Sitting of 5 December 1966

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Iorwerth Rhys Thomas, esquire, Member for Rhondda, West, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Pharmaceuticals (Imports and Exports)
    Sir N. Cooper-Keyasked the Minister of Health what amount in dollars and other foreign currencies was spent in the United Kingdom on imported drugs and medicines during the 12 months to date.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): The value of pharmaceuticals imported in the year up to October, 1966, was £12·9 million of which £2·8 million was from North America.
    Sir N. Cooper-Key: What proportion of the total prescriptions made up during that year does that figure represent?
    Mr. Robinson: The percentage is small. If the hon. Member wants an accurate mathematical figure, he will have to put a Question down on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Health whether he will state the amount earned in foreign exchange by the exports of the British pharmaceutical industry during the past 12 months.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The value of "Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Products"
    912
    exported from the United Kingdom for the year up to October, 1966, was £65·15 million, of which £37·17 million was to non-sterling areas, but the net foreign exchange earnings would, of course, be much less after allowing for imports of raw materials and remission overseas of royalties and dividends, the figures for which are not ascertainable.
    Mr. Fisher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that direct exports this year are running at the rate of over £73 million a year, which is 6½ times the level of imports, and that even this does not show the industry's true contribution to the balance of payments, because it does not include the earnings of British subsidiary companies operating overseas?
    Mr. Robinson: I had in mind that, according to the industry itself, in 1963 it had contributed £35 million to the balance of payments. This was, incidentally, almost entirely earned by British-owned firms. The net export earnings of British subsidiaries of overseas firms slightly exceeded their net remittances abroad.
    Mr. Braine: I hope the Minister is not going to be grudging about this remarkable industry. Is it not a fact that exports in the last 12 months are 9 per cent. up on the year before? Would he not admit that this industry makes a valuable contribution not merely to the conquest of disease but also to the balance of payments?
    Mr. Robinson: I have not contradicted this. I just wanted to get the figures right. I gave the figures in my original Answer, and for the year up to October the gross figure was £65·15 million.

    Land
    Mr. Loveysasked the Minister of Health whether, in disposing of land for which his Department has no further use, he will give the previous owners first refusal if they had been unwilling sellers to his Department in the first place even though they did not insist on compulsory purchase.
    Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir. Other Government Departments have first refusal of surplus hospital land.
    Mr. Loveys: Does not the Minister feel under a definite moral obligation, particularly if land is not needed for the public benefit, to offer the land back to the owners, who agreed to sell purely to help the hospital service and who would now be offered the land back automatically had it been compulsorily purchased in the first place?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. Surplus hospital land for which there is no other Government use is then offered, save in one set of exceptional circumstances, to local authorities.
    Mr. Loveys: May I give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Hospital Supplies Organisation (Report)
    Mr. Loveysasked the Minister of Health what representations he has received concerning the Report of the Committee on Hospital Supplies Organisation under the chairmanship of Mr. Hunt.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I have invited comments on the Report from interested bodies, but have so far heard from only a few.
    Mr. Loveys: In view of the real concern felt within the suppliers' organisation of the Health Service about certain of this Committee's proposals, is the Minister aware that there is a real need for further consultation with the people doing the job on the spot before reaching a final decision?
    Mr. Robinson: It is early to say what the reactions to the Report will be, but I have asked for comments by the end of the year and I shall, of course, study them very carefully when I receive them.
    Mr. John Page: Does the Minister insinuate that he will publish the Report in full, or has he passed it to certain organisations? Is he aware that a large number of organisations are holding up their manufacturing programmes until a decision is reached about the recommendations of the Report?
    Mr. Robinson: Copies of the Report have been made available not only to
    914
    hospital authorities but to a wide range of interested professional and staff organisations and trade associations. They have also been given to the professional Press.

    Cervical Cancer Tests
    Mr. Bostonasked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that it is sufficient for cervical cancer tests to be carried out once every five years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I am advised that on present information the interval is reasonable, but I shall be willing to reconsider it in the light of experience and research.
    Mr. Boston: My right hon. Friend's willingness to reconsider it will be welcome, because it is the view of some doctors that a short period of, say, two years would be preferable, especially in view of the fact that one of the two forms of cancer concerned tends to develop rather more quickly than the others.
    Mr. Robinson: Research is going on into this. All I can say is that at the moment the five-year interval is based on what we consider the probable natural history of the pre-invasive condition.
    Mr. Braine: We very much welcome the Minister's willingness to look at this aspect of the matter. Is he aware that recent experience of screening suggests that some positive results are being detected now among women below the age of 35? Would he consider the possibility of reducing the age at which screening begins?
    Mr. Robinson: We have discussed this before at Question Time. The lower age limit is to some extent tied to our resources and the stage of development of the service. Women below that age who want to have a test are not refused and the full service will be extended as soon as possible.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the Minister certain that there are sufficient facilities to deal with all cases which are detected by this test?
    Mr. Robinson: No doubt the hon. Member means hospital facilities—and the answer is, Yes. Sir.
    Dr. John Dunwoodyasked the Minister of Health what progress is being made in the provision of facilities for cervical smear tests.
    Mr. K. Robinson: By June of this year tests were being performed at a rate of nearly 1¼ million a year. This was double the figure for June 1965.
    Dr. Dunwoody: I thank my hon. Friend for that most encouraging reply. Will he ensure that further public health education measures are taken to encourage more of the women who are especially at risk to visit these clinics? Would he also take steps to ensure that, wherever possible, clinics are held in the evening so that women with large families can more easily visit them?
    Mr. Robinson: I will certainly consider the last point my hon. Friend has made. Publicity has to be carefully managed locally to keep it more or less in line with the development of facilities. I have been in communication with local health authorities which are responsible for publicity on this point.

    Drug Industry (Public Ownership)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to bring the drug industry into public ownership to avoid the competitiveness in this field.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I cannot usefully comment on this proposal in advance of the report of the Sainsbury Committee.
    Mr. Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that duplication of research and wasted expenditure on advertising detracts from the efficiency of this industry? Is he aware that on this side of the House there is a strong suspicion that in certain sections of the industry private profit takes priority over human health?
    Mr. Robinson: The matters to which my hon. Friend has referred are certainly within the terms of reference of the Sainsbury Committee.
    Mr. Fisher: In considering these matters, will the right hon. Gentleman always bear in mind that his hon. Friend is really advocating a State monopoly on the lines of the system that operates in
    916
    Russia, where notoriously no new drugs are being produced and where the industry is about the worst in the world?
    Mr. Robinson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall, as always, bear all the relevant considerations in mind; but I think that we had better await the report of the Committee.
    Mr. Braine: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, concerning his hon. Friend's suggestion, that the Department's statistics show that competition between drug firms has had the effect in recent years of sharply reducing prices?
    Mr. Robinson: That may be true in one or two cases. Competition where there are patents to the extent that there are in the pharmaceutical industry is, of course, limited.

    Drug Addiction (Treatment)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Health what steps he has taken towards setting up a pilot scheme for the treatment of drug addiction.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) on 24th November.—[Vol. 736, c. 354.] A further meeting of the conference of experts will take place next week.
    Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern on both sides of the House about the lack of progress since the publication of the Brain Report? What is being done about the register of addicts, about over-prescribing by doctors and about treatment centres? Is he aware that several doctors have ceased to treat addicts and that this is of grave concern to us all'?
    Mr. Robinson: I am aware of the concern in the House generally about this problem. I assure my hon. Friend that we are not by any means inactive in this matter, and that, in any case two of the things she asks for would require legislation and I am not yet in a position to make a statement about that.

    Disabled Persons and Chronic Sick
    Mr. Astorasked the Minister of Health if he will initiate an inquiry into the overall needs of disabled people and

    917
    the steps necessary further to co-ordinate the services at present provided by various authorities.
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to ascertain the needs of the disabled and chronic sick and the steps necessary to improve and co-ordinate the services provided for them by all the authorities concerned.
    Mr. K. Robinson: A number of studies of the needs of the disabled or of the services provided for them are in progress or projected, and I see no need for any general inquiry.
    Mr. Astor: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Answer to the last Question indicates a lack of necessary knowledge? Does not the fact that at least seven Ministries are concerned with various aspects of the disabled, as well as local authorities, indicate that there is a great need for us to have a fuller understanding of the problem and for more adequate action to be taken to cure it?
    Mr. Robinson: I agree that one of the difficulties about the terms "disablement" and "chronic sick" is that they have no precise meaning. I have sponsored a research project to find an acceptable measure of "disablement" for use in a subsequent prevalence study. A study into the state of the services provided and demanded will, if practicable, be associated with this.
    Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the disabled generally and the chronic sick in particular, who get no constant attendance allowance when at home, are wholly dependent on local authority services, which vary widely in both scope and quality from one part of the country to another? Would it not be helpful, in the framing of policy, for the Minister to co-ordinate what is being done and inaugurate fresh inquiries so that something effective may be done for our fellow citizens?
    Mr. Robinson: Many of the chronic sick, particularly the young chronic sick, are dependent on hospital services as well as local authority services. My Standing Medical Advisory Committee has advised me to undertake a survey of the services they receive in hospital. That will be
    918
    done, and, in addition, my Department is conducting a planning study of the home help service, which is relevant to this problem, and a sub-committee is being set up to review the services for epileptics. This shows that a great deal is being done in this matter.
    Mr. Molloy: Would my right hon. Friend indicate that the representations which have been made to him and which may be made in future by the Disablement Income Group will be afforded full and authoritative examination?
    Mr. Robinson: I should, perhaps, refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) on 17th November.
    Dr. Winstanley: Would the Minister not agree that he has himself outlined the difficulty here in that there are so many different organizations—hospitals, home helps, local authorities and seven Ministries—involved in providing these services? Would he, therefore, not agree that there is a real and urgent need for integration under somebody like a disabled persons' officer?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. I do not think that that would be the solution to this problem. The two areas to which I referred are both under my Departmental responsibility, and I do not believe that there is any serious lack of co-ordination there.

    Motor Vehicles
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Health whether, in the light of his review of the problem, he will now agree to provide suitably converted cars for disabled drivers instead of the single-seater vehicles at present provided.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Health when he expects to receive and act upon the promised report on invalid vehicles.
    Mr. Robert Daviesasked the Minister of Health when a report will be made on the feasibility of providing suitably adapted small cars for the use of disabled persons and their families.
    Mrs. Knightasked the Minister of Health whether he has completed his

    919
    review of the regulations governing the circumstances in which his Department bears the cost of converting vehicles to hand-controls for war-disabled pensioners; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Deanasked the Minister of Health whether the current review of vehicles for the disabled will include financial help for people who have their own cars adapted or who buy cars which are already suitably adapted.
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Health when he proposes to provide disabled drivers with two-seater vehicles or an alternative cash allowance, equal to the cost of maintaining single-seater tricycles, to offset the cost of maintaining their own cars.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): My right hon. Friend is studying the results of the review and hopes to make a statement to the House early in the New Year.
    Mr. Brooks: I thank my hon. Friend for that indication that further thought is being given to this matter. Is he aware that the House was given to understand in the summer that the results of this review would be made available during the earlier part of the winter? Is it not a matter on which neither procrastination nor parsimony should be allowed to stand in the way of the happiness of the disabled?
    Mr. Loughlin: I must correct my hon. Friend on one point, which is that I have constantly said in the House that I hoped to have this review available before the end of the year.
    Mr. Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that the provision of suitably adapted small cars would enable disabled people to live more normal family lives?
    Mr. Loughlin: Without wishing to be presumptuous, I do not believe that anyone is more aware than I am of the problems and benefits that might accrue from this review. All the problems concerning this issue will be taken into account in the review.
    Mrs. Knight: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) and that a promise was made to me
    920
    last summer, four months ago, that a review would shortly be forthcoming, that this was said eight months after I had first raised this matter, and that for 12 months previously my predecessor had been raising it? Since this is a straightforward matter of fairness to disabled ex-Service men, does he not agree that it is time that his Department got a move on?
    Mr. Loughlin: The last thing I want to do is to get involved in a political discussion on this subject. I have repeatedly said time and again from this Box this year that I hoped to get the review through by the end of the year.
    Mr. Dean: Referring to Question No. 49, can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the anomalies which appear to exist in the case of those who buy vehicles which have automatic transmission and appear to get a smaller grant will be dealt with in the review?
    Mr. Loughlin: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will take into account all these matters. But apart from this review, if the hon. Gentleman has a particular case and will let me have the details, I shall be glad to look at them for him.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the problems of alternative grants as well as second seats in these vehicles are being included in this inquiry? He will surely be aware that we are all conscious of the problem and difficulties, but we do not accept that these difficulties can any longer stand in the way of the provision of these things?
    Mr. Loughlin: I am not too sure precisely what the hon. Gentleman means by alternative grants, but I can assure him that what has been discussed in question and answer in this House and all other related matters will be considered in this review.
    Sir R. Cary: I am aware of the very large sum of money involved and also of the concern which is always shown by the hon. Gentleman about this matter, but I think that the provision of a substantial amount of money on motor cars for the disabled——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must know he must ask a question.
    Sir R. Cary: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Loughlin: I think I understand the hon. Member's question, although it was not posed in the form of a question. He referred to the substantial amount of money involved, and I would ask the House to recognise that the question of the additional amount of money which can be allocated will have to be considered in the light of all the other priorities with which my Department is concerned.

    Doctors (Countries of Origin)
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Minister of Health what proportion respectively and excluding consultants, of the physicians and surgeons working in the Hospital Service are citizens of the United Kingdom; and whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures showing separately for each regional hospital board the numbers and country of birth of doctors, excluding consultants, both resident and non-resident working in the Hospital Service.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Health how many doctors now working in British hospitals were born outside the United Kingdom.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT such figures as are readily available.
    Mr. Macmillan: To what extent is the National Health Service relying on doctors other than those born in this country—that is, doctors largely from the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Robinson: Taking all the grades from senior registrar downwards, the total number is 4,854 doctors. The percentages vary considerably according to the grade.
    Mr. Goodhart: In view of this very large number, what steps has the Minister taken to discover what proportion of the doctors who are immigrants intend to return to their countries of origin in the comparatively near future?
    Mr. Robinson: Doctors have been coming here for post-graduate training for very many years. I do not think that the pattern has changed materially between those who stay and those who—and these form by far the larger majorit—return home again when their training is over.
    Following are the figures:
    1. Information by citizenship is not available; but in the following grades the percentage of doctors born in the United Kingdom and Eire, at 30th September, 1965, was:—

    Senior registrars

    85 per cent

    Registrars

    54 per cent

    Junior hospital medical officers

    59 per cent

    Senior house officers

    41 per cent

    House officers

    72 per cent

    4,854 doctors in these grades were from other countries.
    2. Number of Medical Staff of the grade of Registrar and below in each region in England and Wales at 30th September, 1965, analysed by place of birth:—

    Grades of Registrar and below

    Region

    Total

    Born in United Kingdom and Eire

    Born Elsewhere

    All regions: Total

    10,234

    5,573

    4,661

    Newcastle region*

    581

    262

    319

    Leeds region*

    561

    238

    323

    Sheffield region*

    638

    264

    374

    East Anglian region*

    265

    134

    131

    London regions†

    4,219

    2,546

    1,673

    Oxford region*

    383

    228

    155

    South Western region*

    519

    333

    186

    Welsh region*

    547

    250

    297

    Birmingham region*

    838

    424

    414

    Manchester region*

    866

    381

    485

    Liverpool region*

    553

    350

    203

    Wessex region

    264

    163

    101

    Notes:
    * Also includes the staff of the regional teaching hospitals.
    † Includes all staff of the Metropolitan Hospital Boards and of the London Post-graduate and Undergraduate teaching hospitals.
    Staff holding appointments with more than one employing authority are included separately under each authority.

    Dental Health Education (Report)
    Mr. Julius Silvermanasked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to implement the recommendations contained in the Cohen Report on Health Education which relate to dental health education.
    Mr. Loughlin: On 1st December, a joint circular from the Health and Education Departments was sent to all local health and education authorities in England and Wales with suggestions for strengthening their dental services, including their arrangements for dental health education. My right hon. Friend will consider with the new health Education Council, when it is set up, what further steps should be taken.
    Mr. Silverman: Could my hon. Friend say when this consideration is likely to

    923
    take place, and will he bear in mind that it is anomalous that in a matter of national concern dental health education should be borne simply by the profession at the present moment?
    Mr. Loughlin: My right hon. Friend has actually recently informed local authorities and dental and other interests of his proposal for the setting up of this body and has asked for nominations.

    Geriatric Services
    Dr. John Dunwoodyasked the Minister of Health what plans there are to develop further the geriatric services.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I have asked hospital boards to make an early provision in their programmes for the expansion of their geriatric services.
    Dr. Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend go further and try to encourage a much greater degree of co-ordination between hospital services, general practitioner services and local authority services with the intention of maintaining many more old folk in their own homes rather than in institutions and hospitals?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, I have on several occasions urged on all authorities in the Service the desirability of co-ordinated planning of joint operations for these services. I agree with what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Pavitt: In view of the need to pursue this line of co-ordination, would my right hon. Friend seek to have in various areas an experiment in a changed structure of co-ordination between the three wings of the Service to deal with old people?
    Mr. Robinson: In so far as this is possible under the present statutory structure, I think that my hon. Friend will find that this is already taking place in certain areas.
    Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister take steps to ensure that local authorities have more money to spend on domiciliary services, because these are of vital importance in keping old people happy?
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Lady knows that the provision of local services is a matter for local authorities. They must decide their priorities as between the
    924
    various headings of expenditure which they incur.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware how disappointed we are in North-East Essex that he has not been able to help us with day hospitals?
    Mr. Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman has a Question about his constituency or area, I should be obliged if he would table it.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) for the next Question, but he got a supplementary through on this one.

    Play Groups
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Health if he will recognise play groups for young children as a social service for which grants are made available, particularly in areas of high blocks of flats.
    Mr. Loughlin: This matter will be considered when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science considers the report of the Central Advisory Councils for Education on primary education, including the educational needs of children under five.
    Mr. Allaun: I am grateful for that Answer, for what are mothers to do if they have nowhere to put their children to play? How can mothers living on the tenth floor run down in time to keep their toddlers from running in front of traffic?
    Mr. Loughlin: My Department is concerned, in dealing with the question of children under five, with children who need care on health and welfare grounds.
    Mr. Bence: Will my hon. Friend consider that in the planning of high blocks of flats of high density provision should be made for play-group facilities?
    Mr. Loughlin: There may be much in what my hon. Friend says, but planning, of course, is a matter for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

    Medical Research
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Health what is his estimate of the amounts spent on medical research

    925
    in the years 1955, 1960, and 1965, respectively; and what steps he is taking to increase this research.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The approximate amounts spent by my Department on medical research in England and Wales were as follows:

    £

    1955–56

    …

    …

    …

    28,000

    1960–61

    …

    …

    …

    131,000

    1965–66

    …

    …

    …

    685,000

    (estimated)

    I hope to continue to increase this provision. The main responsibility for allocating funds for medical research lies with the Medical Research Council.
    Mr. Roberts: While I welcome the increased amount spent on research, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not agree that it is now high time to break away completely from the miserly attitude of our Tory predecessors? Would he further agree that some of the millions of pounds wasted on armaments could be transferred to meet this human need?
    Mr. Robinson: I can only repeat that, so far as my Department is concerned, I hope to continue increasing the provision.
    Dr. Winstanley: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the growth in the number of professionally-sponsored organisations which are set up purely to raise money for research into such matters as congenital heart disease and leukemia? Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this growth represents a failure on the part of official sources to provide enough money for research?
    Mr. Robinson: No, I would not agree with that. I think this is probably more a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

    Roehampton Hospital (Limb Fitters)
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Minister of Health if he will now make a statement on the distress and inconvenience caused to patients by the work-to-rule by limb fitters at Roehampton.
    Mr. Channonasked the Minister of Health if he will now intervene to end
    926
    the work to rule by limb fitters at Roehampton.
    Mr. K. Robinson: An agreement has been reached between the employers and the union, and the limb fitters have today resumed normal working.
    Mr. Royle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the country will be delighted that this shameful business is finished? Is he also aware that there is great concern about the appointments system at Roehampton Hospital, which was partly involved with the working-to-rule by the fitters? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an immediate inquiry to take place into the appointments system at Roehampton Hospital?
    Mr. Robinson: We are constantly seeking ways of improving the appointments system, but I think that the important and immediate thing for me to do is to get rid as quickly as possible of the waiting list that has developed as a result of the go-slow.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: While being grateful to the Minister for his original reply and for his reply to the supplementary question, may I ask whether he will consider again looking carefully into the facilities at Roehampton Hospital which, I understand, have caused some of the complaints among both patients and those who work there—facilities which were once adequate but are no longer so owing to the increase in work?
    Mr. Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman has any specific criticism or complaint to make on behalf of those who go to Roehampton Hospital for treatment, I shall be very glad indeed to look into it.

