
LORD COLLISON: As the noble Lord, Lord Champion, explained, the court takes everything into account. A man may find himself in a position where he has to find other employment. There should not be this lever operating against him and preventing him from taking employment outside agriculture, believing

1523
(as he must believe) that if he did he might be in danger of losing his cottage.
There is another aspect of this problem. I hope that noble Lords opposite will not object to my saying it, but I think it is particularly true that farm workers, as a whole, do not receive very good pay. This is agreed by many farmers and progressive thinkers on the other side of the Committee. That being so, is there anything wrong in the man's seeking employment elsewhere? Is he to be contained in agriculture? Is he to be imprisoned in agriculture without having the possibility of taking employment outside, without being in a position of being threatened with the loss of his house and home? I think that all possibilities are covered by the Bill as it stands. It has been said that it is a balanced Bill, that the rights and problems on both sides are taken into account. Therefore, on these grounds I would ask that this Amendment be not pressed.
7.35 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: Before actually coming to reply to the debate on this Amendment, may I say that I understand that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we did not adjourn for an hour at this time; but rather went on to finish the Bill at a reasonably early hour. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has anything to say on this matter. Clearly, it is a matter for negotiation between the two sides. I should be grateful if he would tell us what he thinks about it.
LORD NEWTON: I fancy that it might be for the convenience of quite a number of us to continue. I think that if we do we shall be able to finish that much earlier, and I imagine it will not be necessary for all of us to sit here while dinner is being served.
LORD CHAMPION: I hope that we shall not all have to stay here. This arrangement is often introduced, and indeed decided upon, in order to help Ministers, who are bound to be closely involved and who cannot very easily "sneak out" to get something. We shall have to try to arrange that.
Coming back to this Amendment, I must say that I have much sympathy with both sides of this argument. That is the trouble. I have farmer relatives who
1524
could be in the difficulty of not being able to get a stockman or a cowman because someone who had gone to work as a road man or in a factory was sitting in his cottage. On the other hand, my sympathy is bound to go also to the people who might be evicted under the old system (which appears to me always to be wrong; that somebody could be turned out, with his possessions, on to the streets) without going to the court in order that the balance of hardship and the various considerations should be considered.
The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, told us that he was a Tory squire. I have never seen anyone less like the cartoonist's picture of a Tory squire. Certainly his interest in planning and in local government removes him from the category of the sort of person I envisaged. But I think he was a little wrong in suggesting that on this matter the instructions to the courts were loose and almost non-existent. Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of subsection (5) appear to me to be pretty straightforward considerations which the county court judge will have to bear in mind when he is taking his decision. Paragraph (b), especially, to some extent answers the point made by the noble Lady. It refers to, "the efficient management of any aricultural land". If a farmer genuinely cannot manage his land efficiently unless he can get somebody out of his cottage and somebody else in, the county court judge is bound to take this fact into consideration, and in those circumstances the man, after a reasonable period, would undoubtedly have to go. This is right. It is a balanced consideration, as is the whole clause.
I have listened to noble Lords on the other side of the Committee and to my noble friend on this side, and I am bound to say that the considerations in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (5) appear to me to be, in the circumstances eminently reasonable and just. There is so much to be said for both sides. The man who takes a cottage simply to get it and who then leaves the job to take other work certainly does not deserve special sympathy. We have no sympathy for him if he does, in fact, sneak in, as I have said in regard to the other consideration of the man or woman who stays on after the death of the tenant. On the other hand, we feel that to deprive a farm worker of any protection

1525
under Clause 31 as soon as he leaves the industry would fail to do justice to the arguments which have been advanced here this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Collison.
As the clause stands now, the court will look at all the circumstances of the case, the proper working of the farm, the house of the farmer's employees, the reasons for his change of job and so on. This, I think, is important. What are the reasons for his change of job? The court will weigh up the factors, and the county court judge is capable of doing this. He has experience of men and knowledge of men; he has long experience of weighing evidence. The subsection as has been said—and I have said it a few times—contains a delicate balance of factors to which the court must have patent regard. Paragraph (a) directs attention to the worker's circumstances; paragraph (b) to the farmer; while paragraph (c) brings out the balance of hardship as between the two parties in the dispute. It seems to me and to the Government that it would be quite unwise to alter this balance by mention of further specific factors.
There is just one other point to which I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. No one likes the dirty trick of any one who obtains a job in order just to secure the tenancy of a cottage of that sort, and who then leaves the job for some other employment. But, as I read the Amendment (I hope I read it correctly), it does not seem to show proper consideration for the situation that arises if an agricultural worker goes into a job with one farmer, and the cottage that goes with it, then promptly leaves that for a job on a neighbouring farm. I should regard such action as being as dirty a trick as going into the cottage in order to secure accommodation and then later going to work on the roads or in a factory.
I do not wish to continue to stress this point, but we must consider that this clause represents a delicate balance between the N.U.A.W. and the N.F.U., between the employee and the farmer. We think it is workable and will give the farmer his cottage when the business efficiency of his farm would be jeopardised if he were not in possession of it. I hope that it will be possible for the noble Lord to withdraw his Amend
1526
ment—I did not like the way in which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, shook his head; I rather fear that he was giving a signal.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord should not attach any significance to any movement which I make with my head.
LORD CHAMPION: If no significance is to be attached to the movements of the head of the noble and learned Viscount, I would rather he kept it still. That would certainly be helpful to me. It has prevented me from going into the marvellous peroration that I was about to deliver. I will leave your Lordships to decide, as I think you must, that this delicate balance ought not to be interferred with.
LORD HASTINGS: I wish to say to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that his whole argument is misconceived. This Amendment is not an attempt to upset the delicate balance to which he has referred. The whole point is that on Second Reading the Minister said that he was entirely against an employee obtaining a farm cottage and then, when he had a roof over his head, taking employment in some other industry. That was confirmed by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary during the Committee stage proceedings. He said:
"On the other hand, merely to say there was no protection for people who leave the industry would lead to considerable abuse."
That was in reply to an Amendment which would have made a person leaving the industry and staying in a farm cottage liable to be dealt with under Clause 30. That would have placed a duty on the court to make an order for possession within the normal time—anything from 17 days to six weeks. Already this man has much greater protection under Clause 31 and there is no question of taking away the protection. Under this clause he has more protection than an ordinary tenant of a non-agricultural tied cottage. The court still has power of suspension indefinitely.
It seemed to us that this Amendment was much milder and more modest than the Amendment moved in another place, and as the Government and the Minister seem to be in favour of not allowing this particular abuse, and indeed said as much,

1527
it seemed reasonable to expect that the Government would not mind our putting this as one of the considerations for the court. It does not upset the delicate balance between agricultural employers and employees. The person concerned would no longer be in agriculture. The fact that this matter comes into this clause is accidental, in that it is designed to get over difficulties which were pointed out in another place. It does not, in our opinion, upset the delicate balance.
LORD NEWTON: As I moved this Amendment, I suppose I ought to say a word at the end of our debate. This is a difficult matter on which to make up one's mind and to decide where fairness lies. I do not agree with the noble Lord,
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [The court]:
On Question, whether Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Champion, that if the Amendment were accepted it would follow that the agricultural worker would be denied the protection which is given to him at present by the clause. I appreciate what has been said several times about the delicate balance, or compromise, which has been arrived at between the N.F.U. and the N.U.A.W., the results of which are incorporated in the clause, but Parliament does not exist in order to give legislative effect to compromises which have been arrived at, even by such important bodies as those two unions.
7.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mills, V.

Albemarle, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Milverton, L.

Allerton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monson, L.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brocket, L.

Gage, V.

Newall, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Glendevon, L.

Newton, L.

Carrington, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Greenway, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Conesford, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Helens, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Denham, L.

Hastings, L.

Selkirk, E.

Digby, L.

Hawke, L.

Somers, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Spens, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Ilford, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Dundee, E.

Inglewood, L.

Thurlow, L.

Dundonald, E.

Killearn, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lambert, V.

Windlesham, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Luke, L.

Woolton, E.

Falkland, V.

Mancroft, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Leatherland, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Archibald, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bowles, L.

Listowel, E.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stonham, L.

Collison, L.

Mitchison, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Crook, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Peddie, L.

Taylor, L.

Hobson, L. [Teller.]

Plummer, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hughes, L.

Rhodes, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Latham, L.