    Invalid Children (Co-ordination of Services)
    Mr. Archerasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to co-ordinate the diagnosis, treatment and social welfare provisions available for invalid children.
    Mr. Loughlin: In March of this year a joint circular was sent by the Department of Education and Science and my Department to all local health, welfare and education authorities calling for a review of arrangements for co-ordinating services for handicapped children and

    927
    young people, and emphasising the importance of early and complete diagnosis and continuing care and support. Reports from these authorities are now being considered.
    Mr. Archer: While thinking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind when he reviews the matter that a great deal of suffering could be avoided if the results of early diagnosis were made available to education authorities so that they could place children in suitable schools, and to the youth employment service to enable it to place them in suitable employment?
    Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. My right hon. Friend will be considering the reports and, no doubt, will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

    Day Nurseries (Building Programme)
    Miss Lestorasked the Minister of Health, in view of the concern expressed by many local authorities regarding the unregistered child minder, whether he will take steps to ensure that the present-day nursery building programmes of local authorities are fully implemented without delay and extended to meet the growing demand.
    Mr. Loughlin: Local authorities' ten-year plans envisage an increase of 68 in the number of day nurseries between 1965–66 and 1975–76. Thirty-two day nurseries are included among the capital building projects for which my right hon. Friend hopes to recommend loan sanction this year and in 1967–68. He will review the programmes again early next year.
    Miss Lestor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he not aware that because the demand for these places exceeds the supply there is a growing mushrooming of rather unsatisfactory child-minding services now? Would he therefore give an assurance to the House that there is no plan to cut this nursery building programme in the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Loughlin: We consulted local health authorities in 1965 and asked them to review the arrangements in force in their areas under the Nurseries and Child Minders Regulation Act. A small num-
    928
    ber of local authorities raised the question of unsatisfactory and illegal minding. I would not like the House to get this out of all proportion. We shall keep watching the position.

    Infant Welfare Clinics
    Miss Lestorasked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have set up weekend or evening infant welfare clinics.
    Mr. Loughlin: I regret that this information is not available centrally.
    Miss Lestor: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of these clinics have been set up and in one, for example, in the Notting Hill Gate area the number of attendances has more than doubled since it was set up four years ago? Would my hon. Friend not agree that this demonstrates that there is a demand for these services and that possibly many young children would probably not receive the services of a welfare clinic unless it takes place in the evening or at the weekend?
    Mr. Loughlin: I agree that, in addition to the clinic mentioned by my hon. Friend, there have been one or two other experiments along these lines in London. But I am not sure that evening clinics of this kind are as satisfactory as may appear on the surface. I would not like to think that we were pursuing a policy which meant that youngsters would be kept up very late in the evening.

    Doctors (Supply>
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to increase the number of qualified doctors in this country by 1970.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) on 24th October.—[Vol. 734, c. 622–3.]
    Mr. Goodhart: How does the Minister expect to increase the supply of doctors when the morale of clinical teachers has been shattered by the mishandling of their salary claim? Can the Minister give an assurance that the just claim of the clinical teachers will be met by the end of July?
    Mr. Robinson: I am sure that the hon. Member knows that that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
    Mr. Braine: Yes, but I think that the House would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman, whose heart is in the right place on this issue, I am sure, is making the strongest possible representations because, as my hon. Friend said, unless young clinical teachers are encouraged to remain in the medical schools the medical schools will not be able to turn out the number of doctors we need by 1970. It is as simple as that.
    Mr. Robinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who has been a Minister, knows that discussions and representations between Ministers are not made public in the House.

    Tetracycline
    Mr. Hollandasked the Minister of Health if he will issue a circular to medical practitioners drawing their attention to the dental side effects of some of the tetracycline group of antibiotics.
    Mr. Loughlin: I understand that an article in this month's issue of Prescriber's Journal will draw attention to the risk of staining of children's teeth by tetracyclines. These effects have been well reported in medical, dental and other scientific journals and warnings are included in the British National Formulary and, where appropriate, by the drug firms in their literature. My right hon. Friend does not think that a circular to doctors is necessary.
    Mr. Holland: The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned an article. Can he tell us the date when it will appear?
    Mr. Loughlin: I understand that it is to appear in this month's Prescribers' Journal, which the hon. Gentleman will recognise is an independent journal and is sent to every doctor.

    Health Service Charges
    Mr. Deanasked the Minister of Health how much he estimates will be paid during 1967 by National Health Service patients in respect of the four new charges to be introduced on 1st January, 1967.
    Mr. K. Robinson: These are charges for services outside the National Health Service. I cannot estimate what will be paid, but the total is unlikely to be large.
    Mr. Dean: In spite of that reply, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this means that he has now removed his previous policy with regard to abolishing all charges within the National Health Service, and can he further say whether he agrees with Professor Abel-Smith in his suggestion that there should be charges in other aspects of the Health Service as well?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. This bears no relationship to policy on charges within the National Health Service.

    Deafness (Treatment)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health what advice he has received from the Medical Research Council on the treatment of sensory-neural deafness by fluorides; and if such treatment is available within the National Health Service.
    Mr. K. Robinson: None, Sir. I understand that this treatment is not being investigated by the Medical Research Council, and I am not aware that it is being used in the National Health Service.
    Mr. Pavitt: As this has shown some startling results in the United States of America, particularly at Johns Hopkins University, will my right hon. Friend use his influence with the Secretary of State for Education and Science to get the Medical Research Council to embark on research on this and make the results available to people in this country?
    Mr. Robinson: I shall certainly call to my right hon. Friend's attention what my hon. Friend has just said.

    Cigarette Smoking (Advertising)
    Mr. Francis Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Health what further steps he will now take to limit cigarette advertisements and to discourage cigarette smoking, in view of the proven hazards to health of this addiction.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Health if he will seek power

    931
    to take action against the rapid growth of cigarette sales promotion by means of gift coupons and against Press advertising of cigarettes.
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement with regard to his recent discussions with the tobacco manufacturing companies about restraint in advertising by such manufacturers.
    Mr. Peter M. Jacksonasked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement on his negotiations with the tobacco manufacturers to control and restrict the sums spent on cigarette advertising and other forms of promotion.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer my hon. Friends to my reply on 20th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe). The review of future levels of advertising and of coupon schemes which I then said we should be undertaking with the manufacturers is at an advanced stage, but I am not yet ready to make a further statement.—[Vol. 730. c. 27–8.]
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he will be ready on Friday, when we shall discuss one aspect of this subject on a Private Member's Motion? Secondly, does he not agree that it is quite illogical, having accepted the argument that advertisements are too dangerous to go on television, to allow them to continue to appear in the Press and other media?
    Mr. Robinson: I am not yet in a position to say whether I shall be in a position to say something in the debate on Friday, but I think that perhaps we should await that opportunity, when we can deal with the matter at greater length.
    Mr. Allaun: Has not cigarette advertising on television been more than replaced by coupon promotion to the extent of £24 million this year? Particularly in view of the alarming figures of lung cancer which my right hon. Friend gave last week, does he not think that this is deliberately frustrating the attempts to reduce cigarette smoking?
    Mr. Robinson: I agree that the number of coupon brands has increased, but I think that there is a significant
    932
    difference between television advertising of cigarettes and coupon schemes, although I am discussing the question of coupon schemes with the industry.
    Sir B. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend undertake that he will——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker cannot hear the question.
    Sir B. Janner: I hope that it was not my fault, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: No. I was not referring to the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir B. Janner: I was asking my right hon. Friend if he would give an undertaking that he will do all he possibly can to stop the further production of new coupon brand cigarettes, because this is a very serious matter from the point of view of lung cancer being promoted by the smoking of cigarettes.
    Mr. Robinson: I certainly deplore any form of sales promotion which brings pressure on people to increase or to maintain the number of cigarettes which they smoke. As I say, I think that we could perhaps deal with this at greater length in the debate on Friday.
    Mrs. Knight: Has the Minister seen the report issued today to the effect that cigarette smoking is very much more dangerous if the air is polluted? Is he looking at this side of it as well?
    Mr. Robinson: That is another matter, but air pollution and its effects have already been very exhaustively studied in medical research.
    Mr. Jackson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that while tobacco advertising is allowed it renders nugatory the work of his Department in warning the public of the dangers of smoking?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not think that it quite does that, but, as my hon. Friend knows, I am concerned to see the amount of advertising of cigarettes limited and, if possible, reduced.

  HOSPITALS

    Chaplains
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Health what is the average salary of a full-time hospital chaplain; how

    933
    many are employed by the National Health Service; and how many have living accommodation provided in or near hospital premises.
    Mr. Loughlin: The average of the salary scale is £1,327 plus a house or an allowance in lieu; 110 at 30th September, 1965; about 50.
    Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in view of the shortage of money for the National Health Service in general and hospitals in particular, it would be a good idea if we were to ask the Church authorities if they would bear the costs of the chaplains' service?
    Mr. Loughlin: I am not sure that that would be feasible. I rather take the view that if we are providing a service to our patients—and I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion about the merits of one service against another; say, the medical as against the spiritual services—we should pay for it.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Astorasked the Minister of Health how many hospital beds are at present occupied by disabled people who would be capable of living at home if adequate financial resources were available to them to pay for necessary non-medical care and attendance.
    Mr. Loughlin: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Astor: While appreciating the difficulty of identifying this group of people, would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that it is very desirable to enable and encourage these people to live at home when possible, not only for their own advantage and for the benefit of their families, but because it would release much-needed hospital beds?
    Mr. Loughlin: I agree that it is desirable, where possible, for disabled people to live at home.
    Dr. David Owen: Would my hon. Friend undertake to make certain that such a survey is put in hand, in view of the fact that the alarming statistics—which show the number of young chronic sick in geriatric hospitals—need positive inquiries?
    Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate that there is a difficulty of identification here. I assure the House that we are constantly considering the whole issue and that we will continue to look at the whole matter to see how best we can provide a service to these patients.

    Emergency Dental Services
    Dr. Winstanleyasked the Minister of Health if he will investigate the possibility of establishing emergency dental services, staffed by local dental practitioners on a rota system, to provide cover during the night and at weekends in those hospitals which do not at present have a dental department.
    Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir. I have no evidence that the demand for emergency dental treatment at weekends and at night is sufficient to warrant the kind of arrangement suggested by the hon. Member.
    Dr. Winstanley: Is the Minister aware that the present arrangements for dental emergencies in most parts of the country exist only on paper? Will he not agree that there are some dental emergencies—dental haemorrhage, for example—which need very much more effective provision than we have at the moment?
    Mr. Robinson: I do recognise that there are serious dental emergencies, but I can assure the hon. Member that where a patient has any difficulty in making contact with his own dentist, or where he has no dentist, telephone exchanges will be supplied with information about other dentists in the area or a local rota scheme.
    Mr. Braine: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has had any recent discussion with the British Dental Association about this, since I believe that the Association always took the view that it was ready to co-operate in such a scheme provided some central premises might be provided?
    Mr. Robinson: I am not aware of any recent discussion, but according to my information, in some areas where dentists have formed voluntary rota schemes for emergency treatment they have broken down for lack of patients.

    Pay Beds (Charges)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that pay-beds at the General Hospital, Cheltenham, which receives constituents of the hon. Member for South Worcestershire as patients, have increased in charge since 20th July from £5 2s. per day to £5 13s. per day, or £35 14s. per week to £39 11s. per week; and, as this is prima facie contravention of the standstill conditions for prices and incomes, outlined on 20th July, what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    Sir E. Erringtonasked the Minister of Health why, in spite of the prices and incomes standstill, the charge for a private room at the Aldershot General Hospital has increased from £45 10s. to £57 1s. per week.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 14th November.—[Vol. 736, c. 8.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why a nationalised service has been allowed to raise its prices for private beds in hospitals by such a wide margin, whereas charges in a private nursing home or hospital have been absolutely frozen? Is there any equity in this matter?
    Mr. Robinson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my statutory duty under Section 5 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, is to ensure that charges made to private patients cover the full costs of the accommodation and service provided, and the regulations made under the Act require the rates to be revised annually, each October.
    Mr. Murray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he could save himself a lot of trouble about being asked this sort of question if beds were based on need and not payment?
    Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend will know that pay beds have been subject to review, the results of which I am at the moment considering with a view to equalising the pressure on pay beds and non-pay beds.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that one of
    936
    the difficulties we have in the service is that we still provide private beds and that some of us on this side of the House would like to see the service do away with them?
    Mr. Robinson: I am not proposing to do away with pay beds, but, as I have said, I am reviewing the whole position and hope to announce the results fairly soon.
    Mr. Dean: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise the contradiction in his earlier answer? Is he not aware that when it suits the Government they have caused employers to break their contracts?
    Mr. Robinson: I received advice that, in view of the provisions of the Section, I have mentioned, and in the knowledge of what an appropriate charge should be, it was not possible for me, without risk of legal challenge, to make regulations postponing the implementation of the revised charges.
    Sir G. Nabarro: In view of the unsatisfactory Ministerial reply, I beg leave to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest moment.

    Commonwealth Nurses
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Health to what extent the recruiting of Canadian, Australian and New Zealand nurses to the National Health Services has been affected by the application of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I have no means of measuring this, but I am not aware that the application of the Act has materially affected recruitment of nurses from these countries.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: If I draw the Minister's attention to an individual case of difficulty, would he kindly consider it with sympathy?
    Mr. Robinson: Certainly, but if my guess is right that this is the case of a New Zealand nurse, this may well be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

    Frenchay Hospital, Bristol
    Mr. Dobsonasked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of patients awaiting admission to Frenchay Hospital, Bristol, divided into the categories of treatment required.
    Mr. Loughlin: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The list is now abnormally large. It has doubled in less than four years. Would he agree that there is a need to increase the number of medical staff and nurses available at the hospital and bring forward the current building programme to meet the hospital's need?
    Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend should be careful about statistics. He knows that Frenchay is a first-class plastic surgery unit. If the plastic surgery is excluded, there has been no increase in the waiting list in the past year. The main reason for the high number of patients awaiting plastic surgery is that a theatre for this specialty was closed in 1965 for major building work and this threw a burden on to the waiting list.
    Following are the figures:

    Specialty

    Number of patients on the waiting list at 30th September, 1966

    General medicine

    9

    Chronic sick

    10

    General surgery

    473

    Tonsils and adenoids

    205

    Other ear, nose and throat

    73

    Plastic surgery

    2,937

    Thoracic surgery

    100

    Neurosurgery

    98

    Gynaecology

    710

    Gastro enterology

    15

    Total

    4,630

    New Hospital, Clacton-on-Sea
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Health why the proposed completion date for the new hospital at Clacton-on-Sea has now been put back to 1975
    Mr. Loughlin: No starting or completion date has so far been suggested for the new hospital.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that by 1975 the Clacton area will have expanded by the equivalent of a new town, 25 per cent. of whom will be elderly? Does he think it right that only 40 extra beds are considered sufficient for such a new town?
    Mr. Loughlin: That is hardly the Question on the Order Paper. Where there are population expansions of the kind the hon. Gentleman suggests, regional hospital boards will keep constantly under review the extra needs of the area concerned.
    Mr. Ridsdale: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Claybury and Goodmayes (Staff)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement about staff shortages in hospitals with special reference to ancillary workers in Claybury and Goodmayes.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Ease of recruitment varies in different regions and for different grades of staff, but I am informed that the two hospitals mentioned by the hon. Member have no difficulty at present in obtaining ancillary staff.
    Mr. Iremonger: Is the Minister aware that there was serious threat of a strike at Claybury Hospital not so long ago and that the main difficulty was shortage of staff because of unattractive rates of pay? Will he ensure that when the freeze is ended the Confederation of Health Service Employees' claim is considered by the staff side?
    Mr. Robinson: It looks as if my information is a little later than the hon. Gentleman's. I think that there were difficulties earlier, but they appear to be overcome now. The pay of ancillary staff is at present being examined by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Perhaps my right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to the fact that the weekend before last Queen Mary's Hospital, Stratford, had to close its operating theatre through lack of staff. As this is due to the poor wages and salaries received, cannot my

    939
    right hon. Friend do something to ensure that these wages and salaries are increased before the freeze ends?
    Mr. Robinson: As I have just told the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), the question of pay is at present before the National Board for Prices and Incomes. If my hon. Friend wants a reply about the hospital he mentioned, perhaps he would table a Question.
    Mr. Braine: Is it true that shortage of staff at particular hospitals is due to poor pay and conditions, or is it due, rather, to the fact that budgetary considerations make it impossible for hospitals to increase their staff, even though staff are available for recruitment?
    Mr. Robinson: No. In so far as there are local shortages, there may be more than one explanation, but in the two hospitals mentioned in the Question these difficulties have been overcome.

    Admissions
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Health if he will state the latest available waiting lists for hospitals in each of the hospital board areas of England and for Wales.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The latest figures for the 15 areas concerned are for 30th June, 1966. With permission, I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gower: Can the Minister say how these figures compare with the figures five years ago? Can he also say whether the position is one of uniformity or whether there are marked regional differences?
    Mr. Robinson: I find it difficult to say how the figures compare with five years ago. They were slightly higher—just under 3 per cent. higher—than 12 months ago. There are very considerable differences in the number of each region, but there are, of course, differences in the sizes of the regions.
    Mr. Braine: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in which specialities the situation is improving and in which it is worsening? Can he give the House some information about the factors involved? Is it a matter of a shortage of doctors,
    940
    theatre facilities, or is the demand for treatment increasing?
    Mr. Robinson: I would be very glad to give any information that is in my possession if the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question. I do not know whether he has seen the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), my predecessor but one in office, about the waiting lists generally.
    Following are the figures:

    Hospital Board Area

    Waiting list on 30th June, 1966

    Newcastle

    …

    27,810

    Leeds

    …

    26,015

    Sheffield

    …

    49,775

    East Anglia

    …

    15,370

    North West Metropolitan

    …

    50,981

    North East Metropolitan

    …

    33,423

    South East Metropolitan

    …

    41,818

    South West Metropolitan

    …

    34,111

    Oxford

    …

    25,199

    South Western

    …

    42,193

    Birmingham

    …

    57,131

    Manchester

    …

    70,516

    Liverpool

    …

    21,674

    Wessex

    …

    15,986

    Wales

    …

    25,469

    Fakenham (Maternity Hospital Facilities)
    Mr. Hazellasked the Minister of Health what reply he has given to the petition, signed by 6,000 residents of the town of Fakenham, North Norfolk, and its immediate area, urging the provision of maternity hospital facilities in the district; and what action he proposes to take on this matter.
    Mr. Loughlin: I have sent my hon. Friend a copy of the reply. A new maternity unit to serve the Fakenham area is being provided as part of the King's Lynn district general hospital on which work is expected to start early in 1969. In addition, some patients will be able to go to the new maternity unit at the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital which should be completed towards the end of next year.
    Mr. Hazell: As the maternity hospitals are well over 20 miles from the township of Fakenham, could not my hon. Friend advise the regional hospital board to add a small extension to the Wells Cottage Hospital?
    Mr. Loughlin: The difficulty of advising the regional hospital board on a

    941
    project of this kind is that it is now accepted that the only way to give patients correct care and atention is by means of a large maternity unit where all the services are available.

    Beds
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health why changes in hospital use and bed allocation often ensue when a senior consultant retires.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Retirement is often a convenient opportunity to review the arrangement of services in hospitals in the light of the requirements at the time.
    Mr. Pavitt: In view of the need for the most economical and effective use of hospital beds, will my right hon. Friend ask regional hospital boards to take a fresh look at the use of respiratory consultants' beds with a view perhaps to changing them, as the pattern of medicine has changed?
    Mr. Robinson: It is not only when consultants retire that arrangements of this kind are reviewed, and I hope that hospital authorities keep them constantly under review.

    Linton Hospital, Maidstone
    Mr. John Wellsasked the Minister of Health what changes have been made in the numbers of the establishment at Linton Hospital, Maidstone, in the past seven years; and how far those changes take into account the shorter working week and the secondment of pupil nurses away from the hospital for 32 out of 104 weeks.
    Mr. Loughlin: In September, 1959, there were 136 nurses for 286 beds, and in September, 1966, 125 for 242 beds. The number of beds has since increased to 276 and a further 21 posts have been authorised. Three additional posts were approved on account of the shorter working week. The figures exclude nurses seconded from the hospital.
    Mr. Wells: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these nurses carry a far heavier burden of work-hours per nurse today than their predecessors seven years ago'? Will he look at this establishment again, and if he cannot do that will he look at the possible provision of more modern equipment for them?
    Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate that all nurses are shouldering a burden and have always shouldered a burden, but the staff figures at Linton Hospital, Maidstone, are very similar to other similiar hospitals.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Properties
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of all the properties under his control and the rentals over the last five years.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. George Thomson): No, Sir.
    Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are very concerned and interested in the income of the Chancellor of the Duchy?
    Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. But my hon. Friend is asking for details which are really a matter of commercial confidence between lessees, tenants and the Duchy.

    Farms (Rents)
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what policy has been implemented on rent increases for farms in the jurisdiction of the Duchy within the last year.
    Mr. George Thomson: The Duchy is acting in accordance with the line recommended by the Government in connection with its prices and incomes policy. No rent increase will be payable if it accrues within the standstill period or the period of severe restraint.
    Mr. Hamling: Can my right hon. Friend say by what rate rents have increased in the last five years?
    Mr. Thomson: The average increase in rents has been between one-quarter and one-third. That is over a five-year period and works out at an average increase of about 3 per cent. per annum. I ought to add that between 1870 and 1949 Duchy rents were frozen almost completely.

  PAYMASTER-GENERAL

    10 Downing Street (Facilities)
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Paymaster-General what use he makes of

    943
    facilities at 10 Downing Street for his official duties.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. George Wigg): Such use, Sir, as may be necessary for the performance of my duties.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Did the Paymaster-General advise Commander Courtney at No. 10 about his difficulties with the Soviet authorities, and does that come within—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question which arises out of the Question on the Order Paper.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: May I ask whether that is part of the right hon. Gentleman's duties at No. 10 Downing Street?
    Mr. Wigg: My conversations with Commander Courtney are confidential. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to seek further information, I suggest that he puts down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Perhaps before doing so he might consult his own Leader.

  PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. You will recall. Mr. Speaker, that this morning I sought your leave to ask a Private Notice Question of the Minister of Defence. I appreciate that I cannot ask the reasons, and I also appreciate that I cannot identify the question at this moment.
  My point of order is this. Having regard to the fact that new aspects of the matter in question have recently come to light, would I be in order in repeating my request to you tomorrow, and if so, would you reconsider the matter in the light of the situation as it then is?
  Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for following the convention. If anyone's Private Notice Question is refused by the Chair, it can in no way be mentioned if an hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point of order. The Speaker's discretion in selecting or not selecting or allowing or not allowing Private Notice Questions cannot be questioned. Certainly, the hon. Gentleman may attempt to raise tomorrow by Private Notice Question the issue of which he has spoken, when I will reconsider the matter.
  Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged, Sir.

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

    Earnings Rule
    Dr. Winstanley: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 19th December, I shall call attention to the ill effects of the earnings rule and the anomaly between widows' and retirement pensions, and move a Resolution.
    Mr. Speaker: No. 30. Dr. Dunwoody.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: On a point of order. I believe that my number was 5. I wonder whether No. 30 refers to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Dunwoody).
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I read "G. Dunwoody" and thought it was the hon. Gentleman. I did not know the Christian name of the hon. Gentleman's wife.

    Deaf Children (Education)
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 19th December, I shall call attention to the need for an improvement in the opportunities and education available to deaf children, and move a Resolution.
    Industrial Towns (Central Areas)
    Mr. Haftersley: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 19th December, I shall call attention to problems associated with the decaying central areas of industrial towns, and move a Resolution.
BILL PRESENTED
  HOUSING SUBSIDIES
  Bill to make provision with respect to financial assistance towards the provision, acquisition or improvement of dwellings and the provision of hostels; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Anthony Greenwood; supported by Mr. Richard Crossman, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. Niall MacDermot, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, Mr. Ifor Davies, Mr. Robert Mellish, and Mr. James MacColl; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 146.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 29th November].
  [Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL

    Clause 1.—(LONDON BOROUGH ELECTIONS.)
    3.36 p.m.
    Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 28, at the end to add:
    (5) This section shall not apply to the London Borough of Kingston-on-Thames.
    The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 13, page 1, line 28, at end add:
    (5) This section shall not apply to the London Borough of Brent.
    Amendment No. 14, line 28, at end add:
    (5) This section shall not apply to the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames.
    Amendment No. 15, line 28, at end add:
    (5) This section shall not apply to the London Borough of Sutton.
    Amendment No. 16, line 28, at end add:
    (5) This section shall not apply to the London Borough of Redbridge.
    Amendment No. 18, line 28, at end add:
    (5) This section shall not apply to the London Borough of Enfield.
    Amendment No. 19, line 28, at end add:
    (5) This section shall not apply to the London Borough of Bexley.
    Amendment No. 20, line 28, at end add:
    (5) This section shall not apply to the London Borough of Bromley.
    Amendment No. 21, line 28, at end add:
    (5) This section shall not apply to the London Borough of Barnet.
    Amendment No. 27, line 28, at end add:
    (5) This section shall not apply to the London Borough of Haringey.
    946
    Amendment No. 28, line 28, at end add:
    (5) This section shall not apply to the London Borough of Ealing.
    Amendment No. 29, line 28, at end add:
    (5) This section shall not apply to the London Borough of Hillingdon.
    Amendment No. 32, line 28, at end add:
    (5) This section shall not apply to the London Borough of Hounslow.
    and New Clauses No. 3—(Application to education authorities)—and No. 4—(Reorganisation of secondary education).
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I may respectfully say so, Sir Eric, I think that your intimation that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to consider all these Amendments together must be treated as a polite euphemism. Although they raise two quite separate series of issues—the issue of the position of individual boroughs, and the general issue of the effect of the Bill on arrangements for education in Outer London—I accept your Ruling. Therefore, I shall seek to confine myself to the separate position of the borough dealt with in Amendment No. 12, the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames.
    I understand that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) has the good fortune to catch your eye he may seek to open the general education issue, on which he speaks with great authority, in respect of the outer London boroughs.
    I do not take this course because in the borough which I represent education is other than an issue of major importance; it most certainly is. We have several of the best schools in the country. In Kingston Grammar School, which, despite its sad lapse in producing a member of the present Cabinet, has an otherwise unblemished record, Tiffin Boys' and Tiffin Girls' Schools, we have three of the finest schools in the country. Certainly, we do not regard their future as other than a matter of the greatest possible importance.
    None the less, this issue does not arise with particular sharpness in Kingston-upon-Thames for this reason. The borough has replied with its habitual courtesy to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and has told him

    947
    that however many silly circulars he issues it does not propose to damage or to destroy these schools. Therefore, their future is not in issue, as is the future of schools in some other boroughs, on the question of whether the local government elections take place in 1967.
    In some boroughs—Labour controlled at the moment, but which will be Conservative controlled after the next borough elections, whenever they are—the future of some schools is truly in jeopardy, but in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, thanks to the good sense of the local authority, which is also the local education authority, this issue does not arise. It therefore seems to me more convenient that I should address a few remarks to the Committee on the broad grounds as to why this borough should be excluded from the operation of the Bill.
    Last Tuesday, when we last discussed the Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and I sought the exclusion of two other boroughs—Camden and Havering—from the Bill on the ground that the abuses and incompetence which were to been seen in their present administration demanded resort to the electorates as early as possible. I do not argue this case on those grounds. I do not claim—let me make this plain to the Government Front Bench—the case on those grounds. On the other hand, when we discussed Camden the Under-Secretary sought to introduce just this argument. Therefore, it is, perhaps, appropriate that I should deal with it.
    I recall to the Committee what the Under-Secretary said:
    "One wonders immediately why. Clearly, many of us can think of a variety of boroughs in London and in local government in other parts of the country where there are inadequacies in the way in which local government functions. One might have chosen the borough in which the right hon. Gentleman's constituency is and looked at the question of why the Conservative members on that Conservative-dominated council with a clear majority, in determining where the 10 alder-manic seats should go, decided to take nine for itself and give one to the opposition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1966; Vol. 737, c. 403–4.]
    This is a truly remarkable point for a member of the Labour Party to take. It argues a certain insensitiveness of
    948
    conscience. The Under-Secretary may be aware of the policy of the Labour Party in London where it is in control. I recall to him that in a number of boroughs, which I shall mention, the Labour Party has taken not nine but all 10 of the aldermanic seats: Islington, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth, New Ham, Hounslow, Ealing, Brent, Haringey, and Enfield. That is enough to be going on with.
    Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that because the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames has made nine Conservative aldermen out of 10 that is a matter, to use his words, of inadequacy which might command the notice of the electors, I hope that at the next stage of the Bill he will table an Amendment to exclude the list of Labour-controlled boroughs that I have just read out. If he wants to be consistent, he might take a couple more—Lambeth and Greenwich, where they have taken nine out of the 10.
    Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will either support me on this Amendment—I value support from all quarters—or admit that he took a thoroughly bad point the other night, explained only perhaps by the belated hour to which the Government saw fit to protect our proceedings.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if Conservative and Labour-held councils have equally been guilty, the best thing is to do away with the aldermanic system altogether?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Plainly, I should be out of order if I answered that question. But I think that I am entitled to say that the point taken by the UnderSecretary—here I think I am in order—with respect to the working of the present system is a bad one. If the Under-Secretary thinks it a good one, and, as I suggested to him the other night, if he wants to put he administration of the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames to the test of the electors, we shall be delighted to oblige him.
    Let the hon. Gentleman support the Amendment, and then we will test whether the electors there approve this or do not approve it, whether they regard this as an inadequacy or not. But I think that, without labouring the matter further,

    949
    for him to take that point in view of the background of the Labour Party on this matter, was one of the most remarkable aspects of the very remarkable debate that we had the other day.
    3.45 p.m.
    The argument in favour of removing the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames from the operation of the Bill and for taking it out of the Bill is, basically, as follows. It wants to be excluded. On 17th November, the town clerk, on the instructions of the council, wrote to the Home Secretary as follows:
    "London Government Bill—London Borough Council and Greater London Council Elections.
    This Council have received a report from me concerning the provisions in the above-mentioned Bill and in noting the report asked me to express to you their strong opposition to the proposed postponement of the London Borough Council elections.
    Some months ago my Council was told of these proposals by the London Boroughs Committee (now the London Boroughs Association). The then London Boroughs Committee asked this authority and other London Borough Councils for their views on these proposals and were informed by this Council that although they were in favour of the Greater London Council and London Borough Council elections being held in different years they considered that the change should be effected by extending the term of office of councillors elected in 1967 to four years; subsequent elections being held triennially.
    My Council still hold this view and consider that it is wrong for the terms of office of councillors to be extended from three to four years without taking into account the views of electors who understood at the time of the election that the terms of office of the councillors would be for three years expiring in May 1967."
    It is, therefore, on record that this authority, speaking through its elected representatives, does not desire the postponement of its council elections, but, on the contrary, desires to be excluded from the Bill.
    It may interest the Committee if I add that this decision was not taken on a wholly Conservative Party basis. When the matter was argued in the local authority, three Labour members of the council supported the sending of this letter and the exclusion of the borough from the Bill. Indeed, one of them described the Bill as anti-democratic. It is fair to say that another Labour councillor who opposed the sending of the letter and, therefore, supports the Bill none the less
    950
    made the passing observation that the Bill involved political gerrymandering. Apparently he fully understood the way in which the London Labour Party works and was, no doubt, in tune with it. I think that his intellectual honesty, though not his vote, is to be commended.
    Here we have the point that the council by a large majority, speaking, constitutionally, on its own behalf and on behalf of its electors, desired to be excluded from the Bill, desired that councillors should not be given the uncovenanted benefit of an extra year for which they had not been elected, and desired, therefore, the effect of the Amendment that I am moving to be written into the Bill.
    It seems to me very wrong that in a matter of this kind affecting local government, the Government should be prepared to override not only the electors, but their elected representatives as well, and to dictate to an authority whose own council wishes its elections to take place at the due date, at the predetermined date, and whose electors undoubtedly are of the same view, and that both of them should be overridden for reasons, not already very frankly avowed, of the political policy of the Labour Party.
    On an earlier Amendment it was not disputed that it is perfectly practicable to exempt one borough or a number of boroughs. There is, after all, a very obvious analogy with the situation when there are by-elections. It is perfectly practicable for the electoral machinery to operate in respect of one borough or a number of individual ones. I do not think that it will be disputed again that if the Government were willing to do this they could do it.
    If they are not willing to do it, they are putting themselves in the position of defying the views of the elected representatives as well as those of the electorate. To do so is totally undemocratic. It is perhaps a little ironical that the manifesto on which the present Government came to office had the heading for a part of it which reads:
    "Wider Democracy in the New Britain."
    I wonder whether those electors who were moved by that transcendent thought realised that, in practice, the first legislation on this subject would be to produce legislatively prefabricated council lors imposed by Parliament and sheltered

    951
    from the vote of the people whom they are supposed to represent.
    Sir Edward Boyle: I should like to address my remarks especially to new Clause 3, which we are discussing with the Amendment that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has so ably moved.
    The new Clause says:
    "Section 1 of this Act shall not apply to any London borough being an educational authority within the meaning of section 30 of the London Government Act 1963,".
    In the ambit of my remarks, I also include new Clause 4.
    I must say that when the Department of Education and Science issued Circular 1065 on behalf of the Secretary of State, requesting local authorities to submit plans by 12th July, 1966, for the reorganisation of secondary education on comprehensive lines, I wonder if anyone then imagined that there would be no opportunity for some millions of electors to register their opinion on these plans in the spring of 1967.
    I do not intend to discuss at length the general question of secondary reorganisation. I said recently, and I stand by it, that "I think that the majority of opinion in Britain today tends to feel that the age of 11 is too early in a child's life for the most decisive act of selection to be made". It was never my policy as Minister to discourage cornprehensives where they made educational sense, nor to oppose on principle the reorganisation of existing schools.
    Equally, I never took the view that, so long as one was eliminating selection, one was automatically making progress; and I think that this is highly relevant to the plans put forward by the outer London boroughs, where, I believe, there should be elections and voting next year.
    On 2nd March last, I said in this House:
    "What bothers me about the Secretary of State's speeches on this subject is his apparent belief that if we advance towards the complete elimination of all separate grammar and modern schools everywhere there will always be, in social and educational terms, a net gain and never a net loss. It is this belief that we on these benches emphatically do not share."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 1395.]
    In that context, one must consider and, I believe, local opinion should have an
    952
    opportunity of voting upon the plans put forward by individual local education authorities. However much the Government may talk about a national policy, the fact remains that public education in Greater London, along with everywhere else, is still a local government service. It is just about the most important function still left to local government. In particular, it is still the responsibility of each local education authority to maintain a system of secondary schools—and here I quote from Section 8 of the 1944 Act—
    "… sufficient in number, character and equipment to afford for all pupils opportunities for education offering such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable in view of their different ages, abilities and aptitudes."
    We say that, in view of the plans which have been sent in to the Secretary of State it is of special importance that all local authorities which are local education authorities, including the outer London boroughs, should be able to express next spring their views on how this responsibility has been exercised. May I say that so far as we on this side of the Committee are concerned, that applies equally to all schools of thought on education. We are just as much concerned with the rights of the comprehensive supporter in, say, Richmond or Croydon as with the rights of the critics of some of the schemes which I shall mention.
    My other initial point is this. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield West (Mr. Iain Macleod) so rightly said, this is a matter which can only be decided on a political level. I cannot agree with those who, from time to time, say piously that education can and should be kept right out of politics. I have always regarded that as nonsense. Just as I believe that our ancestors were right to talk not about "economics", but about "political economy", so my right hon. Friend was right in saying, during the Second Reading debate:
    "Whatever may be the arguments, in the end the future of children … in Enfield will depend on which party has the majority on the local council."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 251.]
    There is no expertise which can take the place of free elections. Once one gets into the realm of choice and of what is or is not worth sacrificing for the sake of what, we are dealing with a political issue, call it what we may.

    953
    Those were the two initial points that I wanted to make. I want now to particularise and to give three or four reasons why I think that it is of especial importance that local opinion in the outer London boroughs should have the opportunity of voting next year.
    The first reason which I would give is because of the implications of many of these plans for sixth-form education. As the Committee will know, we on this side have always set ourselves against any watering down of sixth form standards. More than once I have said that this must be a criterion against which reorganisation plans should be judged.
    If I may remind the Committee, when we debated this question in March, I said:
    "…we need to attract first-class brains not just into teaching but into school teaching. It is no good revolutionising maths teaching and science teaching, as we are doing, unless schools can also recruit first-class staff who will want to spend at least some of their time teaching viable sixth form groups to the highest level. We simply cannot afford any let-up in the quality of our sixth form education, and the danger to sixth form standards is one of the most serious risks inherent in the drive to eliminate all selective schools."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 1398.]
    Hon. Members opposite might be surprised to learn of some of the quarters from which those remarks of mine have been commended. There is real concern in the country at present about gifted mathematicians and about sixth form standards.
    In this context, one can justly feel anxious about a number of plans brought forward for Greater London. Circular 1065 said of all-through comprehensives, in paragraph 7:
    "It is now clear that a six or seven form entry school can cater properly for the whole ability range and produce a viable sixth form."
    Let us be clear, first, what that means in terms of figures, and I will take an example from my right hon. Friend's own constituency of Enfield. At present, the Enfield Grammar School is a four form entry boys' grammar school with roughly 750 boys on roll and a sixth form of 200, with 24 different possible groupings of subjects. That means that 70 per cent. of the fifth formers of that school are staying on into the academic sixth. That
    954
    is a very good record, though not a unique one, of which any four-form entry boys' grammar school can be proud.
    The present plan is that this school, together with another school three-quarters of a mile away, should become a seven-form entry all-through comprehensive. I may say to hon. Members, if they feel moved to read the Enfield plan, that it is the longest of all the plans submitted to the Secretary of State. I hesitate to say that it is the best, but they will find the operative material at the end, where the proposals are set out very clearly, and the details are given.
    4.0 p.m.
    The Enfield report envisages a sixth form of 140 boys for this new combined seven-form entry all-through comprehensive. At the moment, as I have said, it is a four-form entry grammar school with a sixth form of 200. The Chief Education Officer for Enfield thinks that the way to calculate the sixth form after reorganisation is pretty easy—all one has to do is to multiply the number of forms of entry by 20. I believe that this over-simple calculation itself justifies the strongest inquiry, and justifies the importance which we attach to elections in Enfield next year, because this is desperately important.
    I believe that those figures are over-simple, and if I were an elector in Enfield I would have many questions to ask. I would point out that if the new sixth form is to be an academic sixth—that is to say, a sixth form consisting of those doing two-year courses in the sixth governed by university requirements—the figure of 140 would imply that 30 per cent. of fifth formers from the whole ability range in the enlarged comprehensive were going to stay on into the sixth. But I look on this figure as inconceivable, because, after all, on the Ministry's own statistics, even in the South-East of England, which is the most favourable part of the country, only about 30 per cent. of children are voluntarily staying on for a full fifth year; so, as I say, the notion of 30 per cent. of the whole ability range from the fifth form staying on to do a full academic course in the sixth is really inconceivable.
    In that case, what does the figure of 140 mean? It means that some of the 140 will be academic sixth formers, and some will not. Some will be staying on

    955
    for one year in the sixth form and will need a different kind of sixth form course from that given at present at the Enfield Grammar School. This is a highly important point which ought to be thrashed out at election time in Enfield, namely, just how big the academic sixth form in the new combined Enfield School is really expected to be.
    I hope that no one on the benches opposite will think that this is a false point. If we are to have a watering down of the academic sixth form in many of the finest of our schools, this will make it far harder for a great many boys and girls to compete for Oxbridge scholarships with those at independent schools, and I cannot see how that can be the objective of the party opposite. If I wanted to be abusive I would say that when I look at some of these plans I think that they might be described as the "minor public schools' charter". I cannot feel that this is something which should appeal to the Committee as a whole.
    But still worse is the fact that some authorities are looking at six forms of entry not just as a minimum, but as a norm which can be temporarily disregarded. Circular 10/65 looked on six forms of entry for all-through comprehensives as the absolute minimum, but if one looks at the Ealing plan, one sees that in the Acton area they are contemplating a four-form entry all-through comprehensive for a considerable period. They say that since it will not be possible to enlarge Acton County School to a six-form entry school and have the accommodation available before September, 1969, at the earliest, it is not feasible to have a six-form entry at the school from September, 1966. The authority therefore proposes to limit the intake at Acton County School to a four form entry and "as soon as possible to submit to the Department for inclusion in the 1968–69 building programme a proposal to enlarge the school from a four-form entry to a six-form entry". This is a point which ought to be fought out as hard as possible.
    Although I have doubts about a six-form entry comprehensive, it may in certain circumstances be viable, but a four-form all-through comprehensive is just a fraud on the public. When I see the way in which, in a number of these plans, when the Secretary of State says that six or seven
    956
    forms of entry ought to be the minimum, the authorities then say that they can temporarily have four or five forms, I cannot help being reminded of Moliere's play "The Miser" in which Harpagon, the miser, says, "We have ten guests for dinner. If there is enough for eight, there is enough for ten, so we shall need four large soups". That is the way in which a number of authorities seem to approach this problem of reorganisation.
    The same thing will happen in Ealing itself over the five-year schools followed by a sixth-form college. I have no objection in principle to this form of organisation, but I would want to fight very hard in Ealing the proposal to have a three-form entry school in a part of Ealing catering for the age range 11 to 16. This is intolerable for any able boy or girl who may be concerned, and I find it hard to believe that any responsible parent will put up with that.
    Mr. Lubbock: As schemes have to be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval, and if they do not confirm with Circular 1065, is not the Secretary of State bound to reject them?
    Sir E. Boyle: That is a fair question, and I have two points to make in reply. First, I agree that the Secretary of State rejected part of the Manchester scheme, though not as much as some of us would have liked, and also part of the Liverpool scheme. I hope that this will be done not only in respect of the schemes which I have been mentioning, but also one in another to which I shall refer. If it is not, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in censoring the Secretary of State for Education and Science for his omission.
    But this matter is also the responsibility of the boroughs who have put these schemes forward, and I am saying that, quite irrespective of the Secretary of State's action, the electors should have a chance of expressing their verdict on these schemes in local elections next year.
    The second general matter of concern which I wish to mention is that in a number of these schemes I am struck by the disregard of the legitimate interests of the primary schools. This is a point that we on this side have always recognised. Indeed it is one of the major problems of

    957
    secondary reorganization—how to extend opportunity, and how to defer selection, while, at the same time, not denying badly needed resources to the primary schools.
    Here I mention, in particular, the scheme for the Borough of Hillingdon, which is contemplating an extra year added on to the infant school period, and an extra year of primary education until 12. On reading the report from the borough, it seems to me that very little attention has been paid to how the real problems of the primary schools can be met. It is not until the last page of the report that one sees it admitted that the main problem of teacher recruitment will occur in the infant schools, and nothing is said about how the borough proposes to deal with this matter.
    Besides, this is not only a question of the quantity of teachers. If I were an elector in Hillingdon, I would emphasise very much the need for a different type of teacher if it is proposed to extend primary school education from 11 to 12. The freeing of primary schools from the 11-plus examination should, after all, lead to a broader curriculum, including the introduction of science and foreign languages. This means better qualified teachers and smaller classes which are particularly necessary if the top forms of primary schools are to consist of 11 to 12-year olds instead of 10 to 11-year olds.
    Another point relevant to a number of plans—and again I could quote Enfield—is that I am struck with the number of proposals in Greater London which involve quite a considerable amount of extra resources, extra extensions and buildings. One constantly comes across words like, "Some extension or adaptation work may prove to be necessary to provide for a mixed school.… This should be dealt with from the minor capital works programme.… Some internal adaptations may prove necessary within the minor capital works programme.… Additional classrooms will have to be provided through the minor capital works programme". This, again, is a point of crucial importance to the primary schools in the Greater London boroughs and, I may add, to other authorities as well.
    958
    As we all know, there is great pressure on the minor capital works programme. A small amount on this programme can make a great deal of difference to many primary schools, both in the cities and in the counties. Many of us are deeply concerned at the effect of all these reorganisation plans upon that share of the minor works programme which may be spared for primary improvements.
    My third point concerns what we have always called the "botched-up" schemes. In view of what was said recently in a national newspaper I want to make it clear that I am not one of those who condemn every reorganisation plan involving an existing school as botched up. That would not be fair or accurate. But we have some real botch-ups in the plans proposed for Greater London. I hope that the Committee will follow my example of reading the reports of a number of these plans.
    If so, hon. Members will doubtless agree that it is a bad scheme which substitutes for the names of schools numbers or letters—numbers as in Manchester, or letters as in Haringey. We all look forward to the day when we have a considerable number of hon. Members who have come here from purpose-built, all-through comprehensive schools, but I venture to express the view that it will be a long time before we have an hon. Member from "School F" or "School Group 13".
    When I look at what is proposed for Haringey, I wonder whether this is what the Prime Minister can possibly have meant when he made the famous speech about his "dead body" in 1963. Let me give two instances. School F consists of Belmont and Downhills Schools, which are a little over 1¼ miles apart. The Report says that the new Downhills buildings will be within easy walking distance of Belmont and the annexe, that the Roman Catholic School of St. Ignatius and Sir Thomas Moore are approximately 1½miles apart and that the Church authorities hope to bring St. Ignatius up to standard by a series of minor works lasting over three or four years.
    I do not want to labour the point, but not many of us feel happy—and there is little local opinion that feels happy—about the junction of two schools 1¼ or 1½ miles apart.