Royle, L.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE: In view of the late hour and of the absence of right reverend Prelates, whom Amendment No. 33 affects, I do not propose to move this Amendment to-night, but I shall put it down again for the later stages of this Bill.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 36 agreed to.
Clause 37:
Furnished houses
37.
(2) The application of the Act of 1946 to any contract shall not be limited as mentioned in section 12 of the Rent Act 1957 but, subject to subsection (3) of this section,—
(a) the Act of 1946 shall not apply to a contract relating to any dwelling the rateable value of which on the appropriate day exceeded, in Greater London £400, and elsewhere in Great Britain £200;
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection 2(a), to leave out all words after "London" and insert:
"£350, in the Special Review Areas in England and Wales (as defined by section 17(1)(a) and (2), section 25 and the Third Schedule to the Local Government Act 1958) £200, and elsewhere in Great Britain £150;"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment follows naturally upon Amendment No. 1, dealing with rateable values, which we were successful in getting into the Bill. In this case, the Amendment concerns furnished houses. It had been put to me that logically I ought to reduce the rateable values even more, because it is obvious that, taking the same house, the rent for a furnished dwelling is higher than for an unfurnished dwelling. Therefore, we should be dealing with rents that are higher altogether than when dealing with rents for unfurnished dwellings. I considered that, but came to the conclusion that, on the whole, it would lead to complications and perhaps the temptation to switch from unfurnished to furnished and from furnished to unfurnished, and I felt that it would be better to keep the same rateable value limits. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will be able to accept this Amendment, in order to make sense of the Bill. He must realise that if he does not, I shall have to divide upon it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 33, leave out from "London" to end of line 34, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD MITCHISON: In the present state of Parliament, I do not pay the faintest attention to threats to divide. Equally, I am not called upon to assist noble Lords opposite in their efforts to arrive at the logical and simple. All I can say about it is this. The increased limits were introduced against the wishes of
1530
the Government and against my advice and vote, and therefore I think that this Amendment is quite wrong. But I think it is even more wrong to have one set of Amendments for unfurnished houses and another for furnished houses. Therefore, if this is put to the vote, I shall naturally not support it; nor shall I oppose it, but trust that it will be put right by other means.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.58 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved to leave out subsection (6). The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a technical and minor matter. In another place an Opposition Amendment was accepted by the Government, the effect of which was to put the word "ordinary" before residence in Section 2(1) of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946. As a result, the scope of that Act is to be confined to contracts granting the right to occupy as an ordinary residence a house or part of a house for a rent which includes payment for the use of furniture or services. This was intended to exclude holiday accommodation from the scope of the 1946 Act. It was felt that the occupiers of holiday accommodation might acquire rights to stay on at the end of their bookings and so upset the holiday bookings of other persons. These apprehensions the Government share, and they are met, and I think met clearly and better, by the Amendment now proposed.
The difficulty about the "ordinary residence" Amendment was that it might cover cases other than the type for which it was really intended. One instance is a student's lodgings. There we could get a question of what was or was not "ordinary residence". The only point that is intended to be dealt with here is the question of holiday accommodation. To that extent, I would not call it a drafting Amendment, but one of a minor character. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 33, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Mitchison.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Lord either in his description of this matter or, indeed, on his statements as to the intentions which actuated my honourable

1531
friend Mr. Graham Page when he moved the Amendment in another place. It is true to say, as was said the other day in relation to another Bill, that it is a minor matter; but it is not really as minor as all that. The noble Lord repeated more than once that this subsection moved in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Graham Page was intended only to exclude holiday accommodation. The Amendment is effective to exclude holiday accommodation, but the noble Lord is doing a great injustice to my honourable friend if he thinks that my honourable friend, who has great experience in these matters, did not fully realise that the wording of the Amendment covered such people as students working away from home for quite considerable periods: indeed, I should have thought that this was obvious on reading the subsection. These categories have been mentioned on occasions during the Committee stage of the Bill, and it has been urged on a number of occasions that provision should be made to protect landladies against any such tenants "squatting" after the end of their tenancies.
My honourable friend moved this Amendment in a speech of commendable brevity, which I am sure would attract the praise of my noble friend Lord Egremont, and the wording of the subsection is, I think, clear and unambiguous. All that the Minister said after the Amendment was moved, and he was asked whether the Government would accept it, was, "Yes, we will". Now the Government, having accepted that Amendment without any criticism of it at all, come to your Lordships and ask your Lordships to agree to an Amendment which cuts down the operation of the Amendment that they accepted.
I cannot believe that this acceptance was a sudden change of mind on the part of the Government. I have no doubt that the Amendment tabled by my honourable friend had been on the Order Paper for some considerable time, and had been considered by Ministers, and the result was that, without any discussion, and no statement other than that they agreed to it, the Amendment was embodied in the Bill. I will not take up further time on this, but I must say that we are not prepared to accede to the noble Lord's proposition that what the Government
1532
accepted as an Amendment should now be limited by what is proposed in this and the next successive Amendment.
LORD MITCHISON: I am in some difficulty here, because I am not quite certain whether I am allowed to refer to what happened in another place. We have been told that a particular thing happened. The text of Mr. Graham Page's short speech is in front of me, and can only say to the noble and learned Viscount, in whose honesty I have complete confidence, that I do not read that short speech in the sense in which he put it to the Committee.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If I may help the noble Lord, I do not think we disagree about that. I think that neither of us can refer to what the mover of this Amendment in another place said, and I certainly have not sought to do so. But I did go on to say that I thought the subsection was clear and unambiguous in its language, and it would be wrong to assume—although Mr. Graham Page did not mention it specifically in moving the Amendment—that Mr. Graham Page did not intend to cover students and people of that sort, and I should have thought that this would be appreciated by anybody reading the subsection.
LORD MITCHISON: I still have the speech here and I am still in this somewhat technical difficulty. What I understood the noble and learned Viscount to say was this: that this was not intended merely to cover the case of holiday accommodation, but was intended to cover other cases. I have looked at the speech, and I am trying to be fair about it. It is perfectly true that at the beginning of it four words refer to other forms of letting; but it was made clear in the course of the speech that the object of the Amendment was to deal with seaside accommodation, and perhaps I am in order in saying that it could be called the "seaside landladies' Charter".
I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount and I want to be completely honest with the Committee about this. May I put it as fairly as I possibly can? I hope I am right, but if I am wrong, the noble and learned Viscount will correct me. I am not talking about the language of the existing subsection; I am talking about the purpose for which

1533
it was put forward, and that was to deal with the case of holiday accommodation, seaside landladies and the rest of it, with which the Amendment I have now moved also deals. Not a word was said about students, and not a word was said about various other cases. What has happened is this. The Government accepted the purpose of the Amendment in order to give effect to the subsection as it was put forward. There were other Amendments on the Order Paper, as appears from the short speech I have referred to. All I am saying is that we have since discovered that it would go further than, as we understood it, the main purpose of the Opposition went. When I say "main purpose", I repeat that in the course of the discussion there was no reference to any other type of accommodation than this, and there were several references to this type.
Surely it is a little unfair to say to the Government, "You accepted something from the Opposition, and you are now whittling it down". What we accepted was accepted for the purpose for which the original subsection was moved, which provided for the difficulty that is still met by this Amendment. I ask the noble and learned Viscount to behave, if I may say so, reasonably over this, and I hope I am doing so myself. This subsection was intended for that purpose. The Amendment covers it. The subsection would have covered other purposes, which may have been in somebody's mind, but which were certainly never mentioned at the time, and which were never put before the Government as the purposes of the subsection.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: It is difficult to deal with this matter without referring in detail to what was said—and I have the Hansard in front of me. However, I do not quarrel with the noble Lord's description of what was said in moving this Amendment. I think if he looks at what I said a few moments ago he will see that I did not suggest anything else. But the language of the Amendment is clear and specific. There were two Amendments under consideration, and the language of the Amendment was to insert into the Bill:
"The Act of 1946 shall be amended by the insertion of the word 'ordinary' before the word 'residence' in section 2(1) of that Act."
The noble Lord knows as well as I do that, when Amendments are tabled,
1534
careful consideration is given by those who brief Ministers as to their effect and scope. How often is it said, when one has drafted an Amendment and moves it, "That may be the noble Lord's intention, but the Amendment does not give effect to it"; that it goes too far or too wide, or it covers too wide a range of classes. One starts with the fact that Amendments which are tabled in another place are, I believe, always considered by the Ministries concerned as to their ambit and effect before advice is given to Ministers.
What I said was that my friend in another place, who is a very skilled draftsman, was perfectly aware that the wording went beyond what I called the holiday visitor. I agree that he based his case for this Amendment upon that. Indeed, I think it is true to say that he makes no mention of that, but I consider it was obvious from the language of the subsection. I understand that there was an arrangement at that stage of the Bill that it would finish at a particular time, and everyone was trying to be brief. If the Minister in charge had said, "Yes, we agree with your intent. We will table an Amendment to put it in proper language", that would be one thing. But the Amendment obviously having been studied, and there being a choice between two alternative Amendments, the Minister in charge said, "We agree", and he agreed to the first without any qualification, and without any comment.
I do not want to take advantage of a slip by a Minister, although slips are most regrettable. But it is of greater moment than that because, as I am sure the noble Lord will recognise, this question of students over-staying in the same way as holiday visitors, had been the subject of discussion in another place. I do not think there is any question of honesty or dishonesty involved in this. There is the question of whether the Government, having accepted this Amendment, without criticising its terms, when its terms are clear, should now be allowed to cut down its scope, to the prejudice of a number of landladies, to particular classes of occupants. We have considered this, and I have taken the trouble of consulting with my friend in another place about it. He has told me that he was fully aware—as, indeed, I

1535
think anyone must have been if they had read and studied the proposed subsection—that it would cover such people as students working away from home for quite considerable periods. Therefore, I am afraid I have no alternative but to advise my noble friends to resist this Amendment.
8.14 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: Before we do so, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will listen for a moment to what I have to say. There is no dispute about the facts. There is no doubt that this Amendment covers more than the seaside landladies' charter, as it was described by the honourable gentleman who moved the Amendment. He moved it at 11 p.m. in an extremely short speech. He did not mention students. He said nothing about any other purpose than four general words, saying that it might cover other forms of letting, or something of that sort. But he put it entirely on the single case of seaside landladies and their accommodation.
It is not for me to lecture the Opposition on political honesty—I should not have the presumption to do that. But I think it is unfair to accuse the Government of going back on their words, when what the Government have done is to accept an Amendment that was put forward for a purpose with which they were in sympathy, but now find that it goes beyond that and includes considerations which, rightly or wrongly, they did not have in mind when accepting the Amendment. All of us know that Governments, individuals, all of us, are fallible. Of course we are. It may well be that one can say to them, "You should have thought better about it. You did not look at it carefully enough". I have been reading a summary description of the 1957 Rent Act, for which the Tory Government were responsible. I would say that it was not perfect, and that those who prepared it were certainly fallible. Of course, Governments occasionally go further than they intended, but really it is "a bit rough" to say to a Government in those circumstances, "You are going back on what you said you would concede", when in fact they were asked to concede one practical point only, and are still doing so.
1536
I cannot, of course, prevent your Lordships from taking advantage, if you so choose, of the fact that it has now been discovered that this clause goes further than the original intention of the Government at the time. I am not talking about Mr. Graham Page. He put it on one point when he may have had others in mind—I do not know. I am going on what he said. After all, I am a very junior Member of this place, and it is not for me to lecture your Lordships about it. It is the last thing I want to do. But I want to make it clear that I consider it distinctly unfair to blame the Government for a case like this, when I think that, if there is any blame, it might rest on other shoulders.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: This is a difficult situation. Owing to the pressure of time in another place, the case may not have been put as fully as it might have been. The noble Lord has said that he has now discovered that this subsection goes wider than it was thought to go. I find that very difficult to accept—with the emphasis on the word "now". I cannot but believe that it must have been perceivable, and clearly so. I am almost inclined to assume that the scope of the Amendment was perceived before ever it was moved.
LORD MITCHISON: If I may—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Perhaps I might just finish the sentence, because I do not want to take up time on this matter. If it was the case that it was perceived (and I cannot myself think that it was not), and the case was put forward for this Amendment on the basis of holiday lodgings, there was a simple course open to the Government—one has seen it done hundreds of times. The Minister has got up and said, "Yes we agree to an Amendment being made to protect holiday lodgers, but this Amendment goes further than that and we cannot accept it. We will put one down which puts that right." That sort of thing happens thousands of times, but it did not happen on this occasion. A Minister may have slipped up—I do not know. But we are told now that it creates a position of some difficulty. When you move an Amendment you do not always put all the arguments in support of the Amendment.
LORD MITCHISON: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. He is telling us that in his view, if I understand it rightly, considerable importance should be attached to the state of mind of the Minister who accepted the Amendment at the time. I have no information about that. I asume that what has happened in this case is that the Amendment was accepted, and was then found to go further. But this is a matter which can easily be verified. I will make an offer to the noble and learned Viscount. I will ascertain—and the noble and learned Viscount knows me well enough to know that I will ascertain carefully and truthfully—what the Minister had in mind; that is to say, whether he realised at the time that this clause went materially beyond the seaside landladies' charter. If I find that he did so realise, that seems to me to put an entirely different light on the matter. I hope that it will also appear to the noble and learned Viscount to put an entirely different light on the matter if I find that he did not realise it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not think that that really goes far enough. I am sorry to pursue this matter. It is not a question of whether he realised it, but whether he should have realised it. One has known cases of Ministers not reading their briefs with the care which they should devote to them. I think that has possibly happened to all of us at different times. The point is that my honourable friend in another place, in moving this Amendment, did it, I agree, with great brevity, but it was his intention, and his desire, that the Amendment should cover other people such as students. The language of the Amendment itself is so clear that it is not confined to one particular category of tenant. I should have thought that that would have been immediately perceptible directly the Amendment was tabled. That being so, I should have thought the Minister ought to have known the scope of the Amendment before he spoke on it, and if he did not, then it is his omission which has created the difficulty, because I have taken the trouble to find out what were my friend's intentions in moving this Amendment. I am not quarrelling about what he in fact said. He was not playing any trick, he was trying to be extremely brief and he knew very well it went beyond that, and
1538
I should have thought that it was immediately apparent to everyone.
I am in a difficulty about this because I do not want to do anything that is unfair. On the other hand, members of my Party attach considerable importance to the point. I do not want to take or to appear to be taking an unfair advantage, and I do not really think I am. Therefore what I will do is to ask the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment now and to put it down again at a later stage. It might be possible for us to have discussions about this matter. It may be that there has been a genuine slip-up on the part of the Minister; but if the noble Lord intends to press this Amendment to-night then I am afraid, on the information I have, I shall have no alternative but to resist it.
LORD MITCHISON: I must repeat, for the sake of perfect clarity, that I am entirely unmoved by threats to divide or not to divide. Fortunately that is not always the end of the matter, and I want it to be quite clear—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: It would be the end of this matter.
LORD MITCHISON: I am not so sure. Let us leave it as it stands and—
LORD CHAMPION: Withdraw it.
LORD MITCHISON: Wait a minute. My noble friend has suggested that I should withdraw it, and indeed I was just about to do so. We will find out exactly what the sense of it is, and for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I shall possibly return to it later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
8.27 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved, after Clause 37, to insert the following new clause.
Notice to quit furnished house let by owner-occupier
".—(1) Where a person who has occupied a dwelling as a residence (in this section referred to as the owner-occupier) has, by virtue of a contract to which the Act of 1946 applies, granted the right to occupy the dwelling to another person and—

(a) he has given notice in writing to that person, at or before the time when the right was granted (or, if it was granted before the commencement of this Act, not later

1539
than six months after the commencement of this Act) that he is the owner-occupier within the meaning of this section; and

(b) if the dwelling is part of a house, he does not occupy any other part of the house as his residence;

section 5 of the Act of 1946 and section 11 of the Act of 1949 shall not apply to a notice to quit the dwelling, if at the time the notice is to take effect the dwelling is required as a residence for the owner-occupier or any member of his family who resided with him when he last occupied the dwelling as a residence.
(2) In this section "the Act of 1946" means the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946: and "the Act of 1949" means the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949.
(3) In the application of this section to Scotland for any reference to the Act of 1946 or section 5 thereof there shall be substituted respectively a reference to the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act 1943 and to that Act as read with section 17(7) of the Act of 1949."
The noble Lord said: This is a case of providing protection for the owner-occupier who wishes to let his dwelling furnished for a time. For example, when he is away on a tour of duty abroad he might wish to let his dwelling furnished and to regain possession afterwards. It is the parallel case with regard to furnished accommodation to Clause 14, which relates to regulated tenancies and therefore to unfurnished accommodation. This matter has been discussed at length, both here and in another place, so I will say no more at present and see whether, as I rather hope, it will commend itself to the Opposition. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37 insert the said clause.—(Lord Mitchison.)
LORD HASTINGS: I have nothing to say in regard to this Amendment except to thank the noble Lord for moving it. As he has said, this does for furnished tenancies what Clause 14 did for unfurnished ones. In fact it is possibly even more important, because I should imagine there would be more cases where people are going to overseas service of one sort or another and they wish to leave their houses furnished. This would probably apply to shorter terms, say a period of two years, than would Clause 14.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Am I correct in thinking that we now have an inconsistency in the Bill and that the two situations are different, under this clause and under the one that was
1540
dealt with before with regard to unfurnished tenancies?
LORD MITCHISON: I do not understand the noble Viscount's question. Perhaps he would make clear the inconsistency he has in mind. If there is any real point I will do my best to answer him.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It does not matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved, after Clause 38, to insert the following new clause:
Discharge of functions of rent tribunal by rent officer
".—(1) Where a tribunal constituted under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946 acts for an area (whether consisting of one or more districts in which that Act is in force) the Minister may by order direct that the rent officer for that area shall discharge the functions of that tribunal.
(2) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such order shall have effect unless it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the rents of furnished accommodation. Its purpose is to make it possible for the Minister by order to transfer to the rent officer, and through the rent officer to the rent assessment committees which are to be set up under this Bill, the work which is now being done by the furnished houses tribunals in those districts where these tribunals have been set up.
I commend this Amendment to your Lordships upon two grounds. The first ground is more important than the second. This Bill sets up an entirely new means of determining rents. It introduces the rent officer and, through him, the rent assessment committees. This new procedure has been described as being akin to a conciliation procedure, and indeed so it is. In my view it is a great advance on the determination of these questions upon purely judicial lines, as has been done under the earlier rent restriction legislation. For my part I welcome this change. I think it is the most valuable change made by this Bill. I have greater confidence in the system of rent officers than some of my noble friends would seem to have. I believe