    959
    Still talking of botch-ups, I am afraid that easily the worst that I have come across—and I have many reasons to regret this—is to be found in the Borough of Bexley. It seems to be one of the most remarkable plans put forward by any authority. I want to give two examples. First, there is the proposal to amalgamate Erith Grammar School and the two Northumberland Heath secondary modern schools, only half a mile away. Not only will it be necessary for two busy roads to he crossed ddby pupils and staff "when movement between the grammar school and secondary modern schools is necessary or desirable"; two and a half pages of the Report are devoted to putting forward principles to be followed "to obtain a viable arrangement which would avoid excessive travelling of staff and pupils". It is indeed hard to see how this will be one school in anything but name.
    Mr. James Wellbeloved: Is the right hon. Gentleman quoting from the first or second report?
    Sir E. Boyle: This is the most recent report. The original plan was to implement this proposal in 1966. At least we now have some reprieve, which will enable this plan to be fought.
    4.15 p.m.
    When I visited Erith my greatest concern was how it could conceivably be possible to join these three school buildings to form a single school. At the least there must be a proper balance of accommodation. If the two secondary modern schools are to form the lower part of the school, at least there must be proper provision for those doing science at 11 or 12 years of age—because we cannot have a situation in which, whenever boys or girls over the whole range of ability need certain provision, they have to travel half a mile to get it. There must be a reasonable balance of accommodation, and to my certain knowledge there is not in this case. That is what causes me real concern.
    But there is something more remarkable about the Bexley plan which I hope may yet be reconsidered. It is proposed to have schools for pupils of 11–16 years in the Welling and Crayford areas, and the Report says that these schools cannot be expected to develop sixth forms until well into the 'seventies. Even in 1975
    960
    or 1976, these schools are unlikely to be able to offer a full range of advanced level subjects and some pupils must be expected to transfer at 16+ to other schools.
    Now, as I have said, I am not dogmatically opposed to experiments with junior colleges and with the sixth-form college idea, but of all the bogus and botched-up plans this bogus plan for sixth-form education is the worst. The idea is that boys and girls who have been at these 11–16 schools will not all be able to get academic sixth form places, and so a number will have to go on to the Bexley Heath Secondary schools, which themselves are being joined into one all-through comprehensive. But these schools would not as yet have developed an academic sixth form of thir own. It is really intolerable that children at the age of 16 should be transferred for sixth form work to a school which has not achieved an indigenous sixth form of its own, yet this is what is seriously proposed for part of the Borough of Bexley.
    It is also suggested—perhaps a little frivolously—that the technical college "will be chosen by some students for full-time study." If this plan gets as far as the Secretary of State I hope that he will turn it down. Such a proposal should never have been put forward in the first place, and the electors should have an opportunity of expressing their views on it as soon as possible.
    Finally, many of us feel that while in some areas—certainly in some counties and some cities—there has been a real attempt at consultation, this is not true everywhere. Much concern has been expressed by teachers. The Conservatives on the Bexley Borough Council were right in refusing to support any scheme which did not have the backing of teachers. This is not surprising. The section of the Report headed "Report on Consultation" does not mention the views of teachers. It says:
    "The opinions expressed by members of the Working Party were not always unanimous, and it is thought that the views of teachers are best expressed through the medium of their advisory council."
    That remark rather reminds me of Sir Sidney Lee's euphemistic judgment on King Edward VII, that he was "a hearty eater who never toyed with his food." In plain fact, the advisory council has

    961
    stated that it cannot accept the plan put forward by the borough.
    I mentioned four separate reasons why we believe that the Greater London boroughs should give their electors the opportunity to express their opinion in elections next year. These reasons are our concern about sixth-form standards in many areas; the lack of concern among many boroughs for the interests of the primary schools; the number of botch-ups, and the concern felt by so many teachers.
    Hon. Members opposite may say, "What is the point of continued controversy and uncertainty at a time when the national policy is known?" My first answer IS that we should never forget that the Secretary of State has no power to compel local education authorities to submit plans, least of all for the whole of their areas. I do not go along with the advice given in a letter in The Times this morning, which says that guidance by professional men
    "must … be consonant not only with the law of the land but also with general Government policy."
    I object to that doctrine on both constitutional and practical grounds. I have always been a political pluralist. I have never believed that power and influence in our society should be monopolised by a Government operating through their majority in Parliament and I was greatly impressed, when younger, by the early writings of Professor Laski on this subject—writings which, I believe, even their author never satisfactorily refuted. Secondly, as a practical matter surely our political system works best, and the wisest decisions are taken, when everyone "fights his corner," as he is entitled to do. I have never urged a local authority to defy the Secretary of State, but I have stood for the rights of local education authorities not to put forward schemes that they themselves feel to be educationally unsound. I have said the same to governors of aided schools.
    Anyway, to be thoroughly practical, I suggest that there is no reason to suppose that the Secretary of State will turn down all plans that do not accept a commitment here and now to reorganise the whole of a local authority area. In other words, I believe that many of these worst botched-up schemes are totally unnecessary as well as undesirable; and what-
    962
    ever the pressure which the Secretary of State may be under from a section of his party I believe that it will be a very long time before he himself takes a final decision to put a time limit on the response to his circular, and says that the abolition of "separatism"—the total abolition—has to be completed within a definite time.
    Finally, there is one thing which is worse than uncertainty—that is, doing anything which is damaging to education. We on this side of the Committee reserve the right not only to fight, but to reverse, any scheme which must prove educationally damaging, or just not viable, and we shall act on the principle that many of us will recall from doing Latin unseens, that if a plan "does not make sense, it cannot be right".
    Mr. William Molloy: It is always a matter of great interest to listen to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), particularly when he speaks about education. It depends on which part of the speech one may listen to whether one might come to the wrong conclusion. He has gained the reputation of being the most notorious political figure on education in this country—a veritable political Vicar of Bray—I think that his views are likely to confuse people.
    The right hon. Gentleman is at times a very strong advocate for comprehensive schools, but after he has reasserted the fact that he is a strong advocate for them, he surreptitiously slips in "cracks" and little contributions which destroy his previous argument. His "crack" about Professor Laski was more applicable to himself than to anyone else.
    With regard to the London Borough of Ealing, it is true that two schemes were proposed and that in both of these schemes the position in Acton and Southall would be the same.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to Acton. The probability is that the right hon. Gentleman knows no more about the situation in Acton and Southall, about the physical educational availabilities and equipment there, than he does about the situation in Ealing generally, and he might have done some good had he made some physical examination of the problem.
    There is very deep cut and thrust—not merely in relation to education—on

    963
    the political scene within the council chamber, and in committees on the London Borough of Ealing. Surely this is right and proper. There is no bitterness. There is not the sort of rancour which sometimes exists in this House. There is certainly not the picture which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) sometimes paints. Whether they be Tories or Socialists, there has been a great deal of tolerance on both sides of the political fence in Ealing on the difficult question of education.
    The most ridiculous and totally incorrect comment which has ever been made about education in Ealing was that made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who said that the parents of Ealing were at war with their council. That was quite a normal, grossly ridiculous, extravagant and, quite frankly, impertinent exaggeration, we expect on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Handsworth seemed to favour a scheme which affected the central part of Ealing, but he did not like the scheme which was in favour of Acton and Southall. Parents in Acton and Southall have no complaints to make. They are all in favour of the proposal. It is the parents of some parts of the old municipal Borough of Ealing from whom complaints are forthcoming. What I am saying is important, because of the ridiculous and extravagant statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone, who said that parents were at war with their council.
    In point of fact, what was at stake was that a number of parents who were violently opposed to the principle of comprehensive education—though not wholly openly they were opposed to both the Tories and the Socialists in Ealing, because the Tories and Socialists support the principle of comprehensive education—saw it as their right to seek redress in a court of law in order. Their case was examined and they were defeated. But this did not represent an overwhelming majority of parents in Ealing, and I think that the record should be put right.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: It might not have been an over-
    964
    whelming majority of parents in Ealing, but if it was only a small group then surely it is their right to have the opportunity next year to vote. So the hon. Gentleman is right in what he says.
    Mr. Molloy: They had a wonderful opportunity in March of this year. This was one of the biggest issues—and I will deal with this question in a moment—during the General Election. At a joint meeting of the Liberal candidate, the Tory candidate and myself on the whole question of comprehensive education, I discovered that we all agree on principle. There was no argument about it. The only difference that divided the parties was that the Tories and Liberals were on one side regarding primary and religious education, and I was on the other. I think that all men should be united on any principle so long as it is a good one.
    To explain my point, I will, if necessary, have to go back to the debate which took place at the time. I see no reason why children of a tender age who attend primary schools should be necessarily divided for ever—or perhaps, might for an initial period go to a primary school, with children of the same sort of religion. But then, certainly, later on, they should all be together to get to understand one another. Whether they are Catholics, Methodists, or member of any other religious denomination, they should be together. After a certain period they should not be separately educated along any particular religious lines. I would hope that the Committee would agree with that principle.
    When the principle of comprehensive education was accepted by all the parties in the Borough of Ealing, there was no difficulty in agreeing immediately to find out which would be the best system to operate in Ealing. It was, therefore, decided to establish a working party. There was no argument against a working party being established. It consisted roughly, of 16 members. As the Labour Party was the majority party, it had six members, the Conservatives had four, and there were four representatives from four teachers' organisations, and there were two headmasters.
    They said that they would not outline any scheme, that they would do nothing about schemes for comprehensive education immediately, but that, as a responsible committee, they would first of

    965
    all visit every school in the Borough of Ealing. They did so and they spoke to the headmasters, to the headmistresses and to the staffs. They asked them what their problems were. The committee was united, and it generally sought information which would assist it when the time came to devise a scheme of comprehensive education.
    That was done amicably, because there was no dichotomy between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party in Ealing. These were ordinary councillors, members of the teachers' organisations, and so on, and they were not paid for what they did. That being so, I am sure that all hon. Members will want to compliment them on their energy and interest in carrying out a very difficult examination, which took them some time.
    4.30 p.m.
    This committee then tried to devise a scheme that would be reasonably acceptable to all its members. Unfortunately, that was not to be. The divisions of opinion on some schemes cut right across both political parties in the committee. Some Tories and Socialists would support one embryo scheme and oppose another, while other Tories and Socialists went the other way. That is a sensible and reasonable way of working. They were able to act in that way because the principle had been adopted.
    I sometimes get annoyed when some hon. Members opposite seem to suggest that the Tories in Ealing or anywhere else were insincere when they said that they accepted the principle, or when, later, something happened to cause them to change their minds. The real degree of difference has related to particular schemes, and not to the principle. That should be said, because there are in Ealing those who do not support any form of comprehensive education, although that view is directly opposed to both Tory and Socialist thinking in the borough.
    After a great deal of examination—and all this work started in 1965—there emerged schemes A and B. In other words, the committee could not arrive at a unified scheme. Quite remarkably, when the specialist committee voted it was split right down the middle-fifty-
    966
    fifty. There followed discussion on how to resolve the dilemma, as the committee could not then submit a report to the council. It was unanimously agreed to refer both schemes to a special committee of the education committee, known as the schools sub-committee. The subcommittee had 18 members—10 from the Labour Party, six from the minority Conservative Party, and teachers' representatives and representatives of the Churches. They finally came down in favour of scheme B, and we are now hoping that the Minister, too, will approve it.
    The point of what I am saying is that during the period involved there has been good work done by all members of the education committee, irrespective of party. Good contributions have also been made by members of the teaching profession and the church representatives. It would be silly if Parliament were now to dissipate the good will that has existed among all those people in trying to evolve a system of education for the borough.
    Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Surely the hon. Member will agree that everything he says is a most powerful argument for letting the people most concerned in this matter have a chance of saying something about it.
    Mr. Molloy: Had the hon. Member been content to listen, he would have heard me deal with that point.
    I recognise that very many hon. Members may have no knowledge at all of local government work—that has been revealed in some speeches—or, if they have spent some time in local authority work as councillors, they do not seem to have learnt much. It is wrong to say that on every issue there is always a good deal of bitterness between Tory and Socialist councillors.
    Sir E. Boyle: As it happens, I am a co-opted member of a local education authority. We submitted, with no party division, an answer to the Secretary of State which will provide comprehensive education in one area immediately, and which, in three places, will mean comprehensive education in a few years. We did not think that it made sense to commit ourselves to plan for the whole county. I think that we were perfectly

    967
    right to do as we did, and not to act further.
    Mr. Molloy: It would be wrong for me to comment on the details of what the right hon. Gentleman says, because I have not studied his plan. Indeed, I have already said that it is rather "thick" of him to comment on our plan for Ealing without having studied it.
    All the way along there has been a remarkable degree of collaboration by both the political parties, the teachers' associations and the representatives of the Churches in the genuine interests of the people of Ealing. That had been going on for a number of years. I am willing to admit that the complaints about and the opponents of the principles of comprehensive education have not necessarily come from the Conservative Party. They—the Tories—are either too shy, or too crafty, or do not have the guts to say that they have changed their minds. Much opposition has come wholly from a small force of people who are against the principle.
    But once this particular scheme had been devised, the Conservatives in Ealing—quite within their rights in our view—opposed it. That was their right—but they were never opposed to the principle. I can quite understand that some of their arguments have appealed to people right across the political board, while others accept scheme B which has been advanced by the specialist committee that examined the issue.
    The name of the chairman of the Ealing Education Committee has appeared in the newspapers and other places in connection with an alleged leak, and letting the cat out of the bag about what the Labour Party intended to do about postponing the elections. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) is not here at the moment, but I recall that originally he thought that the blame for this terrible and iniquitous remark lay with the leader of the Ealing Borough Council. When I intervened to tell him that he was wrong, the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledged his error, but then went on to commit another error.
    In that debate I said:
    "I expect the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come here tomorrow to correct the
    968
    allegation which he has made against the leader of the Ealing Borough Council."
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman at once replied:
    "The hon. Member need not wait: it was the Labour leader of the education committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 357.]
    It was not. Doubtless the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be here tomorrow to correct that lapsus lingua, as he demanded previously with regard to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    It was the chairman of the Ealing Education Committee, discussing all sorts of things with parents at a public meeting, and probably answering questions from people of all political parties and none. The big debate about the forthcoming elections had been going on for years. Indeed, early in 1965 the Acton Gagette ran an article on this issue and quoted two members of the Labour Party, Councillor Michael Elliott and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), who were both Ealing councillors, as disagreeing with some of the proposals that were coming up.
    That is quite natural in the Labour Party. There is always healthy argument, outside as well as inside. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh, because this ruins their case about secret and villainous organisation. There was public debate and it was reported in the newspapers a couple years ago. The newspapers pointed out that Councillor Elliott had a suggestion, which has now been incorporated to a great degree in the Bill.
    There is nothing odd about that. In the Labour Party it is quite possible for a person to come to one of our ward meetings and put down a proposal which ultimately finds its way to the House of Commons; and when we are in power, it may find its way to the Statute Book. There is nothing wrong in that. I know that it is difficult for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to understand this, but that is how things go on in the Labour Party. That is the normal channel of democracy, which is always kept in the open.
    When this issue was discussed, it was done in the open. I know that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) laughs, but it is the laugh of the defeated. His laugh is the

    969
    equivalent of whistling in the dark. This whole issue was not merely discussed in public: it was reported in public—unless hon. Members opposite are saying that the Acton Gazette is a villainous, secret newspaper. They cannot have it both ways.
    Mr. A. Royle: The hon. Member bases cart of his argument on a quibble. At col. 357 on 15th November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said:
    "The hon. Member need not wait: it was the Labour leader of the education committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 357.]
    The hon. Member just said that it was not the. Labour leader of the education committee and that it was the chairman of the education committee. Is not the chairman of the education committee a member of the Labour Party, in which case it was the Labour chairman of the education committee?
    Mr. Molloy: No, it was not. The hon. Member does not understand. Let me educate him in local government. There is an education committee. It has a chairman. On the one side there is the Tory leader, and on the other side the Labour leader. Looking after the whole committee is the chairman. That is not difficult to understand. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone quoted the Labour leader.
    Mr. A. Royle: To which party does the chairman belong?
    Mr. Molloy: It was not the Labour leader. It was the chairman of the committee. The chairman of the committee and the Labour leader are not the same person. The two posts are filled by two different people. This might sound complicated to Conservative Members, but if they struggle with it they will understand.
    Before I had to divert to give that short course in local government education to hon. Members opposite, I was saying that when the statement was made it was done in public. It was reported in public. A great debate had been going on throughout London. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown) took a deputation to see the then Conservative
    970
    Home Secretary to put certain proposals before him. Some of those proposals were ultimately accepted. People knew all about this before the 1964 General Election and before the 1966 General Election. They knew full well that this had been going on and that it had not been finally decided.
    Therefore, when right hon. and hon. Members opposite say that this was done for political reasons, they are acknowledging, if it exists, a remarkable power of prescience attributable to the Labour councillors who think that they will win the elections in 1968. They proved it by winning the elections for the Greater London Council, and we proved it by winning two General Elections one after another.
    4.45 p.m.
    Many right hon. and hon. Members opposite know that this was—I know that it does not apply to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)—an administrative issue the difficulties of which were examined by both Tory and Labour councillors; and that some Conservative councillors as well as Labour councillors agree with the proposals of the Bill.
    In addition to the argument and debate which was going on at the time, one of the proposals was not that the London borough elections should be delayed, but rather that the G.L.C. elections should be delayed. There were conflicting points of view within the Labour Party during the great debate as to which it should be. At the time, I was involved in Fulham Borough Council as its leader and later as a member of Hammersmith Borough Council. I want to be completely fair to Conservative councillors. They examined the proposals and there were differences of opinion among them. But all the people to whom I have spoken agreed that there was need for thorough examination to prevent the administrative and political snarl-up for which we were heading.
    Right hon. and hon. Members opposite know very well that what was involved was an examination of a tricky administrative problem which could have defaced political standards in London by the fact that we were not prepared to examine the difficulties that were involved and did

    971
    not have the courage to produce something like the Bill. We knew the sort of charges that would be levelled.
    If hon. Members opposite had been putting up proposals, we on this side would have examined them. Hon. Members opposite would, no doubt, have said, "If we push this through, you know what the Labour Party will say. They will accuse us of gerrymandering and the rest." At some stage, however, we must examine the reactions of the people who are deeply involved.
    From my experience, quite a number of Conservative councillors, not only in Westminster Council, but in many parts of London, support the aims and objects of the Bill. I must be equally honest and say that some Labour councillors are apprehensive about some of its proposals. The debate which is going on has cut across all political frontiers. There has been a big political debate. It has been carried on in London and on the Floor of the House. That is how it ought to be. The essential proposal of the Bill has not, as right hon. and hon. Members opposite claim, derogated in any way from the principles of democracy. Indeed, it has enhanced them.
    Wing Commander Sir Eric Bullus: I wish to deal with Amendment No. 13, which seeks to exempt the London Borough of Brent from the provisions of the Bill. With equally good material, I presume to hope that I may make as good a case for the Borough of Brent as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made for his London borough.
    Of all the London boroughs, Brent has strong claims for exemption from the provisions of the Bill. I have no desire in a short speech to repeat my Second Reading speech, which, I thought, was rather powerful, but it did not do the trick and the Bill got a Second reading. I hope, therefore, that I might be satisfied with half a loaf and secure the carrying of my Amendment.
    From time to time, I am told with others that I should forget Wembley and think about the London Borough of Brent, but this is very difficult. I intend to show how very difficult it is for some of my constituents under a Labour-con-
    972
    trolled Borough of Brent. Neither Wembley nor Willesden desired the merger of two years ago. Wembley was Tory-controlled, with the lowest rate in the country and its council-housing account in balance. Willesden, half as big again, was Labour dominated, with high rates and a £500,000 council-housing deficit. Wembley had little chance in the subsequent election but obtained a very sizeable minority and has since won by-elections. Today, in Brent, the rates are high and the loss on the Brent housing revenue account this year amounts to £750,000—a 10d. rate. No wonder we want elections in Brent.
    I have spoken of the housing position and I have spoken in this Chamber before of the public inquiry into the compulsory purchase orders in my constituency in the Chalkhill and Barnhill Road development. The action of the Brent Council in grabbing these properties affected every ratepayer, because to subsidise these council property ratepayers will have to find £218,400 per year, equivalent to nearly a 3d. increase in rates. No wonder Brent wants the opportunity to vote Tory. The large majority of these houses and flats have been handed over by the Brent Council to the Greater London Council—both are Labour-controlled—and two-thirds of the people living in the Chalkhill and Barnhill area do not come from Brent at all.
    I attended the public inquiry into the compulsory purchase orders on 22nd September and no mention was there made of the Socialist council's intention to seek further properties in the area. Yet only two weeks later the Brent Council announced that it was seeking to acquire further large blocks of property in the same roads. No wonder that Brent wants elections at once.
    I turn to education. The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) represents a part of the Borough of Brent. I am sorry that he is not in his place. I confess that I did not warn him that I would speak on his remarks because I naturally assumed that he would be here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] But I have no compunction in referring to him, because I shall not be unkind. I am not an unkindly person, but I must take up some of his remarks.
    In his Second Reading speech the hon. Member denied that the Minister of

    973
    State, Department of Education and Science, had rejected the first comprehensive scheme for Brent. I did not want to bring the Minister into the argument. He has been very kind. He received a deputation of about 30 parents from the Borough of Brent and twice gave of his valuable time. In addition, he has been to the Central Lobby and addressed overflow meetings there. They are very impressed at least with his kindness, if not with h is decisions. Perhaps in an intervention today he will tell us whether he rejected that scheme.
    I wanted the hon. Member for Willesden, East to be referred to a letter in his own local newspaper from one of the parents from the parents' organisation, one of those who came to see the Minister of State. She referred to my remarks and the denial by the hon. Member for Willesden, East. She writes:
    "I would say to Alderman Freeson that his memory is extremely short. The first scheme was due to start in 1966."
    I am glad to see the hon. Member for Willesden, East entering the Chamber. Perhaps he would like to know that I said that I had not advised him of my intention to refer to his remarks but that I had no compunction about referring to them because I had nothing unkind to say.
    The letter from this parent, writing in the hon. Member's own local newspaper, continues:
    "A new scheme is presumably planned for 1967. The first scheme involved children shuttling back and forth over the North Circular Road at Wesley Road School. This was rejected and it is not in the proposed scheme for 1967."
    This confirms that there has been an original scheme. Whether this is the same scheme violently amended is splitting hairs but the first scheme was not accepted.
    "Maybe Alderman Freeson honestly feels that the first scheme was not rejected, but as far as the parents understand it, from the mere fact that the 1966 scheme is not in operation it would appear that it was rejected, and well and truly rejected at that."
    She adds:
    "I can only hope a miracle will happen to allow us parents and residents to have our local elections in 1967."
    I would call in aid a prominent member of the council, sitting on the same council as the hon. Member for Willesden, East, the Leader of the Conservative minority. It is not such a small
    974
    minority. Speaking at a meeting the week before last, he referred to the blackmail that is being used to force comprehensive education on the country. My right hon. Friend referred to this and said that it was not blackmail because it can be resisted. But here is evidence that the Socialist Government and the Socialist-controlled local authorities advise and guide as though it were the law of the land that the Secretary of State and Minister of State have power to withhold these grants from local authorities.
    The leader of the opposition on the Brent Council described the education scheme proposed in Brent as hotch-potch and an emergency measure, thereby supporting what I have said. He said that a six-month limit has been set to produce the scheme and that in his view only a select group of teachers had been consulted. He said that the public had been told of the plan, once formed, but not with the idea of being able to alter it by either suggestions or advice. Mr. Lee, Leader of the opposition, himself a headmaster, had a proposal but the council was not prepared to consider it.
    Mr. Reginald Freeson: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would tell us what is that proposal. It was certainly never presented to the education committee or to the council.
    Sir E. Bullus: The Leader of the Opposition wanted to see compulsory education until the age of 16, when pupils who wanted to do so should be able to study liberal subjects, using grammar school sixth form premises. This is the suggestion made by him. He disagreed with the suggestion that new buildings would attract teachers of a higher standard and he said that the children in Brent would not necessarily be getting the best education under the new system and that a school like East Lane would be down-graded to a junior high school. No wonder that in Brent we want the elections next year.
    The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) has spoken of the comprehensive scheme in his own borough. I have teachers who are constituents of mine who teach in the Borough of Ealing and who have written to me fearing for

    975
    education under the scheme from the teacher point of view, and suggesting that if this scheme is forced through in Ealing several teachers will not be prepared to teach in Ealing and will apply to be removed elsewhere.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): Blackmail.
    Mr. Molloy: Will the hon. Member tell me who are the teachers who will not carry out what the council proposes? I should be interested. The teacher organisations, and particularly the N.U.T., which supply the overwhelming majority of the teachers for the London Borough of Brent, support scheme B completely.
    Sir E. Bullus: The right hon. Lady says "Blackmail", but there is no question of blackmail if a woman teacher does not desire to teach in a school with which she has no sympathy. She has a right to apply to go to another school. Or does the Labour Party want direction of labour?
    The hon. Member for Willesden, East spoke about the huffing and puffing over education and about democracy. I have a letter from a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell), the Secretary of the Sudbury Court Residents' Association. A copy was sent to the local newspaper. The letter refers to the huffing and puffing. The letter says:
    "… we too can raise no enthusiasm for the kind of huffing and puffing' which goes on on both sides, not only in the House but also in our own council chamber."
    5.0 p.m.
    The Honorary Secretary of the Sudbury Court Residents' Association goes on to huff and puff himself on behalf of his Association and points out that when the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) had said that only members of the Conservative Party were objecting to the proposal, that was not so because the Sudbury Court Residents' Association also opposed it.
    I return once again to the thing that wrankles very much with me, which is the question of re-warding. It is one reason why in Brent we want the elections to be held at once, for if they are postponed, the re-warding will have taken
    976
    effect, and we are very unhappy indeed about the proposed re-warding. The right hon. Lady said on Second Reading, when referring to what I had said about the Commissioner's advice being rejected by the Home Secretary:
    "… the Commissioner … said, 'This is the scheme that I would prefer, but there is another scheme, if the scheme that I would prefer is not accepted.' … the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been alleging for some time in Questions in the House that my right hon. Friend has not paid heed to the views of the Commissioner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; vol. 736, c. 358.]
    Mr. Verney, the Commissioner, in fact said:
    "My first recommendation is that no change be made to the existing wards."
    He stated that in paragraph 23 and, in paragraph 44, he stated:
    "With the reservation that I do not regard the change as productive of any improvement on the existing warding, but rather the contrary, if the policy of uniformity is approved I prefer the Council scheme to that put forward by the Conservatives."
    That is the alternative. He categorically stated:
    "My first recommendation is that no change be made to the existing warding."
    As for the Minister's remarks, that
    "… we shall have wards with equal representation rather than, in future, a differentiation in the wards between those which belonged to the former borough of Wembley and those which belonged to the former borough of Willesden."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 359.]
    Mr. Verney stated, in paragraph 23(e):
    "If uniformity is the proper aim, the Borough of Brent should be reconsidered as a whole".
    And in paragraph 23(g) he went even further and stated:
    "If the Council's scheme were adopted in essence it should, in my opinion, be modified my the division of the proposed South Kenton ward into two single-member wards, and this would wholly defeat the intention to achieve uniformity."
    My case regarding the proposed re-warding has, I suggest, been made out and that is why we in Brent want the elections.
    Miss Bacon: I do not have the Commissioner's report with me, but I remember clearly, as I explained on Second Reading, it being most unusual for a commissioner conducting an inquiry of this kind to mention a second scheme.

    977
    There is usually only one recommendation. This is the only case of which I am aware where there has been an alternative scheme; a second choice, so to speak. To that extent it was unusual and I believe that Mr. Verney perhaps thought that there might be considerable objection to his first choice, so he gave an alternative scheme.
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary considered the alternative as being preferable to the first proposal, in that as the years would have gone by everybody would have been able to point to a part of the Borough of Brent and say, "This is the old Wembley" and "This is the old Willesden" because the old Wembley would have had bigger wards with three councillors while Willesden would have had smaller wards with two councillors. We consider that, from that point of view, it would be better to have a borough where there was not that distinction.
    Sir E. Bullus: I accept that that is what the right hon. Lady believes. I do not believe the same thing. I suggest that it is unusual indeed to have been given an alternative and I will explain why I believe there was an alternative, remembering that I endeavoured to do that on Second Reading. It is because the same Commissioner was at Northampton, and because he saw how his recommendations were treated there. [Interruption.] He thought that the Government would want a second opinion and he gave them such an opportunity. There is no slur on the Commissioner at all. He was badly treated over his recommendations regarding Northampton and we had a censure debate on that subject.
    I am sometimes worried about what I regard to be the arrogance of Socialist-controlled councils and of the Socialist Government. That is why we in Brent want the elections. We have had a Socialist controlled council there for some time and that has been responsible for one or two little things. For example, there is a civic forum in Brent and there are speakers from the council and questions put to them by the audience. There are certain facts about the Borough of Brent published in a pamphlet called Civic Forum and it gives the size of the Borough, its population and the fact that
    978
    it has 10 aldermen and 60 councillors, including the mayor and deputy mayor. The document states:
    "Councillors are elected every three years, but Government legislation has extended the period of office of Councillors of the Greater London boroughs until 1968 in order that there shall be no confusion with the Greater London Council elections next year."
    It is a fait accompli. This is the arrogance. There will be no doubt for the Brent Socialists about this legislation being passed. The House of Commons does not matter. The majority has decided, and that is that. The Government have stated that the period of office will be extended, which is another reason why we in Brent want the elections held next year. I hope that I have made a satisfactory case to prove why that should be done.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I wish to address my remarks, first, to Amendment No. 19, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), in which he seeks to deprive the electors of his constituency and of mine of the benefits which will be conferred on them by the Bill, and, secondly, to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), who dealt rather scrappily with the scheme for comprehensive education in my Borough, as the Northumberland Heath and Erith Grammar School are in my constituency.
    As the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) stated on a previous occasion, the Bill raises a matter of principle. That is because if one considers the Borough to which the Amendment refers, one must remember that under the London Government Act, 1963, four areas—Erith, Crayford, the old borough of Bexley and Sidcup—were brought into the London Borough of Bexley.
    That being so—and here is where an important question of principle arises—are hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that it is wrong in any circumstances to extend the elected lives of councillors? I do not believe that that is being suggested because as in my case, and throughout outer London, at least one third of the councillors of the existing authorities, before amalgamation, had their lives as elected members extended, to the detriment of the outcome of the first 18 months

    979
    of the London boroughs. I know from experience that had the Chislehurst and Sidcup Council not had its life extended by the postponement under the 1963 Act, there would probably have been a change of control and the relevant transformation. If that had happened this new London Borough would have gone forward in a healthier, stronger and more joyful way. Let us have no more talk about undemocratic practices. If it is right in principle, then it is right in practice.
    Questions have been raised about the counties of Essex, Kent and Surrey. They were extended, but I will not go into that matter.
    I want to turn to what I consider to be the main principle involved in this Bill, and to show how my electors would feel deprived if the right hon. Member for Bexley's Amendment were carried by the Committee. It is a normal democratic tradition of local government in this country that local authorities should be elected for a three-year period, with full power in office. This is not the case for the London Borough of Bexley or indeed other London boroughs. They were elected, it is true, on 7th May, 1964, but they did not take office until April, 1965, and during that first year they were denuded of all powers, and the only money and resources they had were from a ld. or 2d. rate from the constituent authorities.
    They could spend nothing, they could plan nothing with certainty, because every decision which they took had to be referred to the existing councils still in office in the extended year of life which had been conferred on them, undemocratically, by the previous Government—on the principle hon. Members opposite are trying to establish now.
    Captain Walter Elliot: Would the hon. Gentleman not admit that when they were elected it was on the basis that they would resubmit themselves for election in 1967?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I would not have said this was a factor which predominated in my own constituency or borough; this was never a factor at all. When those elections took place the confusion which had been created by the London Government Act, 1963, was such that I
    980
    doubt whether anybody, electors or elected, really knew what it was all about.
    They were elected, and in that first year they had no power at all. So in fact they were only to have two years of office, till May, 1967—a complete departure from what I consider to be a fundamental principle that elected members of councils should have three years in office.
    Of course, that is a view that is not just mine or a view of my party or council. The Kentish Times, which circulates in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in an editorial of 25th February, 1966, makes this point:
    "Those in favour of a deferment could ask for it to be borne in mind that the new Council are in their first year. Their job of welding Erith, Bexley, Crayford and Sidcup into a united borough has been a tremendous task and one that cannot possibly be resolved in one year."
    That is insufficient time if further elections have to take place in 1967. That is why I believe the Bill is correct. The article goes on to say:
    "We would not for one moment suggest that everything in the garden is lovely, but a complete reorganisation of this magnitude takes far longer than 12 months. We see it not from any political standpoint, but from the overall pattern."
    This is an editorial circulating in the right hon. Gentleman's own area.
    As for the electoral implications, there is this repeated scream from hon. Members opposite, "Give the people an opportunity to express their views"—on this scheme or that scheme. How many opportunities does one really need before one can say that one has a mandate to do a particular thing? Let us take the London Borough of Bexley which gave an overwhelming endorsement to the Labour Party which, in its election manifesto, clearly said that there would be an end to selection at 11-plus and that we would introduce a system of comprehensive education within the existing framework.
    On that basis there were elected to the London Borough of Bexley 39 Labour members and 17 Conservatives. I would have thought that an overwhelming mandate for us to go forward with plans for comprehensive education.

    981
    In the October General Election, 1964, in my constituency, my predecessor at his election meetings said that
    "We must move forward nationally and locally towards comprehensive education."
    It may be a matter of interest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley—I am sorry he is not here, but I can understand the reasons why, perhaps, he is not—just to glance at the figures in that election over the borough as a whole. Labour had a majority. At the by-election in 1965, in which I played some small part, we had an absolutely overwhelming majority of the electors in all parts of the borough in favour of the comprehensive system.
    If anybody believes that in November, 1965, the comprehensive plan put forward by the London Borough of Bexley was not an election issue I suggest that he reads a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), to whom I shall be coming later, when he spoke in my constituency, or, again, if he will look at a pamphlet put out by Erith Grammar School Amalgamation Parents Committee, and circulated during the campaign.
    It asks the electors of Erith and Cray-ford to express their views, to stand up for Erith Grammar School and the Northumberland Heath schools. It said this:
    "If you cannot attend a meeting write a strong letter of protest to your local or national newspaper. Write a strong letter of protest to your local councillor. Write a strong letter of protest to the Parliamentary candidate of your choice."
    It suggested that people should ask the question why it was necessary to amalgamate the schools. It concluded:
    "In other words 'Stir it up' "
    and make this an issue in this election. It was an issue in the election in November, 1965, and I am in this Committee because one-third, almost, of the London Borough of Bexley, an overwhelming majority of the electors, confirmed the desire to go forward to comprehensive education.
    Then, of course, in 1966, we had the same repeat performance when we received a majority of votes in the borough as a whole, and greater still for Labour candidates, and the opponent of the
    982
    right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley increased the vote for Labour, and every one of us, I am quite certain, made comprehensive education part of our platform in that election.
    5.15 p.m.
    To turn to the remarks by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hands-worth. He referred, very briefly and sceptically, to the scheme for Erith Grammar School and to the lack of provision, I believe, for proper science laboratory facilities. It may interest him to know that in fact in Erith Grammar School and in the Northumberland Heath Schools there are at the moment 13 science laboratories and in those schools also 24 rooms for practical studies in woodwork and other things. It may be that when the final decision is taken and the placing of the pupils is worked out we shall need an extra one or two science laboratories but at the moment I do not agree it can be said that the provision is inadequate or scrappy.
    Sir E. Boyle: According to this second report from the Chief Education Officer I see there are eight science laboratories in Erith Grammar School and two or three in the Northumberland Heath Schools. My query was, and I still feel it very much, after reading the four pages of this report, whether there is a proper balance of provision between the various schools which make up this group, such as to make possible an all-through scheme for the children here. I think one can legitimately feel very grave doubts about this. Even if we approve the principle of a trend towards selective integration I think it is reasonable to query this scheme.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: After the councillors have done all their work on this scheme, including the one for my area, it will be submitted to my right hon. Friend, and I am quite certain that he will not approve any scheme which in any way does not provide sufficient facilities to be acceptable as an approved scheme for the education of our children, and if the Secretary of State, when he considers our scheme, feels this is so, he will find no bitterness towards him by the Council of the London Borough of Bexley. We have in good faith submitted a scheme which we believe is right, is proper, and is adequate, and we would certainly bow

    983
    to any suggestion for an amendment of this scheme made by the Minister.
    The right hon. Member for Hands-worth spoke on 1st November at Erith Grammar School in the by-election. His language then was not the soft, smooth, syrupy language we normally hear from him when he speaks on education. Then he was on the political platform, rampaging to try to get his candidate preferred. Far from the polite language we normally hear, we had this intemperate language to inflame the passions of people who were desperately concerned about the future education of their children.
    The right hon. Gentleman said today that he believed that this ought to be a political issue. Political in the sense that it is a matter of local and national government, yes; but party political, no. I regret—I said so then; I say so now—the way this matter was dragged into party politics and the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman himself dragged the matter into party politics at the by-election. He said this:
    "I must say that the plans of the Socialist-controlled borough of Bexley for what I can only call the precipitate imposition of comprehensive secondary education at Erith are among the most ill-thought out and opportunist that I have ever encountered. … this issue is a botched-up type of proposal at its worst."
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: The crunch will come in a moment:
    "My final point is that this precipitate scheme appears to have been rushed through without any proper consultation".
    Does the right hon. Gentleman stand by that? Does he still believe that the scheme was rushed through without consultation, or was this just something he said on a party political platform at a by-election?
    Sir E. Boyle: There was probably more consultation about the second plan in April, 1966 than there had been when I spoke at the by-election in 1965; but, as I said earlier, many of the teachers in Bexley do not appear to like it very much better; and I am not surprised.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point, because I have some information to give him later about the attitude of
    984
    the teachers in Bexley. The right hon. Gentleman concluded his by-election speech in this way:
    "I cannot emphasise too strongly that a really good result for the Conservative Party in Erith will be the strongest possible intimation … that public opinion is really roused and anxious about this proposal".
    The public made its declaration.
    I only wish that the right hon. Member for Bexley had sent his right hon. Friend another editorial which appeared in the Bexleyheath Observer before the right hon. Gentleman came to speak at that by-election. On 15th October, just 16 days before the right hon. Gentleman spoke in Erith and Crayford, the Bexleyheath Observer issued an editorial on this matter. It must have been thinking of the right hon. Gentleman when it said:
    "A number of prominent people, however, are jumping the gun to some extent. It is abundantly clear from the Council's minutes that the discussions now going on in regard to the merging of the Erith Grammar School with the two Northumberland Heath grammar schools and, later, of the Bexleyheath Secondary Schools, are only preliminary discussions, the results of which will figure in a report to the Education Committee and subsequently the full Council."
    The editorial says "preliminary discussions". Where is the undue haste which we were told about 16 days later by the right hon. Gentleman? I wish that his right hon. Friend had sent him this editorial, because it might have given him a little more intimate knowledge of what was happening in fact and in reality. The editorial went on to talk about the time to criticise these proposals:
    "Now is not the time to criticise the comprehensive schools as if this borough had been committed to them with no thought or with undue haste. Now is the time to come forward with practical proposals for alternative solutions."
    There have been no practical alternative proposals put forward in the London borough of Bexley by the Conservative opposition.
    In making this final comment the newspaper must have had the right hon. Gentleman in mind 16 days before he spoke:
    "Those now carping about the 'indecent haste' of decision-making might well be accused in due course of 'indecent lethargy' if all they do is criticise without constructive comment."