1541
this substitution of conciliation machinery will prove to be of great value.
The work which is done by the furnished houses tribunals is substantially the same as the work which will be done by the rent officer and by the rent assessment committees, with this difference: that the furnished rent tribunals are dealing with rents of furnished premises whereas the rent officer and rent assessment committees will be dealing with the rents of unfurnished premises. I see no reason why these two parallel forms of procedure should be maintained. I think it would be a good thing, and a great improvement to this Bill, if the principle of conciliation was applied to the fixing of rents of furnished premises in the same way as it will be applied to the fixing of rents for unfurnished premises. The primary aim of this Amendment is to make that possible.
I said a moment ago that I commended this Amendment to your Lordships on two grounds. I hope I have stated the first ground clearly. I attach much greater importance to the first than to the second, because I think this new principle of conciliation in rent fixation is going to be a very useful thing and I should like to see it applied to both furnished and unfurnished accommodation alike.
The second reason why I commend this Amendment to your Lordships is this. It seems to me that we are multiplying the number of these tribunals which are set up for special purposes. Indeed, in the last twenty years these tribunals have proliferated. We have appeal tribunals under the Ministry of National Insurance, appeal tribunals from the decisions of the National Assistance Board and so forth. There are a number of new tribunals which have been set up for different purposes. One of the problems is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to man these tribunals. A good deal was said at an earlier stage in this Bill about the difficulty of finding suitable personnel, and I think that this difficulty exists. It will be relieved to some extent if the personnel at present engaged in the furnished houses tribunals were released for appointment to the rent assessment committees which are going to be set up. I do not think it is a good thing that we should multiply these tribunals, and if we get an opportunity of putting two tri
1542
bunals doing substantially the same work together, saving the manpower which must inevitably be saved if the two tribunals are combined, I think we shall not only be improving our juridical system but we shall be going some way to overcoming the difficulties of finding appropriate personnel for these tribunals.
In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will accept this Amendment. I am conscious that it may be open to some drafting objections, and if it is I hope the noble Lord will be able to say he will give this matter some further consideration before Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 38 insert the said clause.—(Lord Ilford.)
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord has moved his Amendment with all the knowledge which he possesses. He is always listened to with tremendous attention in this House, as is right and proper with a man of the standing he has achieved. We do not think, however, that this Amendment ought to be accepted. In the first place, the rent officer will not necessarily be well equipped to deal with these subjects. First, his experience will be in the field of unfurnished properties; the fixing of reasonable rents for furnished properties will involve an assessment of the value of the furniture, the proper allowance to make for its depreciation and so on. Although we want to secure first-class people for rent officers, we feel that this man would not necessarily have the experience and qualifications to enable him to do so.
Secondly, applications for extensions of security of tenure may involve complicated legal issues which it would not be fair to expect a layman to pronounce upon and which involve considerations quite outside the scope of rent fixing for unfurnished lettings. Questions of security for tenants of furnished and unfurnished lettings are, of course, the exclusive province of the courts, and the rent officers and rent assessment committees have no jurisdiction whatever here.
The next point I want to make is one in answer to the point on proliferation. I know I have used this word a number of times to-day, but I have great sympathy

1543
with the point expressed by the noble Lord. There seem to be too many sitting in judgment on too many things as a result of Acts of Parliament. Perhaps I should not say that as a Minister, but I have said it. We do not want too great a proliferation of this sort of thing. We want to keep it down to a minimum. The Government appreciate the problem involved in having two separate rent fixing authorities, the furnished houses rent tribunal and the rent officers and rent assessment committees brought into being under this Bill, and at the Report stage—I do not know if the noble Lord noticed this—the Minister moved the addition of a new clause to the Bill allowing for the appointment of rent tribunals by the presidents of rent assessment panels. The debate is to be found at cols. 489 to 491, and the clause was agreed to without a Division; that is now Clause 38.
The Minister pointed out that it was not possible in this Bill to integrate the two codes of legislation for furnished and unfurnished lettings, but that the clause allowed the staffing of rent tribunals (for furnished lettings) and rent assessment committees (for unfurnished lettings) to be integrated, so that the same people would apply both codes and so ensure greater uniformity of standards. As far as I can see, if it allows for the staffing to be similar in both cases, it seems to me that the Minister has in fact already met the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, in his new clause.
LORD ILFORD: Do I understand from what the noble Lord has said that it will be open to the chairmen of the panels to appoint to the furnished houses tribunals the same individuals who are serving on the rent assessment committees?
LORD CHAMPION: Yes.
LORD ILFORD: I cannot press an Amendment of this sort. I am a little disappointed that the Government are not prepared to consider it, but I cannot press it, particularly at this late hour, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Mortgages of dwelling houses to which Rent Acts apply]:
LORD MITCHISON: This clause deals with relief for mortgagors, and subsection (1) describes the conditions in which that
1544
relief is to be granted. One of them is that there should be a legal mortgage created before the commencement of this Act, and a regular tenancy. Not all tenancies are binding on the mortgagee; they may have been created by the mortgagor in excess of his powers and in those circumstances are not binding on the mortgagee. This is, therefore, to give protection to the mortgagee in such a case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 22, after ("Act") insert ("and the tenancy is binding on the mortgagee").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.39 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) to insert
"() the mortgagor is not in breach of his covenants (the covenant for the repayment of the principal money being disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph unless it provides for repayment by instalments); and".
The noble Lord said: Again I think I can move this shortly. This is again a case of protecting the mortgagee, and it excepts from the relief given under the clause the mortgagor who is in breach of his covenants. Then the question arises as to the covenant to repay the principal. This covenant is a matter of form in mortgages and it does not, as a rule, have any significance; it is really a relic of the past. But it does have significance in one group of cases; namely, where the mortgage is to a building society. In that case it is a covenant to pay by instalments. Therefore, this clause provides for relief not to extend to a covenant for the repayment of the principal as a rule, but extending it where it is a covenant that provides for repayment by instalments. I hope I have made the point clear. If I have not, no doubt some noble Lord will tell me how stupid and inadequate my statement was. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 28 at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mitchison.)
LORD HASTINGS: Strangely enough, it is one of the clearest statements that I think the noble Lord has made during the Committee stage. Even I can understand it. I think it is an improvement, and I thank the noble Lord very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): This Amendment substitutes for the word "covenant" the appropriate Scottish terms "agreement" or "stipulation". It is therefore consequential upon the Amendment just accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 14, at end add—
("() for any reference to a covenant there shall be substituted a reference to an agreement or stipulation.")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40:
Rateable value
40.—
(4) Where after the date which is the appropriate day in relation to any dwelling-house the valuation list or valuation roll is altered so as to vary the rateable value of the hereditament or lands and heritages of which the dwelling-house consists or forms part and the alteration has effect from a date not later than that date, the rateable value of the dwelling-house on the appropriate day shall be ascertained as if the value shown in the valuation list or on the valuation roll on the appropriate day had been the value shown in the list or on the roll as altered.
8.41 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "that date" and insert "the date on which this Act comes into force". The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the effect of the appropriate day on the valuation of a house, "the appropriate day" being March 23, 1965, when the Bill was introduced. It is laid down in subsection (3) that the valuation of a dwelling-house standing in the lists on or before that date shall be its valuation. But there is an exception allowed in subsection (4) where, owing to an application being made to the valuation officer for an increase, or even a decrease, in the valuation after that date, owing to some material alteration in the house, when that case has been decided the valuation will stand in the lists as from the day it takes effect. In other words, if the application is made before March 23 and the decision is not reached in another two or three months—I do not know how long these matters take; I believe sometimes six months—
1546
then it shall date back. So that, for instance, if an improvement had been carried out to a house shortly before the appropriate day, and the owner had asked the valuation officer for a new valuation, then the increased valuation would date as from before March 23; and that might have the effect of taking that particular house out of the regulation and control of this Bill.
I envisage a situation where, during the passage of this Bill, an improvement has been made in a dwelling-house. It may even have been going on at March 23 and have been halfway through and completed since. Or an improvement may have been started in April or May, and will be finished in August. It seems to me only fair that in such a case the owner of the house, if he so wishes, should be able to apply to the valuation officer for a new valuation to be made, as the result of which his house would increase its rateable value, in which event before the passage of this Bill the house might be above the limit set in this Bill.
It seems to me a little unreasonable that an owner who, for natural and proper reasons, has improved his house after the initiation of this Bill, but before it is passed, or was in fact improving his house when this Bill was introduced, should be deprived of the possible benefit he might receive from this new valuation.
I hope that I have made the point clear. I do not see any reason to suppose that any owner of a house would deliberately embark upon an improvement for the purpose of putting his house beyond the limits of the rateable value set in this Bill. I think that would be a rather far-fetched idea. It seems to me only fair that any benefits that might possibly accrue in that respect should be available to the owner of a house who is carrying out these improvements up to the time the Act comes into force. I hope that the noble Lord will regard this as a reasonable suggestion, and that he will see his way to embodying it in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 4, leave out ("that date") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD MITCHISON: I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord,