    985
    I have here a letter I received from the local Conservative Party dealing with the question of comprehensive education. The local Association wrote to me on 19th August, 1966, telling me that it had passed a resolution condemning and rejecting outright the scheme as proposed by my Authority. I wrote back to the local Tory Association and said:
    "I would find it helpful if you would let me know whether you are completely opposed to the whole principle of comprehensive education or whether your Association has an alternative scheme to the one proposed by the Council."
    I received this letter back on 28th September. The letter says briefly: "Dear Mr. Wellbeloved", Blah, blah, blah. [Laughter.] I am trying to abbreviate the Association's normal manner of exposition. The letter says:
    "I cannot say whether my Association is completely opposed to the whole principle of comprehensive education, as the motion debated and subsequently agreed unanimously was the resolution previously submitted to you."
    So the local Conservative Party, like the right hon. Gentleman, has not given any practical, constructive consideration to the problems of secondary reorganisation facing the London Borough of Bexley. All it is indulging in is unjust and ill-informed criticism, which is not helpful when a matter of such importance, namely children's education, is under consideration.
    In this respect I have the advantage of the right hon. Gentleman. When I am photographed with a child, it is invariably my own. When I am talking about the schools in the London Borough of Bexley, they are the schools which my own children attend. The Northumberland Heath-Erith Grammar School amalgamation is a school attended by one of my children. The Picardy amalgamation, which will take place, I hope, is a school attended by another of my children. It is a matter of great interest to people in our area. We resent this cheap party political attack.
    Mr. Marcus Worsley: The hon. Gentleman has said that it is a matter of great interest to people in his area. Why does he wish to prevent them from voting on it next year?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman has adequately illustrated what I
    986
    meant when I said "blab, blah, blah". I meant this continuous repetition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will indeed. If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber—or, if he was in the Chamber, if he had been consciously awake—he would have heard my opening argument when I tried to develop the principle which was involved, namely, that of local authorities having a full three-year term of office with full responsibility and duty. This was denied to the London Borough of Bexley and to the 32 Greater London boroughs because, to remind the hon. Gentleman, in case he did not clearly hear the argument, in the first year of their term they had no power of responsibility. Therefore, they have had only two years in which to transform, amalgamate and build up the new community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] They ought to have three.
    Mr. Anthony Berry Mr. Anthony Berry (Southgate) rose——
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I want to continue because many hon. Members wish to get in on this debate. If the hon. Gentleman wished to make a fresh point, I would give way; but I am sure that he only wants to rehash the argument we have heard so repeatedly during the course of the debate.
    The right hon. Member for Hands-worth said that this should be a party political matter. I take a completely different view. So does my Council—at least, the majority of its members. I believe that this is a vitally important subject which ought not to be party political. Local councillors make statements, like the one I shall now quote, in a debate in the council. One Conservative member referred to the scheme as the outcome of political dogma and class hatred. The expression "political dogma" is applied to people who are bringing forward schemes, not that other people's children will be involved in, but in which their own children will be involved. This is a disgraceful description.
    Then there is the argument put forward by the shadow Leader of the Education Committee on Bexley Council. He is indeed a shadow leader. This is the terrible statement he makes in the context of education. He asks the parents to bombard the council and the Minister so that they will make them "hate the name

    987
    of Bexley". Class hatred and dogma activate the Conservatives in this borough on the question of the educational programmes. Thank God the Conservatives are not in power in the local authority. With that sort of feeling in their hearts and minds, I am certain that they will not be in power in the London Borough of Bexley.
    5.30 p.m.
    When the right hon. Gentleman intervened he referred to the teachers being against the scheme. This is a monstrous distortion of the facts. Fortunately, I have with me two quotations from teachers who have had the courage to write to the Press. One of them in the Sidcup area says that as a full-time teacher he strongly protests at the way that a certain ballot was taken by the teachers in the area on the comprehensive scheme. He says that the questions which were posed to the teachers were impossible to answer other than by a simple "Yes" or "No" and that both those answers would have been construed as being against the comprehensive education scheme.
    Nor is it true to say that the parents are against this scheme. I have quotations from parents from practically every school in the borough involved in the scheme, who has come out, either in the Press or at a meeting, against the attitude taken by a small minority of parents in the borough.
    There is one final point that I ought to make in dealing with the strictures of the right hon. Member for Handsworth on our scheme. I refer to the question of consultation and indecent haste. The facts are as follows. Even prior to the right hon. Gentleman's election speech in Erith and Crayford, there were consultations between the council, the parents and teachers in the area. In fact, our education committee has six teachers co-opted on to it. One of those teachers is on the special sub-committee dealing with the comprehensive education plans. There is in the area a teachers' advisory council which nominated members of its choice to the working parties which were set up to inquire into the practicability and viability of our proposals.
    Of the two working parties which were set up, one was to consider the broad
    988
    proposals for comprehensive education. There were five meetings of this working party consisting of councillors, teachers and officials of the education authority. At those five meetings sub-groups were set up to deal with specific problems, again with teachers nominating their own representatives. The second working party dealt exclusively with the Erith Grammar-Northumberland Heath school position.
    The teachers of the three schools involved and the officers had no fewer than six meetings on this one point and they set up two further groups. There have been meetings with teaching staffs, two meetings exclusively with the head teachers of the schools involved in the amalgamation, a meeting with the staff of Erith Grammar School and the other two schools involved, and a whole series of other meetings. The views of the teachers have been collected by the advisory council. They were circulated to the elected members of the London Borough of Bexley and they were considered by the education committee at a very long meeting.
    The alternative plan from one of the areas involved in Bexley was circulated to the education committee and to the council and has been considered. The parents and residents have had a meeting to consider the proposals because both the first and second proposals were released to the Press in the borough and were published. Therefore, the parents and residents had an opportunity of knowing what was afoot.
    The proposals were also discussed with the governing bodies of the schools concerned, and there were public meetings in five areas in the London Borough of Bexley to enable these schemes to be discussed by parents and members of the public. At not one of those five meetings did a resident or parent who wanted to gain admission fail so to do. Everybody had an opportunity to attend. There have been rotary lunches and a course of lectures, and there has been a Workers' Education Association course of lectures at an evening institute.
    Amendment No. 19 is quite unjustified so far as the London Borough of Bexley is concerned. Our plans for comprehensive education have been put in detail to the people most concerned. As teachers,

    989
    parents and electors they have had opportunities to discuss them. Their representations have been heard. The submission that is now before the Secretary of State will soon be given final consideration, and we may all soon know whether or not they are acceptable under Circular 10/65.
    Mr. Berry: I am sure that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) will understand if I do not follow him at this hour. The Committee has heard a lot about Bexley this afternoon and the failure of the party opposite to put the matter before the electors next year speaks for itself.
    May I return to a subject which is now familiar to the Committee—the London Borough of Enfield. The Committee must appreciate what a marginal area it is, with 31 Labour representatives on the council as against 29 Conservatives, the Labour Party having taken all ten aldermanic seats.
    May I refer briefly to the petition which I had the honour to present two weeks ago. Normally, when one presents a petition in this House one says a few words, watched closely by Mr. Speaker to ensure that one does not speak for too long, and one then puts the petition into the bag. That is an end of the matter.
    Thanks to this Bill, my petition has had a considerable amount of publicity. In particular, may I thank the right hon. Lady the Minister of State, Home Office, who took an interest in it at an earlier stage. I should like to compliment her on the way she examined it. She said that a cursory glance would show certain factors. To take a cursory glance at 1,000 pieces of paper, each containing 10 signatures requires a computer mind. I congratulate her. Unfortunately, the dictionary defines "cursory" as "hesitating, superficial and careless". I hope to show that those adjectives are more than apt as regards her description.
    The right hon. Lady suggested that because a few of the signatures came from outside the borough, the petition was of no importance. May I briefly mention some places outside the borough to which she referred? First, she referred to Cheshire. I think she must have been misinformed. There is no signature from Cheshire.
    Miss Bacon: I did not refer to Cheshire. I said, "Cheshunt".
    Mr. Berry: I do not know whether it has been corrected in HANSARD, where the word "Cheshire" appears. However, I accept what the right hon. Lady says.
    Then she referred to Cambridge. Does she not know that there is a university there with undergraduates in residence who might use their university address when signing the petition? She referred to Surrey where there lives a person who used to live in my borough and who is shortly returning with her young children. The right hon. Lady referred to other places, which included——
    Miss Bacon: Bournemouth.
    Mr. Berry: Yes, Bournemouth. I hope to come back to that one later.
    One in over 10,000—does that make a strong case for the right hon. Lady? She referred to Nottingham, where there is a recently married schoolteacher who is now looking for a house in my borough. In Brighton, there is a widow who has moved there after living since she was born in Enfield. In Oldham, there are two people whose daughter and five grandchildren live in Enfield.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all.
    Mr. Berry: If the hon. Gentleman were better informed, he would be cheering my right hon. Friend and not Uncle Tom Cobley.
    The right hon. Lady also referred to other parts of London. There was W.9, where there is a grandparent who has two grandchildren living in the borough, and S.E.12, where there are people who used to live in the borough. The right hon. Lady mentioned Chigwell, and I spoke to the lady there who signed the petition. She is a teacher in a secondary school in the Borough of Enfield. In S.E.23, which was also mentioned, there is another teacher employed in the borough.
    I received a letter this morning from a teacher who lives in Acton, W.3, who signed the petition. She has been a teacher at a grammar school in the Borough of Enfield for 21 years. She wrote:
    "From my experience I can state categorically that the proposed comprehensive system of education in the London Borough of Enfield

    991
    is unworkable and will result in a sad deterioration in the standard of education in the borough for the next ten years at least."
    So much for the right hon. Lady's suggestions.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) has given some reasons why the Bill affects my area, and has given details of the borough's education problems. There was absolutely no consultation with the parents before the scheme was imposed. We have excellent schools which will be jointed together in a hotch-potch way.
    In my constituency two schools nearly a mile apart will be called one school, and two schools more than half a mile apart, with the Great Cambridge Road running between them, are being joined together in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) who has been conspicuously absent from the debate—I shall go on saying that until we hear his views on the subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] A policeman must be on duty in the morning and at lunchtime for the pupils who are crossing over. Will a policeman be on duty all day long when they are joined together?
    Is that a comprehensive school in the Minister's wonderful way of doing things? People in my borough feel very strongly about the Bill. Even in the last election the Labour Party had a minority of the total votes. We know why the Bill is being imposed. It is one thing to talk about putting off elections, but in the Clause we are dealing with the lives of our children, and that is the most important thing of all. It will not be forgotten when those elections come.
    Mr. Freeson: Unlike the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), I cannot claim that all the people of Brent are very worried about the Bill one way or the other. If we were all honest in the Chamber we would stop using that kind of language, because it is not true and we know it.
    I hope that somebody sends a message to the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) because it is he who has brought me back into the debate. I had not intended to be here, because I was busy elsewhere in the building, but I want to state again shortly the position which has occurred in my own borough.
    992
    Like speeches from the Conservative Party in the borough of Brent and in the council chamber, the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North can only do a disservice to education in the borough and to local government in general. Many speeches we hear from members of the Conservative Party in the House and throughout the country need to be greatly changed in their character. They do a grave disservice to education and to the public.
    I speak from personal knowledge and I am not just concerned with trying to recapitulate and make speeches about something that has happened elsewhere, which I am seeking to rationalise and justify because certain people have given me advice. As a Member, I have been involved in local government in my area, like other Members on both sides, for many years. In the course of this I have been closely concerned with the development of the education service in my area.
    Strong feelings and strong ideological differences have been expressed about the whole issue of comprehensive education for at least 20 years. But I had hoped that by this time, with the changes that are going on both among those who accept comprhensive education and those who have criticised it in the past, we would be discussing the matter rather more quietly and a little less ideologically, and dropping a great deal of the silly sloganising we get in the House and elsewhere.
    5.45 p.m.
    Many local authorities, both Labour-and Conservative-controlled, have spent many hours with thousands of people throughout the country in studying their schools set-up and trying to improve them along lines which we have now all come to accept are comprehensive. In the past various names have been given to them. Some of us have accepted the principle, declared it and worked out schemes accordingly, but in many areas, particularly over the past seven years, an increasing number of education authorities have been moving, whether slowly or quickly, towards what many of us generally describe as the comprehensive principle, even when they have not given lip service to that principle.
    We know this on this side, and in the Labour Party, teachers know it in their

    993
    organisations and schools, and if the matter were discussed a little more quietly on occasions other than consideration of the Bill, hon. Members opposite would discuss it and think along those lines. It was in this spirit, whether hon. Members opposite like to accept it or not, that members of the Brent Council, of which I am still a member, sought to study the educational system in the borough they had come to administer.
    I want to go over some of the history, because the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North distorted matters not only for hon. Members but, as so many of his colleagues in the Conservative Party locally are doing, distorted matters for the parents. I want to deal with the history in the council chamber and the reaction among parents. At the very first meeting of the Education Committee of the borough of Brent the education officer was asked to prepare a report. It was moved that he should be asked to prepare a preliminary report within six months as to how the secondary education system in the borough could be reorganised on comprehensive lines. The vote in favour was then unanimous, and Mr. Lee was there.
    About three weeks later, when that report was submitted to the borough council, the division came. Having voted unanimously and spoken in favour of such a report being prepared the Conservative Party, no doubt having been brought under a certain amount of pressure from its local associations, started the rather foolish storm and division that has continued ever since. I know this as a matter of fact, for I was there. The Conservatives have never satisfactorily answered the question put to them time and time again as to why they voted unanimously at the start and within a matter of weeks came to the town hall en bloc and stated that they were against the idea. They have carried on the fight ever since.
    I shall not start quoting—as one of my hon. Friends quite correctly did—the kind of speeches we had to suffer in our area, but the kind of campaign waged by the Conservative Party in Brent has done a good deal of damage and caused considerable confusion among parents. Week after week people come to see me or write letters about the future education service who have a completely distorted
    994
    idea of what is planned as a result of the stupid, highly political party campaign waged by the Conservative Party.
    Every time a major policy decision is taken in a town hall or here it is a political decision, and I shall not distort the word "political", unlike hon. Members opposite who, from time to time, when they choose to do so, say, "Do not bring politics into it". It is a political decision. What I am asking for, even at this late stage, is that both locally and nationally we have a little more intelligent discussion about what we are proposing.
    In our area we produced a scheme which has been improved as a result of consultation with the Ministry and other people in the borough. We are proceeding to establish that scheme. It will prove to be a great advance educationally for the children of the borough. As soon as we can make further steps forward in the school building programme, in school staffing and in equipment for the schools, we shall again improve the scheme submitted and approved, which, as is the case in so many other areas, is based on the facilities available.
    That was the position when we submitted our first proposals. As a result of submitting them, certain improvements were made by the Ministry in the school building programme. As a consequence of those improvements we have been able to change and modify the scheme yet further. We shall always be willing and wanting to do this. I hope that in future we shall have the co-operation instead of silly sloganising of hon. Members opposite.
    I come briefly to the question of rewarding. I shall not go over the history of this; I have not the papers with me. It ill behoves any member of the Conservative Party in Wembley, in the House of Commons or elsewhere, to challenge members of the Labour Party locally or Labour Ministers about consultation on this matter or about reflecting the desires of the people. If there was one party in London which had no consultation at all about its proposals prior to the 1964 Election under the new London set-up, it was the majority Conservative Party on the council in Wembley. It prepared a scheme and submitted it to the council

    995
    with no consultation with any organisation prior to approving it. I challenge denial of this. It began to get reactions afterwards, but it had made its decision.
    As with comprehensive education, one rule which we laid down from the start under a Labour majority in Brent was that there would be the greatest possible consultation and that letters would go to the longest list of organisations we could establish in order to get their views. We got their views, something which the Conservatives in Wembley never did. The majority or organisations and people who have expressed views on re-warding, as on comprehensive education, have supported the council. I challenge denial of that, as well.
    It has often been said by members of the Conservative Party in some of the many foolish speeches to which I have referred that we are arrogant and are not interested in the people, and that we are just interested in power for its own sake. What I ask hon. Members and people living in my borough and elsewhere is to look at the services now being prepared and being implemented in their areas and to ask themselves a few simple questions. Let them consider whether they are being improved.
    I could cite many services in the northern part of my borough—that is, the old Wembley borough—which were virtually non-existent before the new set-up was created and before a Labour majority took over, such as in mental welfare, old people's welfare, health, schools, and housing. I could refer to a whole range of services on which a marked step forward has been taken. There are major programmes and plans going ahead which were not even dreamed of by the Conservatives on the Wembley part of the borough before 1964. They are now being pushed ahead.
    Whether we agree with one another or not on major ideological matters, it is on this basis that I ask hon. Members and people outside to consider the future of local government. I hope that we shall go back to our boroughs and discuss the real issues facing the public and that people will not just listen to a few dissident members of a minority party. [Interruption.] I hear a few "tut tuts". Let me spell it out in greater detail. I
    996
    shall be glad to see Conservative Party representatives in Brent paying more attention to local matters by being in attendance. Let us see them at local functions and local organisations instead of just hearing them making speeches here. Let them be seen to be participating in local discussions on issues facing members of the public locally. So far we have not seen this.
    Mr. Reader Harris: I hope that the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) will forgive me if I do not precisely take up his line of argument. I do not know what things are like in Brent, but we do not meet the same conditions in Hounslow, where all members of all parties take a great interest in what goes on. I wish to say a few words in support of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus), because I am interested in Amendment No. 32.
    I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) say that in his area the councillors had been in control for only two years. In the borough of Hounslow the present councillors were elected in April, 1964, and did not get legal control until 1st April, 1965, but no decisions of any importance were taken by the old Heston and Isleworth Borough Council in its last year of office without reference to the "shadow" council, as we called it. The members of the Hounslow Borough Council have been in virtual control for three years, and I should not have thought it unreasonable that in 1967 the electors should have the opportunity of pronouncing on their work.
    In Hounslow, when the present borough council was elected, there were 58 Labour members, including all the aldermanic seats, against 12 Conservatives. The balance has been slightly redressed to 57 against 13. This does not in any way represent the distribution of votes as between Labour and Conservative members throughout the borough; the division is very much closer than that.
    I recognise that by the accident of the distribution of votes in our democratic society one can get at council and national level a very large majority for one party, but this is a situation

    997
    which we can tolerate only if people have the opportunity at regular intervals to pronounce on the efforts of their elected representatives. As has been said, those elected in 1964 were elected on the understanding that there would be an election in 1967.
    There is one matter on which I think the people of the Borough of Hounslow are anxious to express their views through the ballot box, and that is education. Since 1964, when the present borough council was elected, some detailed proposals have been made for changing the present education system to a comprehensive system. When the present borough council was elected, the details were not known; but now they are known.
    About a year ago the borough council held a series of meetings throughout the borough to explain to parents exactly what the proposals would mean in practice. I do not think that I am exaggerating when I say that those meetings were not exactly happy. At times, they were quite stormy. Many of the parents felt that they had not had an opportunity of putting their point of view.
    My opinion is that there are many parents in the borough who are not happy with the new proposals. Throughout the Borough of Hounslow, or at any rate in Heston and Isleworth, which is my constituency, there were, broadly speaking, few criticisms of the education system. Obviously, there was a desire to bring many of the buildings up to date, but, by and large, we had, and still have, some very good schools, like the Isleworth Grammar School and the Spring Grove Grammar School, which are second to none in the country. We have first-class secondary schools, such as the Heston Secondary School. We have magnificent girls' schools.
    All this is to be thrown into a hotchpotch and the schools are to be divided up. We are to have comprehensive schools formed from buildings which by no stretch of the imagination can be considered to be suitable. In certain cases they are some miles apart.
    6.0 p.m.
    The scheme does not commend itself to many electors. All I am asking is that when 1967 comes, there should be, as the electors expected, an opportunity
    998
    for them to pronounce their views through the ballot box. These are matters on which many of my electors feel strongly. It is difficult for me to know exactly what they all think. Few write to tell me that they want the new comprehensive scheme. Many write to tell me that they are against it. Surely a democratic election is the right way for them to express their views.
    Finally, on the point that we do not want to have two elections so close together in one year, that has happened before and I cannot see what the objection is to having it again. Every time there is a local election, whether for the Greater London Council or for a borough council, there is enormous disturbance and dislocation at the town hall, but if it is all got through in one year instead of being spread over two years, surely the situation cannot be any worse.
    Having said all that, I must point out that I fully support everything that is being said on this side of the Committee. There is no need for rancour in my borough, as there appears to be in Crayford and Erith. Nevertheless, there is a desire that we should have the elections next year as promised.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Maurice Foley): We have been discussing a series of Amendments to delete many boroughs from the Bill. I think that the debate has reflected the concern expressed on one side and refuted on the other about arguments as to what is real and what is imaginary.
    I ought to begin by making clear, as the Home Secretary did in introducing the Bill on Second Reading, that the Bill arose from representations made to the Home Office by the London Boroughs Association, and in so far as this debate is concerned with the emphasis that has been placed on comprehensive education, I must categorically refute any suggestions or imputations that the Department of Education and Science was involved, was consulted, or made representations to influence the Home Secretary's decision. So any arguments that might be advanced to suggest a conspiracy or a bulldozing attitude or a notion that somehow we shall get comprehensive education via the back door are without foundation.

    999
    In so far as the debate has largely centred around the question of comprehensive education, I think I should be right in stating, as I did the other evening when we were earlier discussing the Bill in Committee, that the nation has already spoken in general terms quite clearly on this subject. Here in London it was the major item, together with housing, in the Greater London Council elections. It figured prominently in the election campaigns of 1964 and 1966. Therefore, one could say broadly that the nation, in terms of the way it voted, reflected approval of this principle.
    Then we come to the question, quite rightly raised, of the devising by individual boroughs of their proposals and representations to the Department of Education and Science. Because of what was raised this afternoon, and also because of comments made the other evening, I think I should refer to Circular 10/65, since it would seem from what many have said that they are not aware of its existence or not aware of its content.
    I want to deal particularly with the question of consultation. The first sentence of paragraph 40 of the Circular reads:
    "The smooth inception and continuing success of any scheme of reorganisation will depend on the co-operation of teachers and the support and confidence of parents. To secure this there must be a process of consultation and explanation before any scheme is approved by an authority for submission to the Secretary of State."
    Paragraphs 41 and 42 refer to the way in which teachers, in their associations, and parents ought to be involved in this kind of consultation.
    Reference has been made by two hon. Members opposite to the progress or lack of progress in this field. The hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) referred to the time given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, to receive deputations and to address meetings. The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), on the other hand, referred to "a total absence of consultation". I would suggest that it might be helpful if those two hon. Members could get together and discuss how one sets about it in so far as the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North is highly
    1000
    satisfied with the measure of consultation or facilities provided and the hon. Member for Southgate is dissatisfied.
    I turn to the comments by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle). In offering detailed criticisms of some of the schemes, he made a number of points which are relevant and will certainly be considered by the Secretary of State. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we cannot at this stage prejudge the decision. Some of the criticisms made of individual schemes by right hon. Members opposite have already been conveyed to the Secretary of State directly by teachers and by parents, and these objections are being fully taken into account and carefully considered, as all submissions will be. Therefore, no hon. Member need feel that his constituency is neglected and has not access to make representations in relation to schemes proposed in their boroughs. They can make representations direct to the Department of Education and Science. Indeed, many have already done so.
    In concluding his intervention, the right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that the Secretary of State has no powers to compel. This, I think, is a direct refutation of those who referred to bulldozing, Nazi/Fascist tactics, and so on. The Secretary of State has no powers to compel. Indeed, he publicly stated this in answer to a Question on 3rd November from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). The Secretary of State for the Department of Education and Science replied:
    "On present evidence I do not foresee the need for legislation in this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 138.]
    So one is entitled to ask: Are the fears that are being expressed real or imaginary?
    Mr. Iremonger; But the right hon. Gentleman also said that if he saw any need for legislation he would not hesitate to introduce it.
    Mr. Foley: I am sure that my right hon. Friend did not say that. If the hon. Gentleman can quote the reference for that, I will willingly withdraw, but I am sure that he is wrong. I hope that he will refer to it again for his own sake.

    1001
    The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), in opening the debate, referred to my comments on a previous occasion when I was questioning the motivation in terms of the choice of Camden as a borough which should be excluded. I did not do it at all to indicate that any borough should be excluded. I illustrated the borough in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency in order to indicate the high selectivity and the motivation, or the possible motivation, in his selection of Camden as the borough on which he would argue. In the same way, the arguments put forward last time about the exclusion of a borough apply equally in this instance to the Amendments that we are considering. We believe that it would be wrong to exclude any borough from the Bill. We believe that in the interest of good administration for the political parties, for the Press and for publicity, all the boroughs should be treated in exactly the same way, and for these reasons I must reject the Amendments.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The decision which the Committee will have to make is on the Amendment to leave the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames out of the provisions of the Bill. Having heard the whole debate, I think that I am right in saying that the Under-Secretary of State and I have the lonely distinction of being the only two speakers actually to refer to that issue. The Under-Secretary himself only just did so, obviously catching a last minute glimpse of his brief. With respect to him, he gave no reasons. He merely said, "We believe that it is wrong to exclude one particular borough." He gave no grounds for that belief and he did not attempt to argue that the suggestion was impractical. He merely said, "We believe that no one should be excluded"—even though, as in this case, the particular borough has asked to be excluded, its council ask for it to be excluded, and there is no practical difficulty in doing so. With the resources of a Government Department behind him, all that the Under-Secretary can do is to say, "We believe that all should suffer alike." That is a wholly inadequate answer, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be prepared shortly to go into the Lobby and express their views as to the inadequacy of that answer.
    1002
    I want to comment only for a moment on the broader issues of the debate, in the course of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) gave such an authoritative analysis of the problems of the reorganisation of secondary education in London.
    I must pick up what the Under-Secretary said. He said that at previous elections the nation has decided this. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary realises that the group of Amendments which we are considering deal with the outer London boroughs which are local education authorities. If one has any respect for the independence of local education authorities—and there are reasons for doubting whether some people in the Department of Education and Science have any respect for their independence—he will realise that it is not for the nation to decide; it is for the electors in each borough. That is precisely what they are being denied by the Bill, and it is that right which our Amendment seeks to give in the case of at least one of them.
    I agree with what the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) said. The reorganisation of secondary education is a political decision. The question is, who should take it? Should it be the local electors in each borough or the central Government? That is the issue which is raised. Where it is, we are told, a political decision, in this subject-matter of the organisation of education, it is a revolutionary concept to say that it is a matter in which the local electors should be denied a voice and that it should be treated as being settled by the central Government.
    The issue is not whether comprehensive education is a good thing or a bad thing. It is not even whether the schemes of particular boroughs are right and sound or unsound and ill-judged. The question is a much simpler one: is this so important a matter as to be one on which the local electors should have the right to express their view before final decisions are taken?
    All the arguments which we have heard from hon. Members opposite indicate that they are well-informed on these subjects. But surely all the arguments as to why the schemes in their particular boroughs are good lead to the same conclusion as the speeches of my

    1003
    right hon. and hon. Friends criticising them; that is, that these are very important matters, quite difficult and controversial matters in their local application, on which the local electors should have a right to decide.
    It seems curious that the Government should select the year 1967–68, which is the year of decision on these matters, as being the one year in which the normal date of election is to be postponed so that the present councils go on. I suggest that it would be a bad thing in any year, as I have said at earlier stages of the Bill. But to pick out this particular year, when a decision which all hon. Members who have spoken from both sides admit is of the greatest importance has to be taken, is one of the oddest and most extraordinary aspects of this proposed Measure.
    I pick up what I took to be a personal reference in the remarks of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who made the observation that, unlike the mover of this Amendment, when he was photographed with children he had the advantage of their being his own. I accept that my own children are now of an age which makes them unsuitable for a group of small infants, but I can assure the Committee that my children are at least as photogenic as their father.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. A. H. Macdonald: In defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), I am sure that he was not referring to the person or the family of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), but to the person of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) is able to read the thoughts of his hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford, I would not dispute his telepathic powers. I am only glad that he has put the record right because, as it was expressed, it appeared to be a reflection on the decorative nature of my own family.
    If I may come back to the point on which we should decide, it was very well summed up in the Sunday Express of 20th
    1004
    November. In the leading article, these words appeared:
    "Until last week thousands of anxious London parents had a date to look forward to: April 13, 1967. … This chance to protect their children's interests is now to be denied them."
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): April 13th?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the Sunday Express was wrong. If the right hon. Gentleman really attaches significance to a month's variation in this, that would seem to be a confirmation of the wholly frivolous attitude that he has adopted throughout the debate. It may be that I have misread that excellent newspaper.
    Whether or not it is a month out, the point is clear. Parents had the right, under the system as it stood, to decide upon what every member of this Committee is agreed is a very important matter affecting their children. The Home Secretary thinks that a month's variation is so important. Because of a decision which he took, that decision, for better or worse, cannot be taken by the elected representatives of the people. It is because we protest against that that we shall vote for the Amendment.
    Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I will not delay the Committee more than a few minutes, because, like the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) I know that we wish to decide this matter in the Lobbies and get on with our next business.
    I want to respond on the question of the borough of Brent. In the course of the passage through the House of the previous Act, when we went through the long history for hours upstairs on the London Government Bill, the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) and the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) added their names to a similar Amendment to exclude Wembley and Willesden, which I proposed at that time. I want to explain to those two hon. Members why, in my opinion, it would be wrong now to exclude the London Borough of Brent from the present proposal.
    In the brief time that the old boroughs of Wembley and Willesden have had to become welded together, I did not think

    1005
    that it would be possible to go through the barrier of the North Circular Road, across which pass the only two roads connecting them. However, that has been achieved, and I pay tribute to the members of the present Council on both sides who have succeeded in doing that. The fact that this year we have a Wembley mayor and again next year the mayor will come from Wembley and not from Willesden is indicative of the union which has been achieved, and that the council thinks in Brent terms.
    It is because the union is still in its early days that it would be disastrous if, next year, the council had to hold an election and risk overturning the progressive development and integration which is proceeding.
    The hon. Member for Heston and Isle-worth (Mr. Reader Harris) has already mentioned the time spent in the first year in getting the new system going. Naturally we had difficulty in getting over the teething troubles, but we are now settling down. In Willesden we have had to make changes by going across the North Circular Road, and all our focal points of local administration are now not in my area but in that of the hon. Member for Wembley, South. It is because we have made that effort, and are making it, that I am anxious that we shall not disturb it next year, but that we shall be able to go forward to the year after when we can be even more successful in consolidating the gains which we have made and the building of a Brent community feeling.
    There have been a number of references to comprehensive education. I would remind the Committee that we cannot have selection without rejection. In the circumstances of the borough of Brent, there is a feeling in Willesden, West, which has all the social problems, the antiquated schools, the lavatories which will be frozen next month, and so on, that it will not just be children rejected but a whole area unless we are able to reorganise the educational system. In the representations which have been made to me about education, one of the points made by parents in Wembley is that the schools in my area are not good enough for their children, but I do not accept that schools are all right for Willesden children but not good enough for
    1006
    Wembley. Therefore I am anxious to consolidate in a comprehensive way.
    I repeat the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), that we should tackle this problem of how best to educate our children by taking it away from sloganising and consider how, with the situation which faces us, with the schools that we have, and with the excellent body of teachers which we have, we can make progress. For these reasons I say to the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North and to the hon. Member for Wembley, South that on this occasion I am sorry that I cannot support them in their Amendment, and I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendments dealing with Kingston-upon-Thames and the Borough of Brent.
    Mr. Hugh Rossi: The debate has ranged mostly around the question of comprehensive education, and rightly so, because this is the most vital factor in this debate, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) for singling out Haringey as one of the 32 London boroughs deserving particular condemnation for the type of scheme which it has put forward.
    But education is not the only matter on which the electors desire to go to the polls at an early date, certainly in Hornsey. One of the matters on which they wish to express their opinions is rating. As with Wembley and Brent, in 1963, Hornsey, a Conservative-administered borough, was amalgamated with two Socialist-controlled boroughs. A low rated, well-administered, Conservative borough joined two high-rated Socialist-controlled boroughs, and it was at once apparent to everyone concerned that by the mere fact of that amalgamation rates in my constituency would increase considerably.
    Thereupon, in company with the former Member for Hornsey, I went to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. We asked that the powers contained in the London Government Act, 1963, should be invoked in so far as they gave the Minister power to order a differential rate where a low-rated borough was to be joined to a high-rated one, and the result of the marriage was that the low-rated

    1007
    borough was to see a dramatic increase in its rates. In such circumstances the Minister had power to order a differential rate between the areas so that the acceleration of the rate increase would be mitigated.
    The Minister refused to do that, solely because the Socialist parts of the borough, the majority party, would not agree. His answer—and this is the relevance of this to the debate—was, "Wait till polling day, then the electorate will have an opportunity of commenting on the policies which are bringing about their higher rates".
    Our rate in Hornsey has gone up by no less than 4s. 9d. in the pound in two years. One can well imagine the hardship which this is causing, yet we were told by the Minister, "You will soon have an opportunity to express your views on the policies which are bringing this about." Today we are told that this opportunity is to be postponed. I regard the Bill as a breach of what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary when he declined to authorise a differential rate. He fobbed us off. He refused to exercise his power by saying that we would have an opportunity to vote on the matter, and now the opportunity is being taken away from us.
    What are these policies which are bringing about this disastrous increase in the rates in our area? One of them is the abandonment of the differential rent scheme. Whereas in the past lower income tenants paid a rent which they could well afford, and the higher income tenants paid a much higher rent, which was still within their incomes, this scheme has now been broken up. The result is that lower income tenants are paying 10s. a week more than they did before, while higher income tenants are paying less than before, and the ratepayers are paying through the nose.
    People with higher incomes are unhappy about the present situation. They say that it is ridiculous that their rent has gone down 5s. a week, while that of the family next door, who can ill afford it, has gone up by 10s. a week, and the rates have gone up. It is a proper Fred Carno outfit. These are the comments which I received about the way in which my local authority is behaving.
    1008
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very sensitive about housing. They are, we are told, the only people who can build houses. Last year my local authority spent £3½ million to buy a ready-built artisan estate. It has spent another £500,000 in the first six months of this financial year buying properties outside redevelopment schemes. Not one additional unit of housing accommodation has been added by this vast expenditure—not one family has been rehoused. And yet it has on its hands a large site which has lain fallow and derelict for more than a year. Not a brick has been laid on it, nor a foundation dug. This sort of thing would never have happened under a Conservative Hornsey. We had the contractors moving in at one end of the site when people had not left the other end, and yet here we have a site which has been empty for more than a year.
    That is the sort of thing about which my electors are getting very concerned, and about which they want to express their opinions. They are now being told that they will have to wait another year to do so, and I can foresee a further substantial increase in our rates in the spring. They will continue to rise while we are having to sit tight under this kind of administration. It is no wonder that the people in my area wish to go to the polls at an early date.
    Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood): I shall detain the Committee for only a few moments. I speak for Ruislip and Northwood in the Borough of Hillingdon. I was somewhat surprised and worried to hear the Minister say that all boroughs should be treated in the same way. I do not agree with that. Local government knows local needs, and it should be on a local basis.
    I think that it was in 1955 that we had the General Election within three or four weeks of the local elections, and that presented no difficulty whatsover in any shape or form. In my opinion no inconvenience will be caused to Hillingdon if its elections are held this year. I therefore ask that all boroughs should not be treated in the same way.
    6.30 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State said that this matter was decided by the nation. If it had been decided by the nation, I can assure him that the sort of majority

    1009
    that I would have got at the last election would have been the sort that one gets in a place like Ebbw Vale—absolutely overwhelming and colossal. I cannot emphasise too strongly the real anxiety and apprehension felt in my constituency on the subject of comprehensive schools.
    I wonder whether we can arrive at a compromise in this matter. I am sure that the Under-Secretary would be the first to agree that in this new, enthusiastic, eager Socialist Government, out to reform everything, everywhere, the right hand does not yet begin to know what the left is doing. But could we come to some arrangement on the following basis? As I said in last Tuesday's debate, I would not have raised the matter if the question of comprehensive schools was
    not so urgent. If we could compromise in this way, let us ask the Ministry concerned to put off making a decision about comprehensive schools because until next year quite clearly, the Government will not give way.
    This is not a great deal to ask because once the deed is done it will create a difficult situation for the teachers, parents and children concerned. If the Government are not prepared to do that they
    "either fear their fate too much,
    Or their deserts are small,
    That puts it not unto the touch,
    To win or lose it all."
    Question put, That those words be there added:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 223.

    Division No. 218.]

    AYES

    [6.32 p.m.

    Astor, John

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

    Gower, Raymond

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Batsford, Brian

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Grieve, Percy

    Murton, Oscar

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Nott, John

    Blaker, Peter

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Hawkins, Paul

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Body-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Heald Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Braine, Bernard

    Heseltine, Michael

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Percival, Ian

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Pink, R, Bonner

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Holland, Philip

    Pounder, Rafton

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hornby, Richard

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Burden, F. A.

    Hornby, Richard

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Campbell, Gordon

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Hunt, John

    Ridley Hn. Nicholas

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Channon H. P. G.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Roots, William

    Cooke, Robert

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Royle, Anthony

    Cordle, John

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Corfield, F. V.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Scott, Nicholas

    Costain, A. P.

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Sharples, Richard

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Crawley, Aidan

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Stainton, Keith

    Crowder, F. P.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

    Tapsell, Peter

    Dance, James

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

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Loveys, W. H.

    Tilney, John

    Doughty, Charles

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. sir John

    Eden, Sir John

    MacArthur, Ian

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Walters, Dennis

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

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Mathew, Robert

    Whitelaw, William

    Eyre, Reginald

    Maude, Angus

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Farr, John

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Fisher, Nigel

    Mawby, Ray

    Worsley, Marcus

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Mr. Jasper More and Mr. Anthony Grant.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Allen, Scholefield

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Archer, Peter

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Beaney, Alan

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Haseldine, Norman

    Padley, Walter

    Bessell, Peter

    Hattersley, Roy

    Paget, R. T.

    Binns, John

    Hazell, Bert

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Bishop, E. S.

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Pardoe, John

    Blackburn, F.

    Hooley, Frank

    Park, Trevor

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Booth, Albert

    Horner, John

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Pentland, Norman

    Bradley, Tom

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Brooks, Edwin

    Howie, W.

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

    Hynd, John

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Buchan, Norman

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

    Randall, Harry

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Rankin, John

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Redhead, Edward

    Carmichael, Neil

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Rees, Merlyn

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Richard, Ivor

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Chapman, Donald

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Coe, Denis

    Judd, Frank

    Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)

    Coleman, Donald

    Kelley, Richard

    Robinson, W. O. J. (Walh'stow, E.)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Conlan, Bernard

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

    Roebuck, Roy

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

    Rose, Paul

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Lawson, George

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Lester, Miss Joan

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N)

    Sheldon, Robert

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Luard, Evan

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Dempsey, James

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Dickens, James

    McBride, Neil

    Slater, Joseph

    Dobson, Ray

    MacColl, James

    Small, William

    Doig, Peter

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Steel David (Roxburgh)

    Eadie, Alex

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Stonehouse, John

    English, Michael

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Swain, Thomas

    Ennals, David

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Thornton, Ernest

    Ensor, David

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

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

    Urwin, T. W.

    Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

    Manuel, Archie

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Mapp, Charles

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Marquand, David

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Wallace, George

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mason, Roy

    Wellbeloved, James

    Foley, Maurice

    Mellish, Robert

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Millan, Bruce

    Whitaker, Ben

    Ford, Ben

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    White, Mrs. Eirence

    Fowler, Gerry

    Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

    Whitlock, William

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Molloy, William

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Freeson, Reginald

    Moonman, Eric

    Willey Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Gardner, Tony

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Carrow, Alex

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Moyle, Roland

    Winnick, David

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Newens, Stan

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Gregory, Arnold

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Woof, Robert

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Ogden, Eric

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    O'Malley, Brian

    Zilliacus, K.

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Oram, Albert E.

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Orbach, Maurice

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hamling, William

    Orme, Stanley

    Mr. Alan Fitch and

    Hannan, William

    Oswald, Thomas

    Mr. Harry Gourlay.

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Mr. William Roots:: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 28, at end add:
    (5) This section shall not apply to the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
    The Chairman: It would be convenient if with Amendment No. 17 we discussed
    1012
    new Clause 5.—"Application to Inner London Education Authority."
    Mr. Roots: The Committee will not have failed to realise that this Amendment refers specifically—and it is the only one referring specifically—to an inner London borough. No doubt that

    1013
    was why, in selecting it, Sir Eric, you selected also Clause 5 relating to the educational provision.
    In the light of what has been said, I do not intend to indulge in repetition. The inner boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea would very much welcome an election taking place at the proper time. What is more, it would appear that the Labour Party representatives on the council consider they have something on which they would like to go to the electorate. I saw—as did many other hon. Members—a demand in the London evening papers the other day that the chairman of the finance committee should resign on a housing matter and that no doubt that would test the electorate. However, it would not do that, because that particular councillor happens to sit in a ward for which there has just been a by-election which had disastrous results for the Labour Party and even more disastrous results for the Liberal Party. If, in fact, it is desired to put the electorate to the test, the answer is to let an election take place and not have Clause 1 apply to this borough. There would not be much force about it, because the majority party would be called upon to put the issue to the electorate. I hope that the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. George Rogers) will support me in that view, that the Labour Party in Kensington and Chelsea would welcome an election, as indeed would the Conservatives.
    I do not intend to deal at length with the educational aspect. By reason of the organisation of the Inner London Education Authority, failure to elect borough representatives but, on the other hand, to have an election of the Greater London Council representatives completely throws out of gear the whole design of that Inner London Education Authority. That is another reason why the comprehensive issue—certainly regarding my own constituency of South Kensington—does not particularly arise, because there is already an important comprehensive school in existence. It is quite clear, so far as it affects the general representation on the education authority, that the election for the borough as well as for the Greater London Council should take place next year to allow the policies to be put before the electorate generally.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): I gather that the argument here is that the postponement of the borough elections will affect education in inner London. I should like to show that this is not so. Leaving aside any argument about comprehensive education, under the Act the Inner London Education Authority is composed of 12 inner London boroughs which are largely the old L.C.C. The Inner London Education Authority is a special Committee of the G.L.C. with 53 members, of whom 40 are councillors of the Greater London Council and 12 are appointed by the inner London boroughs, one from each borough. One represents the Common Council and 12 are co-opted members. It will therefore be seen from these figures that the election to the London boroughs would not be affected to any great extent by the position of the Inner London Education Authority. At the borough council elections, even if there were changes—and I cannot foresee there being any changes—in the operation of the Inner London Education Authority, these changes could not be a decisive factor in education policy.
    6.45 p.m.
    There are two Tory boroughs within the Inner London Education Authority. One is Kensington and Chelsea and the other is Westminster. I see that Westminster is missing from the Order Paper. That is perfectly understandable, since Westminster, a Tory borough, was one of those which were in favour of the borough elections being postponed from 1967 to 1968. The new proposals suggested for the Inner London Education Authority have not yet been submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but they are being submitted to him. I wish to point out that comprehensive schools within the Inner London Education Authority is not a new idea. There are already 77 comprehensive schools within the inner London education area. This is not by any means a new issue for what is virtually the old L.C.C. area. Comprehensive schools have been an issue at L.C.C. elections for at least 20 years. The people of London have given a decisive majority in favour of comprehensive schools within the Inner London

    1015
    Education Authority. This Amendment has really very little in it.
    I do not wish to go into the whole question of comprehensive education. To say that the postponement of the elections for the borough councils within the Inner London Education Authority can affect in any way the issue of comprehensive schools within that area is completely untrue.
    The people of the old L.C.C. have shown in no small way how much in favour they are of a comprehensive education within that area. There cannot be any substance to the argument by the party opposite that the postponement of the borough elections from 1967 to 1968 will in any way affect the future plans for education in the inner London area.
    Mr. Worsley: If it were not for the announcement we are expecting soon, I would wish to speak at considerable length in reply to the right hon. Lady the Minister of State, Home Office. I was bewildered to hear a speech from a Home Office Minister which referred entirely and solely to education, as though that were the only issue at stake in the London elections which should be held next year.
    I have in my hand a sheaf of issues upon which the electors of my borough—and, no doubt, of other boroughs also—would wish to vote next year. It is not only a matter of education. There is housing, for instance. It is a fantastic fact that the electors of Central London are to be denied an opportunity to vote on the housing issue, yet the right hon. Lady has spoken only about education.
    I am tempted to carry on—if it were not for the clock and the present situation I would speak for some time—but, instead, I will only place on record, in support of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) has said, that the case for no postponement of elections is identically as strong with or without education, because it rests, not on the convenience of parties or of anyone else, nor on any particular issue, but on the sound
    democratic principle that it is wrong to postpone elections for the convenience of any party.
    Sir E. Boyle: We had a lengthy debate on the last group of Amendments, so it may be for the convenience of the Committee if we have only a short debate on this Amendment and the new Clause that we are taking with it.
    The right hon. Lady the Minister of State, Home Office, said that comprehensive schools within I.L.E.A. are not a new idea. Of course they are not—indeed, they are not a new idea for the country as a whole. Their number went up by 50 per cent. in 1964, during our last year of office. The right hon. Lady will be well aware that the anxiety is not about the comprehensives within I.L.E.A., many of which have been notably successful, but about the future of the remaining schools within I.L.E.A.
    London has been a unitary area ever since the school boards of 1870. There has been an enormous amount of criss-crossing of schools, and travelling wide distances, and very many schools have gained long pedigrees. It is therefore natural that there should be grave anxiety within I.L.E.A. about the future of individual schools. We on this side say that bearing in mind that anxiety, the voters in the inner London boroughs no less than in the outer London boroughs should have a chance to express their opinion next year.
    We accept, as the right hon. Lady says, that the postponement of elections in London would not necessarily be decisive for Inner London or for educational policy. None the less, we hold the view that because of anxieties concerning education, and because of other factors which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) has mentioned, the electors of the inner London boroughs should likewise have their opportunity to express their view next year. It is for that reason that we shall press this Amendment to a Division.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 226.