1547
Lord Hastings, about the possibility of landlords appearing before astonished tribunals and asking that the assessable value of their house be increased. I fear that any body that had to consider this request might suffer such a shock that they would grant it without further consideration of its purpose. It might pay the landlord handsomely in some cases, and they would be cases which we should desire not to encourage. I quite see that there is something to be said both ways—it is not a large point—and in this case I feel that it is right to follow the worst of all possible examples, the 1957 Rent Act. It had exactly the same problem to consider, in paragraph (5) of the Second Schedule, and it did, in fact, deal with it on the lines at present suggested in the Bill, and not on those in the Amendment. I repeat to the Committee that I see the force of one or two of the points of the noble Lord, but on the whole, where there is a rather difficult situation and one does not quite know how it is going to work out, I think it is better to stick to what was done in this respect in the 1957 Act, whatever one might think of it in other respects.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I must say that if paragraph (5) of the Second Schedule to the 1957 Act is what the noble Lord is relying on, this is a very special case indeed. Is it not Section 11 of the 1925 Act under which, in a certain number of cases, the owner, instead of a tenant, can pay the rates? Perhaps I should be more correct in saying that I think there is a special provision in some places by which rates paid within a certain time attract a deduction. There is an allowance which I think is referred to in the Schedule to the 1957 Act. But surely that is no precedent for the case that is now being put forward. The 1957 Act related to an entirely different set of circumstances, where, on account of prompt payment, one got a small discount. This would have had an effect on the valuation concerned. Surely this cannot affect the case which my noble friend has put forward.
LORD MITCHISON: It is the nearest parallel that I can find. I agree that it is not the same; it could not be, because the two Acts are dealing with different circumstances. There is no instance that I can find in the 1957 Act—I beg your
1548
Lordships' pardon, I see that it is paragraph 2, of Schedule 5. I think I had better not say much more, but perhaps I may make a general proposition. This kind of point did occur in the 1957 Act, and in no instance was the sort of method proposed by this Amendment used to deal with it. I think that it is putting temptation into the thoughts of landlords, and it would have a horrible kind of Alice-in-Wonderland effect if we were to send them before tribunals to ask for their rateable values to be put up in order to get outside the intentions of the Bill. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept the Amendment. I hope that I have the reference right.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: You have now.
LORD HASTINGS: I am sorry the noble Lord cannot accept the Amendment, because I think that it is eminently reasonable; it is a little unfair that it should not be accepted. It is unusual that provisions of Bills should take effect before an Act is on the Statute Book. It is, in a certain respect, retrospective, or nearly retrospective, legislation. If my own Party has been guilty of that heinous crime in the past, I deplore it as much as I do the Government's present attitude. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 50 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Amendment of the Rent Acts in relation to regulated tenancies]:
8.52 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved to leave out paragraph 11. The noble Lord said: This is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 82. It raises a question about Sections 10 and 11 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933:
"…the references to the principal Acts shall be deemed to include references to this Act."
Section 10 of the 1933 Act gives councils of county boroughs and county districts power to publish information about the rights and duties of landlords and tenants under the Rent Acts. Section 11 gives councils of county boroughs and county districts power to institute proceedings.
Under the Bill as it stands, these sections are applied simply in relation to regulated tenancies, and it is thought that in view of the general power available to local authorities under Section 276 of the Local Government Act, 1933 to prosecute and defend legal proceedings where they deem it expedient, the absence of these powers in relation to Parts III and IV of the Bill would not mean that local authorities could not give publicity to these provisions. It has been thought desirable, however, to avoid doubt, that they should expressly be put in. That is the effect of that provision. It is transferred from Schedule 1 to Schedule 6 for that purpose.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 31, leave out paragraph 11.—(Lord Mitchison.)
LORD HASTINGS: I am grateful for the explanation. It did look to me like a transfer; otherwise, of course, I did not understand a word about it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Rent Assessment Committees]:
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved to add to paragraph 1:
"and the Minister may appoint one panel to represent more than one registration area".
The noble Earl said: I am sure the House very much appreciates the great courtesy which both the noble Lords. Lord Champion and Lord Mitchison, have shown in their replies to Opposition Amendments, even though they have moved very little in their answers. However, I am hopeful that they will accept my Amendment, as it is very much in line with the latest statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on curbing public expenditure. The setting up of the rent assessment committees is described in full in Schedule 2 of the Bill. It is quite obvious that there will be a considerable cost to the taxpayer in setting up the committees.
The weakness of Schedule 2, which I suggest has been spotted by this Amendment, was, strangely enough, overlooked in another place. It is that each panel to be set up by the Minister can deal with only one registration area. The result of this will be that in the less populated areas of the country some
1550
registration areas will have very few cases to consider. I suggest that it would be more practical and economical to allow one panel to handle a number of registration areas. This Amendment would give the Minister power, if he thought fit, to appoint a panel to cover more than one registration area, and thus would save unnecessary wastage of public money. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
LORD CHAMPION: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his kind remarks. I am also grateful to him for suggesting something which he thinks will save public expenditure. As he says, there is considerable emphasis on this at the moment, and we should jump at anything which would enable us to do this, provided that it did not upset reasonable arrangements for public and private business. However, we think that the Amendment is unnecessary. Paragraph 1 of the Schedule requires the Minister to draw tip panels of members and chairmen of rent assessment committees for such areas as the Minister determines, such areas, in total, covering all registration areas as defined in Clause 21(1)—that is to say counties, county boroughs and London boroughs. The panel areas can be whatever areas are most practicable, from the point of view of geography and communications, and need not necessarily observe the same boundaries as registration areas. The Minister can alter the panel areas in the light of experience and changing conditions. We think that the point which the noble Earl has in mind is adequately covered in the Bill, although we appreciate his desire to bring this to the notice of the Committee and the Government.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Supposing that the arrangement which my noble friend Lord Kinnoull is suggesting is put into force, will there also be an arrangement by which the panels can change the town in which they hear cases? Can they, so to speak, go on circuit around the districts? Supposing they are large areas, I foresee that it may be convenient that they should sit in one town at one time and in another town at another time, so that members of the

1551
public do not have to travel an enormous way to appear before them.
LORD CHAMPION: I think it is the case (if I should happen to be wrong on this I will communicate with the noble Earl), that this will be very much a matter for the president of the panel to decide. He will be able to fix arrangements that are reasonably convenient both to the members of the panel and to the general public. However, if there is any doubt at all, I will write to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful for the noble Lord's advice. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.0 p.m.
LORD ST. HELENS LORD ST. HELENS moved to add to paragraph 4:
"Provided that each committee has one member with at least five years of practical experience in the valuation of dwelling-houses."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to provide that each rent assessment committee has one member, at least, who has five years of practical experience in the valuation of dwelling-houses. If this Amendment is not accepted, the same difficulties will be introduced into the rent assessment committees as exist already in valuation courts, where you find that the courts are staffed by members who have no practical experience of valuation. Over the years in the valuation courts the members have developed a good deal of expertise and have become experts, not in valuation, but in assessing the evidence which is put before them in the courts.
I myself am no expert at all, but in trying to prepare myself to move this Amendment I went round to a great many reputable, well-established estate agencies. I discussed with them the effect, which exists already in the valuation courts, of not having valuation experts and how this position is likely to be continued in the rent assessment committees. They told me that the situation is created where the plaintiffs in the valuation courts have now got into the habit of putting forward a case in such a way that the average determined by the court will be that which they desire to get, and therefore the
1552
whole system is quite unbalanced. They make their original claim far too high, in the hope that eventually an average convenient to their client will be arrived at.
I suggest that the Government should be extremely grateful for this Amendment because, by their own admission, they expect the administration of this Bill, or Act as it will be, to end in chaos; that comes from the mouth of a Government spokesman. I would quote an article which appeared in a Sunday newspaper on July 18, according to which Mr. Robert Mellish, Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who was addressing a Labour Party meeting at Romford, said:
"There may even be chaos, but it is the sort of chaos I would welcome."
I am sure the Government would not wish this situation to arise.
My noble friend Lord Newton has already quoted an exchange that he had with the noble Lord, Lord Champion, on the Second Reading of the Bill, in which Lord Champion was challenged to say how he would arrive at assessing the rents. He welcomed the challenge, took it up, and said that he himself would be able to assess the rents in any particular area very easily. I am no expert at assessing rents, so again I asked the people who were kind enough to help me in the large estate agencies; indeed, I took the Hansard in my pocket and I quoted this exchange between the two noble Lords to them. Because of my great estimation for the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and indeed my affection for him, I would not wound him by quoting to him what the estate agents said in comment. Indeed, if I were to do so I believe I should be out of order in your Lordships' House. However, the professions do not believe that non-professional people are capable of making fair and exact valuations, so I asked them where the Government are going to get valuation officers. Those men who are experienced in valuation said, "It is quite obvious that they will not be able to get people without paying a very high price, and they obviously will not pay this price because competent valuers to-day are paid between £1,750 and £3,500 a year."
It is quite obvious that the Government are not going to be able to pay for

1553
those people to act in all the rent assessment committees, so there remain only the retired members of chartered professional bodies. Although I feel that the Government would welcome this Amendment with open arms if they possibly could, I think that for practical purposes they will probably have to turn it down, because the retired members of these chartered professional bodies do not exist in sufficient numbers for one to be appointed to each rent assessment committee. So although I realise that this Amendment would be very much welcomed by the profession who have to deal with this practical problem on the spot, I have the nasty feeling that the result will be that the administration will end in the chaos that Mr. Mellish predicted. But I very much hope that the Minister will be able to show me a way out of this labyrinth. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 30, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord St. Helens.)
LORD CHAMPION: I am sorry that the noble Lord found it inadvisable to quote the words that were used about my statement in the House. It might have added to the gaiety of the Committee, if not of the nation, to have heard what in fact was said. But then, of course, I may have found out something about the gentleman's activities, and said something equally forceful about a member of this particular profession. One can always do this—it is part of the exchange—plus the fact that I have been in politics long enough now to be just a little bit thick-skinned.
We certainly are grateful for the intention behind this Amendment, but not for the Amendment itself. We do not feel that we can accept it. It certainly is the Government's intention that a professional valuer should serve on any tribunal whenever the case to be heard requires his expert knowledge, as it normally will. It is, however, we say, going a little too far to say that no committee will be properly composed unless a valuer is present. Valuers are in short supply—I think the noble Lord actually said that himself—and it might prove impossible to get one for every hearing. This would be a pity, but it would not destroy the validity of the decisions taken by a committee when there happened not to be a valuer present.
1554
Now the rate assessment committees will clearly have a body of decisions reached when the valuer was there present with them, and something like case law will be built up. This will guide them. They will have evidence about the property; the chairman of the committee will usually be a lawyer, of course, qualified by his training to weigh up the evidence of comparableness, one property with another; and the case will have been discussed before the rent assessment committee. There may be other evidence—rateable value, for example—
LORD NEWTON: Hear, hear!
LORD CHAMPION: —and, despite our discussion this afternoon, the rateable value will come into the general discussion without necessarily appearing in the appropriate clause. This can legitimately be used to help in arriving at its decision. The members of the committee will normally be drawn from the area in which the property is situated and have a general background knowledge of the values there.
Furnished houses rent tribunals have for years been fixing reasonable rents for lettings, frequently without a valuer to help them, and their decisions have not given rise to serious complaint—very little compaint, in fact. In these circumstances, we think it is too rigid to require a valuer's attendance at every hearing. This should certainly be the general rule; but if the valuer found it impossible to attend at any time convenient to the parties, and if the tribunal had fixed a fair rent for a very similar property in the locality, it might be right to proceed without the valuer member being present.
We think this is something which can be properly left to the discretion of the president of the panel, who has an important function to perform and who will be responsible for the make-up of the committee at the particular hearing. The Minister will leave the presidents in no doubt that a valuer should normally be on every committee and present if possible. Sensible and experienced people such as will make up the panels will not, however, be incapable, we think, of arriving at sound verdicts in many cases; and it would fetter the operation of the committee too much if this Amendment

1555
were accepted. I hope that the noble Lord will see that there is some force in these points, and will consent to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD NEWTON: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has just said, I do not suppose that my noble friend Lord St. Helens will wish to press his Amendment, but I think, all the same, that my noble friend has done your Lordships' Committee a great service in moving it and in saying what he did in moving it—not least for telling your Lordships (and I do not suppose your Lordships knew before; I certainly did not) what the view of one of the two Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is as to the sort of situation which will arise as a result of the activities of these rent assessment committees. He said that chaos will result. That is precisely what I and my noble friends have been saying at every stage of this Bill—although, I would point out, in far less derogatory language.
LORD ST. HELENS: I am only too ready to offer a quid pro quo; and in view of the hasty repentance of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, on the subject of rateable value, and in view of the Amendment that the Government will no doubt put down on the Report stage, I, in return, beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.13 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 62. This is a very simple Amendment, and I need not take very long in moving it. As it is quite obvious that the members of rent assessment committees will have to make a considerable number of purely subjective judgments, with no guidance whatever, or with virtually no guidance whatever, from Her Majesty's Government on how they are to do it, it seems to me very desirable that, at any rate, these assessment committees should consist of an odd number of people, as opposed to an even number of people. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 32, leave out ("one or").—(Lord Newton.).
LORD CHAMPION: As the Schedule stands, the committee will consist of a
1556
chairman and one or two members. Thus the Amendment would not permit—and that was clear from the remarks of the noble Lord—of a chairman and one member. Paragraph 6 allows a chairman to sit alone to deal with a case if the parties agree; and it is anomalous that a chairman should be able to decide a case if sitting alone whereas the Amendment would not allow a chairman accompanied by a member to decide a case. I suppose what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is getting at here—I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I should have said Lord Newton; I ought to remember his name for he has attacked me often enough—is seeking to prevent an equal division of opinion on the committee, the chairman favouring one fair rent, the member another, without any provision for a casting vote. But this state of affairs could perfectly well arise between three members, all holding different views of what a fair rent should be. In practice it is most unlikely that the decisions of a committee will be other than unanimous; this is the experience of rent tribunals operating in this kind of sphere. Indeed, as a magistrate I myself sit on a bench where there are just two of us, and two can operate. One cannot operate, except in certain limited circumstances. But two magistrates can sit. I know it is better to have three and I should prefer three; but I do not think this is the sort of thing that ought to be imported into the Bill and made obligatory.
There is also the difficulty—and the public, or, at least, the people likely to appear, must be considered—that if a committee is convened to hear certain cases and one member at the last moment is delayed and fails to arrive at the appointed place, the considerations of the committee cannot proceed without him. This might involve all parties in needless expense. The Minister has made it clear that he expects, as a general rule, that each rent assessment committee will consist of a lawyer, a valuer and a layman, but I do not think he should be bound by an Amendment such as this to make this composition obligatory in every case.
LORD HASTINGS: What we are concerned with is the constitution of a permanent committee, and not whether a particular case is heard by one, two or

1557
three people. It seems to me that this Schedule deals with the constitution of a permanent committee; and it appears to us wrong that a rent assessment committee should permanently consist of only two people; it should always consist permanently of three. It may be that one of those members cannot attend or that it is not necessary for one of them, even if he is a valuation expert, to attend on any particular case. If I am right in believing that this Schedule and paragraph in particular deal with the permanent constitution of a committee, I think it should be made clear that there must be three members altogether. It would be wrong to have a permanent committee consisting of only two members. That is the point.
LORD CHAMPION: I do not think the noble Lord is right about this.
LORD HASTINGS: I hope I am not.
LORD CHAMPION: I do not think he is; but I should not like to be too dogmatic. We will look at it and I will communicate with the noble Lord. This is not the sort of thing on which we should wish to be dogmatic. We should not wish something to slip into the Bill which is not intended. I will communicate with him, arid, in the light of that, perhaps his noble friend will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD NEWTON: I do not want to press this point, but I doubt whether the noble Lord is right in saying that normally, in most cases, the members of the rent assessment committee will be unanimous in their decisions. I wonder whether Mr. Mellish would take that view. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to ask Mr. Mellish about it. Also I do not think that you can make a comparison between the activities of a rent committee and the activities of a magistrate on a bench. I agree that two magistrates are perfectly adequate; magistrates have primarily to find facts.
LORD CHAMPION: Would you really say that?
LORD NEWTON: I am a magistrate and I regard that as my primary duty. The members of the rent assessment committee would be concerned not with facts but with opinions. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3:
REGISTRATION OF RENTS
Application for registration
1. An application for the registration of a rent for a dwelling-house may be made to the rent officer by the landlord or the tenant, or jointly by the landlord and the tenant, under a regulated tenancy of the dwelling-house.
2. Any such application must be in the prescribed form and contain the prescribed particulars in addition to the rent which it is sought to register.
3. Where a rent for any dwelling-house has been registered under this Act no application by the tenant alone or by the landlord alone for the registration of a different rent for that dwelling-house shall be entertained before the expiration of a period of three years from the following date, that is to say—

(a) where on an application for the registration of a different rent the registered rent has been confirmed, the date of that application (or if more than one the last of them);

(b) in any other case, the date on which the registration took effect;

except on the ground that since that date there has been such a change in the condition of the dwelling-house (including the making of any improvements therein), the terms of the tenancy or any other circumstances taken into consideration when the rent was registered or confirmed as to make the registered rent no longer a fair rent.
Procedure on applications to rent officer
4. On receiving any application for the registration of a rent the rent officer may, by notice in writing served on the landlord or the tenant (whether or not the applicant or one of the applicants) require him to give to the rent officer, within such period not less than seven days from the service of the notice as may be specified in the notice, such information as he may reasonably require regarding such of the particulars contained in the application as may be specified in the notice.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in paragraph 3, to omit all words after "from" down to the end of paragraph (b), and to insert instead: "the date of the last registration". The noble Viscount said: I do not know which of the noble Lords opposite will deal with this Amendment, but I ought in advance to make a candid apology to him in that I think that, as it appears in the Marshalled List, the Amendment does not make sense. I also apologise to my noble friend Lord Hastings. It is not intended to be derogatory to him, but on rereading the Amendment I do not think that it deals with the situation where

1559
rents are confirmed, as opposed to being registered.
If I understand this part of the Schedule aright, here is a slightly curious state of affairs. If an application is made singly, either by a landlord or a tenant, as opposed to a joint application, for a change in the registered rent, one of two things can happen. Either the change can take place, or the old registered rent is confirmed. If a change takes place it may be as a result of the rent officer dealing with the matter, in which case he registers it and there is no more ado. Alternatively, it may go to the rent assessment committee and, if the committee decide that a change shall be made, the rent officer registers the change. If either the rent officer or, on appeal, the rent assessment committee decides that no change should be made the original registered rent is confirmed. In those circumstances, why is it that there is a distinction in the time, in paragraph 3 of this Schedule, before which a person can again come to the rent officer, according to whether or not the rent was confirmed or changed?
As I read it, in the case where the rent is confirmed, in the first instance or on appeal, the three years dates from the application. If the rent is found not to be right and is changed and re-registered, a person can come again in not less than three years from the date of the registration. I cannot see any logic in this. In either case the thing may be fairly long-drawn-out, and it does not make any difference whether it is the landlord or the tenant who applies or whether the rent goes up or down. I cannot see why, merely because an application is turned down, and the rent assessment committee or the rent officer decides the registered rent was correct after all, a person should have to wait less time before applying again—surely this is the effect of paragraph 3 of the Schedule—whereas, if the rent was wrong, the three years is dated not from the date of the application but from the date of the registration. I am sorry if this is not the point which the noble Lord expected to meet, but I wonder whether he could explain the logic in this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 44, leave out from ("from") to end of line 2 on page 36 and insert ("the date of the last registration").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD MITCHISON: As I see it, the effect of the Amendment would be that the three-year period would always run from the date of the last registration of a fair rent, so where an application made after three years to register a different rent failed, it would be open to the applicant to go on making further applications, because more than three years would have elapsed since the date of the last registration. That appears to be a considerable difficulty regarding the Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I started by saying that I ought to put in the Amendment "confirmation or registration", and I have made a different point from that which the noble Lord has answered. Can he, by any chance, give me an answer to the point into which I went in some detail? There seems to be an extraordinary distinction between the situation where a rent is confirmed and where it is changed. I will give the noble Lord a moment to read this Amendment. I can easily continue on this subject for some time, if he would like me to do so. If there is going to be some distinction made, it is a very strange one to my mind, because to all intents and purposes there is no distinction whatever between the two applications. They both go through exactly the same procedure, but in one case the applicant wins, and in the other he loses. Why where he happens to lose he should be able to have a shorter period before he can apply again than if he wins. I cannot understand.
LORD MITCHISON: I cannot see any particular difficulty about this. Time is going on, and the noble Viscount should put down on Report what it is he really wants done to the Bill. That is the object of an Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I cannot expect the noble Lord to be able to answer that sort of question at short notice.
LORD MITCHISON: Not willing.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Not willing, either? The noble Lord realy ought to have been willing to try, but, after all, at this time of night I had better not take advantage of the noble Lord's unwillingness in the way I might otherwise have done. Perhaps the

1561
noble Lord should accept that, because he cannot answer it, it is probably unanswerable, and had better be changed. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.27 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in paragraph 4, to leave out "seven" and insert "twenty-one". The noble Lord said: The next three Amendments go together, and there are similar Amendments later on, one or two of which I may have to move separately. I think that what I am after is clear. I want to introduce some uniformity in the Bill in relation to the time factor. We are dealing with the procedure that a rent officer must pursue on receiving an application for the registration of a rent. In the first case, it relates to seeking information; in the second, to representation in writing, and in the third, to consultation with the landlord and tenant. In each case, the rent officer has to give notice of not less than 7 days. Yet when we come to the rent assessment committee dealing with the same matter, possibly even the same case, they have to give notice of not less than 14 days. It seems odd that the time factor should be different when the circumstances are the same.
In regard to the first time of not less than 7 days, I suppose that a rent officer, seeing this direction in the Schedule, would assume that he cannot give notice under a week and in practice it will probably become about within 14 days. But that is still a shorter time than the "not less than 14 days" in paragraph 10. When an application is sent in by post, it is unlikely that the rent officer will reply by return. He will have a lot of work to do, and it may be a couple of weeks, at best, before he can consider the case and begin serving the necessary notices. We have also to consider that a landlord or tenant may have gone away on holiday and it is perfectly reasonable to go away for 14 days, the minimum length of the normal holiday for anybody. I should have thought that "not less than 14 days", as in paragraph 10, is the absolute minimum that should be allowed.
If the noble Lord were willing to accept these first three Amendments (and the Government could quite easily put these discrepancies right on the Report stage, and put it at not less than 14 and not less
1562
than 21) it would not be necessary to change paragraph 10, as to which I have two Amendments down, and I should be willing to accept that. I have on the other hand, put "not less than 21", which I think is better; and curiously enough, this ties up with the Government's own words in Amendment No. 68, which follows, and which relates to a period of 28 days when there is an appeal, or something of that nature, to the rent assessment committee.
LORD CHAMPION: An objection.
LORD HASTINGS: When there is an objection to the rent assessment committee. So here we have not less than 7 days; not less than 14 days; and, finally, within 28 days. I should have thought that it was reasonable to have not less than 14, if necessary, or 21, which is what I prefer, and which would tie in with the "within 28". I think it is a matter of convenience and logic, and it would avoid confusion. I hope the noble Lord will study this matter again, and that he may he able on the next stage to improve the Bill in this respect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 13, leave out ("seven") and insert ("twenty-one").—(Lord Hastings.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Hastings on this Amendment. I am certain that both the tenant and the landlord will need to take advice on this matter, and the 7 days would give very little time for their advisers to apply to the rent officer.
LORD MITCHISON: These questions of time limits were discussed at considerable length in another place. The concessions were made and the Bill is the result: and there are some further Amendments, which I propose to move shortly, which will go some way to meet some of the points that I am sure the Opposition have in mind. I think the right answer is this. Questions of time limit of this sort are no doubt important, and one wants to get them to work. There are provisions for extensions in cases where we think extension is required, and the periods allowed must, in the long run be a question of judgment. If we make them too short, it will make things difficult for people; if

1563
we make them too long, it will, in practice, allow things to drift along for far too long in cases where, on general grounds, an urgent decision is advisable.
I would say to your Lordships that I feel that, when the matter has been discussed at length, when concessions have been made, and others appear on the Marshalled List of Amendments, we really cannot go into the whole thing all over again; indeed, it is inappropriate to do so. I do not think I should help the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, if I said that I would look at it again, because all I would see is what I am seeing now, and that is that the matter has been discussed at great length and that there have been concessions. Of course the Opposition have not got all they want—they never do in these cases. But they have got quite a lot, and I should have thought that the reasonable thing was to accept what has happened and not to start this complicated business of a timetable all over again. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will accept that. If he does not, he can always put the Amendment down again on Report stage.
LORD HASTINGS: I am sorry that the noble Lord has taken this attitude. I am well aware of what discussions took place in another place. But they were all on specific points of time, and not on the whole timetable all through these different Schedules. There were one or two Amendments; I have read the results altogether, and I am trying to improve the Bill. The noble Lord is tending to treat the last Amendment and this as of a frivolous nature, as though we were not discussing them seriously.
LORD MITCHISON: No.
LORD HASTINGS: That is the impression the noble Lord's attitude has given me.
LORD MITCHISON: I would never treat an Amendment as of a frivolous nature—not this kind of Amendment, at any rate. What I am saying is that in the long run these are detailed matters which are matters of balance of consideration. It has been open to people to raise them, and many of them were raised below. Concessions have been made, and there are further concessions
1564
made on the Order Paper. Could we not, as a matter of common sense, leave it at that?
LORD HASTINGS: I am very sorry, but I think the noble Lord is adopting the most extraordinary attitude, because these matters have not all been discussed. Some of them have, and one or two alterations have been made. But in the generality they have not, in fact, been discussed in the way in which I am discussing them and linking them up. I thought that I was being reasonable and helpful to the Government in pointing out these anomalies, and the difficulties that are going to result, both to landlord and tenant, because sufficient time is not given. If one is not to discuss matters of detail—to use the words the noble Lord used—in Committee when are we to discuss them? This is precisely what Committee is for. I am not going by what has been discussed or not discussed in another place. This is a different discussion. I am sorry the noble Lord takes this attitude. I have no intention of continuing the argument under these conditions, and I shall withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved, in paragraph 8, after "he" to insert "or a rent assessment committee". The noble Lord said: We can, at any rate, have the advantage of seeing what concessions there are on the Order Paper, and I hope they will be considered in due course together with the other matters the noble Lord will be considering.
We now come to a group of Amendments which I might refer to together: Nos. 67, 68, 72, 73, 75, 76, 79 and 80. This is a question of allowing an extension of time for the making of certain objections and requests. The questions arise partly under Schedule 3, "Registration of rents", and partly under Schedule 4, "Certificates of fair rent". The object of all the Amendments is to put in the hands of the rent assessment committee the decision to allow or not to allow an extension of time. I think that in many of these cases—I do not want to prejudice what the noble Lord has in mind—that is a good way of dealing with the time-table.
The first Amendment concerns Schedule 3, paragraph 8. The landlord and

1565
the tenant are given 28 days, or such longer period as the rent officer may allow. If one turns to the acual Amendments, one sees that in effect this is now in the hands of the rent assessment committee, that is to say, if the rent officer does not make sufficient allowance. In Schedule 3, paragraph 16, there is a similar point about where a rent officer is not satisfied that a rent specified in a certificate of fair rent should be registered, and the applicant desires to request that the matter should be referred to the rent assessment committee. There is the timing of that. The next Amendment relates to Schedule 4, paragraph 4. Where a rent officer is not satisfied that he has sufficient information to enable him to entertain an application, the applicant is given fourteen days or such longer period as the rent officer may allow. The fourth case is Schedule 4, paragraph 7, where an applicant objects to the rent which the rent officer proposes to specify in a certificate of fair rent. The applicant is again given fourteen days, or such longer period as the rent officer may allow, to request a reference to the rent assessment committee. So that while leaving the rent officer with the discretion to do this, there is a further extension in the hands of the rent assessment committee.
I am bound to say I shall have to look carefully at the Bill and the Amendments when they are put down on the Marshalled List to discover how far these Government Amendments (if the noble Lord accepts them) have met all the points he has raised. I am sorry if the noble Lord felt I was treating his points as being frivolous. I was not, but I could not very well have referred in any detail to the Government Amendments I am putting forward, and I think we shall both have to consider how far those Government Amendments meet the substance of what the noble Lord had in mind. I fully recognise, as I have said before, that these questions of time are always a matter of balance. If you make them too short you may seriously inconvenience one of the parties; on the other hand, if you make them too long you may make the whole proceedings too slow and inadequate for the purpose we have in mind in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 11, after ("he") insert ("or a rent assessment committee").—(Lord Mitchison.)
LORD HASTINGS: I could not quite make out what the noble Lord was referring to when he intervened on my previous Amendments and spoke of "concessions". Now I realise that he was talking about these Amendments, but I had read them carefully and tried to find out the effect they would have. In fact, I find they are not concessions at all. They are better drafting of what is already in the Bill, and the period of 28 days in the first case and, I think, 14 days in the other cases is the period in relation to that particular paragraph which is already in the Bill. It does not at all affect any of my Amendments, which are a separate matter, and that is why I wanted them considered separately. I hope the noble Lord will look at this rather carefully again. My criticisms of the shortage of time still stand, and with regard to the other time factors I should like the noble Lord to see if he cannot bring a little more uniformity into them and allow a little more convenience for the landlord and tenant in dealing with these particular situations.
LORD MITCHISON: I would just like to say one thing. These are in fact concessions because they allow a further extension of time. It may very well be that the right way to deal with questions of time limits is to give rather more discretion to the rent officers and the rent assessment committees than was given in the original drafting. That is the intention of these Amendments. Therefore the extension of time is not in the form of an extension of the number of days; it is in effect a concession to the party who might otherwise be harassed.
LORD HASTINGS: I appreciated that when I said that they were better drafted, but I do not think they give the power of extension to some of the matters referred to in my Amendments, and even the rent officer only has discretion on one of two occasions and not in respect of all the occasions which I have marked down in my Amendments. If that discretion could be exercised in all cases it might be the easiest way to meet the point.
LORD MITCHISON: I assure the noble Lord I will look into this. It works out as a rather detailed matter of administration and it is obviously not a thing to be

1567
discussed in great detail at this hour. The noble Lord clearly understands I can give no undertaking whatever to make any alteration, and my present impression is that the solution has been sufficiently reached already.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 14, leave out paragraph 9 and insert—
("9.—(1) If no such objection is received then—

(a) if it is received within the said twenty-eight days or a rent assessment committee so direct the rent officer shall refer the matter to a rent assessment committee;

(b) if it is received after the said twenty-eight days the rent officer may either refer the matter to a rent assessment committee or seek the directions of a rent assessment committee whether so to refer it.

(2) The rent officer shall indicate in the register whether the matter has been referred to a rent assessment committee in pursuance of this paragraph.")—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 42, after ("officer") insert ("or a rent assessment committee").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 45, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
("(3) If such a request is made, then—

(a) if it is made within the said fourteen days or a rent assessment committee so direct the rent officer shall refer the matter to a rent assessment committee;

(b) if it is made after the said fourteen days the rent officer may either refer the matter to a rent assessment committee or seek the directions of a rent assessment committee whether so to refer it.")—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Certificates of Fair Rent.]:
LORD MITCHISON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 39, after ("officer") insert ("or a rent assessment committee")—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 41, leave out from ("committee") to end of line 42 and insert—
("(2) If such a request is made, then—

(a) if it is made within the said fourteen days or a rent assessment committee so direct the rent officer shall refer the application to a rent assessment committee;

(b) if it is made after the said fourteen days the rent officer may either refer the application to a rent assessment committee or seek the directions of a rent assessment committee whether so to refer it.")—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 15, after ("officer") insert ("or a rent assessment committee").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 18, leave out paragraph 8 and insert—
("8.—(1) If such a request is made, then—

(a) if it is made within the said fourteen days or a rent assessment committee so direct the rent officer shall refer the application to a rent assessment committee;

(b) if it is made after the said fourteen days the rent officer may either refer the application to a rent assessment committee or seek the directions of a rent assessment committee whether so to refer it.

(2) If no such request is made or if such a request is made but the application is not referred to a rent assessment committee the rent officer shall issue the certificate.")—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
LORD MITCHISON: This is the Amendment which was discussed on a previous paving Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 34, at end insert—
("3. In sections 10 and 11 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933 the references to the principal Acts shall be deemed to include references to this Act.")—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Enactments Repealed]:
9.50 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: This Amendment and No. 84 provide for two further repeals of the 1957 Rent Act which are consequential on the repeal of Section 11(3) of that Act. This was the section which enabled the Minister by order to release dwelling-houses from control under the Rent Acts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 26, column 3, at end insert ("Section 13(2).").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 41, after ("6") insert ("in paragraph 8(3), the words or subsection (3)'").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HASTINGS: I should like just to thank noble Lords opposite for their patience and ask them to excuse me for my apparent impatience. I think we have managed to get through this Bill without delay, and to discuss it thoroughly. I know that this has been a long session to-day, but we have had to get through it. I am grateful for the way in which noble Lords have dealt with our Amendments, which have often been rather complicated and discursive.
LORD MITCHISON: May I thank noble Lords opposite for what has been constructive help? Of course there have been points of difference—there always are. But there has been a great deal of constructive suggestion coming from the other side. May I, too, be allowed to say that I hope I have not sounded too cross in the last half an hour or so?
On Question, Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

  WITHDRAWAL OF SUNDAY RAIL SERVICES
  WITHDRAWAL OF SUNDAY RAIL SERVICES
  LOW-FLYING AEROPLANES OVER S.W. LONDON
  LOW-FLYING AEROPLANES OVER S.W. LONDON