    Division No. 219.]

    AYES

    [6.54 p.m.

    Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

    Bell, Ronald

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Batsford, Brian

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Blaker, Peter

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Murton, Oscar

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Braine, Bernard

    Hawkins, Paul

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Nott, John

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Heseltine, Michael

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Burden, F. A.

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Campbell, Gordon

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Percival, Ian

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Holland, Philip

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hornby, Richard

    Pounder, Rafton

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Cooke, Robert

    Hunt, John

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Cordle, John

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Corfield, F. V.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Roots, William

    Costain, A. P.

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Royle, Anthony

    Crawley, Aidan

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Crowder, F. P.

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Sharples, Richard

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Dance, James

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Stainton, Keith

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

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

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

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

    Tapsell, Peter

    Doughty, Charles

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Eden, Sir John

    Longden, Gilbert

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Loveys, W. H.

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

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

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Tilney, John

    Errington, Sir Eric

    MacArthur, Ian

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Farr, John

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Fisher, Nigel

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

    Walters, Dennis

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Mathew, Robert

    Whitelaw, William

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Maude, Angus

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mawby, Ray

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Gower, Raymond

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Worsley, Marcus

    Grant, Anthony

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Miscampbell, Norman

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Grieve, Percy

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Mr. Jasper More and

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Mr. Reginald Eyre.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Allen, Scholefield

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Archer, Peter

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Gregory, Arnold

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Atkinson, Norman, (Tottenham)

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Beaney, Alan

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

    Hamling, William

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Dempsey, James

    Hannan, William

    Bessell, Peter

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Binns, John

    Dickens, James

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Bishop, E. S.

    Dobson, Ray

    Haseldine, Norman

    Blackburn, F.

    Doig, Peter

    Hattersley, Roy

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

    Hazell, Bert

    Boardman, H.

    Eadie, Alex

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Booth, Albert

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hooley, Frank

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    English, Michael

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Bradley, Tom

    Ennals, David

    Horner, John

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Ensor, David

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Brooks, Edwin

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Faulds, Andrew

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Brown, Bob (N'c'the-upon-Tyne, W)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Howie, W.

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

    Buchan, Norman

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Hynd, John

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Foley, Maurice

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Ford, Ben

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Fowler, Gerry

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Chapman, Donald

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Coe, Denis

    Freeson, Reginald

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Coleman, Donald

    Gardner, Tony

    Kelley, Richard

    Concannon, J. D.

    Garrett, W. E.

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Garrow, Alex

    Judd, Frank

    1018

    1019

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Oakes, Gordon

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

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

    Ogden, Eric

    Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

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

    O'Malley, Brian

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

    Oram, Albert E.

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Lawson, George

    Orbach, Maurice

    Silver-man, Julius (Aston)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Orme, Stanley

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Oswald, Thomas

    Slater, Joseph

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Small, William

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Snow, Julian

    Lipton, Marcus

    Padley, Walter

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Loughlin, Charles

    Paget, R. T.

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Luard, Evan

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Pardoe, John

    Stonehouse, John

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Park, Trevor

    Swain, Thomas

    Mabon Dr. J. Dickson

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Thornton, Ernest

    McBride, Neil

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    MacColl, James

    Pentland, Norman

    Urwin, T. W.

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Wallace, George

    Maclennan, Robert

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Wellbeloved, James

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Whitaker, Ben

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Randall, Harry

    White, Mrs. Eirene

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

    Rankin, John

    Whitlock, William

    Manuel, Archie

    Redhead, Edward

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Mapp, Charles

    Rees, Merlyn

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Marquand, David

    Richard, Ivor

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Mason, Roy

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Mellish, Robert

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Millan, Bruce

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Winnick, David

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

    Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Molloy, William

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Woof, Robert

    Moonman, Eric

    Roebuck, Roy

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Rose, Paul

    Zilliacus, K.

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Moyle, Roland

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

    Mr Harry Goulay and

    Newens, Stan

    Sheldon, Robert

    Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 229, Noes 144.

    Division No. 220.]

    AYES

    [7.2 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Conlan, Bernard

    Garrow, Alex

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Allen, Scholefield

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Archer, Peter

    Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Gregory, Arnold

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Barnett, Joel

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hamling, William

    Beaney, Alan

    Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

    Hannan, William

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Dempsey, James

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Bessell, Peter

    Dickens, James

    Haseldine, Norman

    Bishop, E. S.

    Dobson, Ray

    Hattersley, Roy

    Blackburn, F.

    Doig, Peter

    Hazell, Bert

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b's)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Boardman, H.

    Eadie, Alex

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Booth, Albert

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hooley, Frank

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    English, Michael

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Bradley, Tom

    Ennals, David

    Horner, John

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Ensor, David

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Brooks, Edwin

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Faulds, Andrew

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Howie, W.

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Hoy, James

    Buchan, Norman

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayshire, S.)

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Hynd, John

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Foley, Maurice

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Ford, Ben

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Fowler, Gerry

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Chapman, Donald

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Coe, Denis

    Freeson, Reginald

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Coleman, Donald

    Gardner, Tony

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Garrett, W. E.

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Judd, Frank

    Newens, Stan

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Kelley, Richard

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Oakes, Gordon

    Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

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

    Ogden, Eric

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

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

    O'Malley, Brian

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

    Oram, Albert E.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Lawson, George

    Orbach, Maurice

    Slater, Joseph

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Orme, Stanley

    Small, William

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Oswald, Thomas

    Snow, Julian

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Padley, Walter

    Steele, Thomas (Dumbartonshire, W.)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Paget, R. T.

    Stonehouse, John

    Luard, Evan

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Swain, Thomas

    Lubbock, Eric

    Pardoe, John

    Swingler, Stephen

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Park, Trevor

    Taverne, Dick

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Thornton, Ernest

    McBride, Neil

    Pavitt, Laurence.

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    MacColl, James

    Pentland, Norman

    Urwin, T. W.

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R, E.

    Wallace, George

    Maclennan, Robert

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Wellbeloved, James

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Whitaker, Ben

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Randall, Harry

    White, Mrs. Eirene

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

    Rankin, John

    Whitlock, William

    Manuel, Archie

    Redhead, Edward

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Mapp, Charles

    Rees, Merlyn

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Marquand, David

    Richard, Ivor

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Mason, Roy

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Mellish, Robert

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Millan, Bruce

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Winnick, David

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

    Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Molloy, William

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Woof, Robert

    Moonman, Eric

    Roebuck, Roy

    Zilliacus, K.

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Rose, Paul

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Morris, Charles R, (Openshaw)

    Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

    Mr. Harry Gourlay and

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

    Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

    Moyle, Roland

    Sheldon, Robert

    NOES

    Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

    Eden, Sir John

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Batsford, Brian

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Bell, Ronald

    Eyre, Reginald

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Farr, John

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

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Fisher, Nigel

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

    Biffen, John

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Longden, Gilbert

    Blaker, Peter

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Loveys, W. H.

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Goodhart, Philip

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Goodhew, Victor

    MacArthur, Ian

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Gower, Raymond

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Braine, Bernard

    Grant, Anthony

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter

    Grieve, Percy

    Mathew, Robert

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Maude, Angus

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Mawby, Ray

    Burden, F. A.

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Campbell, Gordon

    Hawkins, Paul

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Carlisle, Mark

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    More, Jasper

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Heseltine, Michael

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Cooke, Robert

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Murton, Oscar

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Costain, A. P.

    Holland, Philip

    Nott, John

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hornby, Richard

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Crawley, Aidan

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

    Hunt, John

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Percival, Ian

    Dance, James

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Doughty, Charles

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    1022

    1023

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

    Walters, Dennis

    Roots, William

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Whitelaw, William

    Royle, Anthony

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Sharples, Richard

    Tilney, John

    Worsley, Marcus

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    van Strautaenzee, W. R.

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Stainton, Keith

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Mr. R. W. Elliott and

    Mr. David Mitchell.

    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: On a point of order. You had indicated, Sir Eric, that you would call new Clause 8, which is the last remaining Clause of this Committee stage. It raises, however, a small point, much smaller than those on which we have divided the House, and it might be for the convenience of the House if we do not move new Clause 8. That would complete the Committee stage of the Bill and make it possible for the Government to interrupt business when they wish.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

    ARBITRATION (INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT DISPUTES) [MONEY]
    Resolution reported,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to implement an international Convention on the settlement of investment disputes between States and nationals of other States, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required to meet obligations of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom arising under that Convention.
    Resolution agreed to.

  ARBITRATION (INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT DISPUTES) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 6 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  ARBITRATION (INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT DISPUTES) BILL [Lords]

    New Clause.—(GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION TO EXPENSES UNDER THE CONVENTION.)
    5. The Treasury may discharge any obligations of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom arising under Article 17 of the Convention (which obliges the Contracting States to meet any deficit of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes established under the Convention), and any sums required for that purpose shall be met out of money provided by Parliament.—[Mrs. White.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mrs. Eirene White): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The effect of the new Clause is to reinstate Clause 5 which, as it is concerned with expenditure, was not included in the Bill when it came to us from another place. I have already explained that it is not expected that any great expense will in fact be incurred, but we have a contingent liability.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
    7.20 p.m.
    Mrs. White: All that I need say after the rapid progress which we have made is to thank the House, on both sides, for their assistance in this matter. The Bill will be of great assistance to international investment. It includes no controversial principles, and we are fortified in the belief that the House will give it a Third Reading.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.

  EDUCATION BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time and passed.
  TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [Lords]

    New Clause.—(PROCEDURAL RULES FOR CERTAIN TRIBUNALS.)
    In section 8 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958, at the end of subsection (3). there shall be added the words 'and the reference to a Minister includes a reference to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue'.—[The Attarney-General.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    It might be convenient. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if, with this new Clause, we also discussed new Clause 5.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): With the leave of the House, I think that new Clause 5 could conveniently be considered with this new Clause.
    Sir John Hobson: On a point of order. The Notice Paper which I have obtained from the Table of the House contains only the new Clause moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and no new Clause 5. I find it difficult to understand how we are to take the two together.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Attorney-General was referring to Amendment No. 5 rather than new Clause 5.
    Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order. Could you please explain what is happening, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Attorney-General wishes to take Amendment No. 5 with the new Clause. That can be done only with the consent of the House.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to my point of order. I understood from the notice posted in the Members' Lobby
    1026
    that the Prime Minister was to make a statement at 7 o'clock.
    Hon. Members: Approximately.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is it by reason of the rules of the House that we must go through all this legislation first; in other words, can we take our time over this or is it because the statement is not ready to be made?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are proceeding with the Orders of the Day.
    The Attorney-General: In moving the new Clause, with which we are discussing Amendment No. 5, I need not detain the House for long.
    Section 8 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, puts Ministers—and, in Scotland, the Lord President of the Court of Session—under a duty to consult the Council on Tribunals before making or approving procedural rules for any of the tribunals listed in the First Schedule to the Act. It has come to the Government's notice that the Board of Inland Revenue is not under this duty. This is because Section 8 refers to "Minister" and this expression is defined by Section 14(1) of the Act as including
    "… any Board presided over by a Minister …".
    That expression is not wide enough to include the Inland Revenue.
    It seems possible that at the time the Bill which became the 1958 Act was in draft it was not thought likely that the Inland Revenue would have to make any such procedural rules as are contemplated by Section 8. However that may be, there seems no good reason why the Inland Revenue should not be in the same position as other Government Departments, and these proposed alterations will achieve that end.
    Mr. Ian Percival: So far, this evening is one of disappointment. I thought, when the Bill was called for debate how gratifying it was to see so full a House to consider it, even at this late stage. It is disappointing that at least a few hon. Members were not here for this purpose alone. And then my joy was complete when the Attorney-General rose and said that he proposed to move the two new Clauses together, remembering that the only other new Clause on the

    1027
    Notice Paper is that standing in the names of my right hon. and learned Friends and myself. I thought at the time that that was too good to be true.
    However, depite these disappointments, I am pleased to tell the House that we welcome the new Clause, because it does, as far as it goes, extend and widen the ambit of consultation necessary in certain cases of the work to which the Bill refers. Later, I will venture to express the hope that the ambit of consultation in certain matters relevant to the Bill should be extended so as to include this House, but I would be out of order in venturing that far at this stage.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF 1958 ACT TO FURTHER STATUTORY INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS.)
    Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, at the end to insert:
    'after the elapse of one month from the coming into operation of this Act'.
    According to the Notice Paper, Mr. Speaker, you have been good enough to select this Amendment and Amendment No. 2, which indicates that Amendments No. 3 and 4 might conveniently be discussed with Amendment No. 2. My hon. Friends and I would be agreeable to the four Amendments being discussed at the same time.
    The Attorney-General: I agree with that suggestion. Indeed, I commend it.
    Mr. Speaker: If the House has no objection, so be it.
    Mr. Percival: This series of Amendments has the objective of certain Amendments which were moved in Committee. At the same time, these proposals overcome the objections which were advanced by the Attorney-General to the earlier Amendments. As I understood that debate, the Attorney-General did not quarrel with the merits of the objectives, but with the manner we had chosen for achieving them, because, he said, they created difficulties of timing and definition. I hope that by telescoping—which is the word I was looking for a few minutes ago—that part of what I want to say
    1028
    I do not fail to do justice to the Attorney-General's arguments in Committee.
    7.30 p.m.
    As I said, he put forward the grounds there that our Amendments would create difficulties of timing and administration. It is to be hoped that this House will always be chary of arguments based on administrative convenience, especially when its own opportunities for control of the Executive are being whittled away on that ground, an all to frequent an occurrence. Nevertheless, in arriving at these our latest proposals as set out in the Amendments now under discussion we have—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult for an hon. Member to make a speech to the House when there is so much conversation.
    Mr. Percival: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I hoped that the House would always be chary of arguments based on administrative convenience especially when the opportunities of the House to control the Executive are being opposed on these grounds, but, nevertheless, as I was saying, in arriving at these our latest proposals as set out in these Amendments we have given greater consideration to the questions of administration put forward by the Attorney-General in Committee as being objections to our previous Amendments.
    The question of timing, the other ground called in aid by the Attorney-General, was, we felt, much more valid an objection to our proposals, and is largely the reason why the proposals we now put forward are substantially different. I hope to satisfy the House, in quite a short time, that the Amendments which we are now discussing do meet all the valid objections whether they be based on administration or timing.
    It would, perhaps, be convenient if I were now to say what I am not going to say and then I can get on to what I am going to say. Amendments No. 3 and No. 4 are consequential. Subsection (3) of the Clause raises an entirely different question from that which is dealt with in subsection (1). We felt that rather than complicate what we were seeking to do, which is to improve the Bill, nothing more, nothing less, by seeking also to have full provision as to when

    1029
    Section 12 should apply or not, it was better to leave that to the discretion of the Ministers, and not complicate our other arguments by getting into one about that. That being so Amendments No. 3 and 4 are purely consequential on Amendments No. 1 and No. 2. Therefore the Ministers are left under subsection (2) with discretion to say to which Section 12 should apply.
    We on this side of the House are, and always have been, and have always made it clear, fully in sympathy with the object of this Bill. Potentially, it is a very useful one. But the operative word here is "potentially". As was said in another place, it may mean a great deal or it may mean very little indeed. How right that observation was. This Bill itself does not bring a single inquiry or hearing within the purview of the Council on Tribunals.
    Nothing happens under this Bill till an order is laid and one can see what will happen when the battles have been fought out between the Ministers—and we fully understand there are some—who want to bring inquiries into the purview of the Council on Tribunals and the Departments who still do not want that to happen; then orders will have to be laid saying which inquiries are to go within the purview of the Council.
    But the battle will be over by then. We on this side of the House say this is entirely wrong, that it is the wrong approach, that the right approach is to include all inquiries and hearings except such as are expressly excluded by order. It may be asked, what difference does it make whether an order is one including or excluding—it comes to the same thing in the end? In a way that is true. From the point of view of administration that may well be so.
    We are told that there are at present some 200 inquiries and hearings which do not come within the purview of the Council. It is an astonishing figure. However, as long ago as May of this year the Lord Chancellor said that as a result of the work then done it was thought that about 150 were fit for inclusion and about 50 were not. So, even then, quite a long way had been travelled in deciding which should come in and which should be out. In Committee, the Attorney-General thought a recent check
    1030
    had confirmed those earlier figures. Therefore there appears to be no doubt about it that we have at last got to the stage of having an Order and an idea of how many we put out and how many go in. The Attorney-General also said that there was still much to be done when all the answers, on what must be presumed to be the final stage of the preparation, have been received—already from two-thirds of the Departments; that much preparatory work had been done.
    It would seem, therefore, that there may perhaps at the outset be something like 20 doubtfuls. If as long ago as May there were 150 which were appropriate and about 50 which were not appropriate and that has been confirmed by a recent check, and two-thirds of the answers from the Departments are already in, then it appears reasonable to assume that the area of doubtfuls has been very well whitted down already, and so I take the figure of, say, 20 doubtfuls, which appears to be fairly generous against the background of those figures.
    If that is the situation, or if the situation is anything like that, then it may very well be that, so far as administration is concerned, it makes little or no difference whether one does this by way of inclusion or exclusion—with one possible difference. The one difference which may be implicit in our proposals in so far as there are the doubtfuls is that the administrators might have to make their decisions on those doubtful ones a little more speedily, but even the Attorney-General may agree that that would be no bad thing.
    So much for administration. It is very difficult to see why it would make any substantial difference, but when one looks at the position of this House, the question of whether the orders are to be orders including or orders excluding makes all the difference in the world, and it is with the position of this House in relation to these matters that we on this side are now principally concerned. It is true that under the Bill as it stands this House would have the right to pray against orders made under it, but who, one may ask would wish to pray against an order bringing an inquiry within the purview of the Tribunal? It is a wholly illusory right.
    What this House wants and ought to have—and we express the hope that it might be given it even at this late stage

    1031
    —is the opportunity to express its views about the inquiries which are to be excluded, not the inquiries which are to be included about which it is unthinkable that there could be any difference of opinion. Under the procedure provided in this Bill this House will not have that opportunity. If I am wrong about that, no doubt the Attorney-General will correct me, but I do not think I am. The right to pray, which is the only right that the House will have on this Bill, is an illusory right in the circumstances of what we are considering, for, as I say, no one could conceivably wish to pray against an order bringing an inquiry into the purview of the Council. Of necessity, if this Bill stands in its present form, all will be decided outside this House and it will not really be brought to the House at all unless a Prayer is laid.
    All will be decided outside. That is bad. We shall have no oportunity either to propose inclusions or to criticise or oppose exclusions. This is not just a matter of words or of making a debating point—far from it. It is very bad when one has that situation, and it is a situation that this House should not accept if there be any practical alternative. In our view, there is such an alternative ready to hand—indeed, so ready to hand that this House could debate it, pass it and use it in a very short space of time.
    The evil here arises from the choice of including orders instead of excluding them. In Committee we proposed the simple remedy of reversing the process. There is no evil in simplicity. Quite often some of the simple things are the best. But we suggest here that that proposal was perhaps a little too simple. The principal objection raised by the Attorney-General was that in that case it would be necessary to postpone the operation of the Bill until the exclusions were finally decided. The effect of that might be that the one thing we wanted to happen, namely, that certain inquiries and hearings would come within the purview of the Council, might be put off. That is a good objection and it is one which we have faced. I hope to satisfy the House that these Amendments meet that objection fairly and squarely.
    Here I must refer to the wording of the Amendments. I think this will show how closely knit these Amendments are
    1032
    and why I took the liberty of suggesting that it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss them all together. Amendment No. 1 could not be shorter or more simple. It gives a month locus poenitentiae, or simply for making up one's mind before anything happens. That did not seem to be unreasonable. The end of the world will not come if no inquiry is to come before the purview of the Council for a month. But it will enable the Attorney-General to decide. It will give him a month for that purpose.
    We are not unmindful of the fact that in more spheres than one a month goes very quickly; in fact, in both spheres in which I have the honour to speak from time to time a month is considered but a short time, though it may be that the present dynamic Government would manage to do a great deal in a month, including deciding the 20 doubtful points which they have been considering since May. However, in case it is not enough, Amendment No. 2 provides that if they are still in doubt, Ministers may make a blanket order excluding for three months those on which they have not yet made up their minds. Then in the remainder of the three months they must make up their minds. It is not much to expect them to do. Having made up their minds, they can then make orders of exclusion without limitation of time.
    7.45 p.m.
    We submit that the advantages are both obvious and substantial. But lest they may not be quite so obvious to some as they are to those who have had the opportunity to consider and draft them, I should like to give a word of explanation of how they would work in practice. Let us suppose that within the first month Ministers have made progress and have reached the stage of dividing the 200 into three lists—those that are definitely in, those that are definitely out, and those which are neither in nor out but are doubtful. It does not seem much to ask the Ministers to reach that stage within the first month. At the end of the first month they will be in no difficulty as to the first list of those that are in. Without any further action on their part, those that are in will automatically come within the purview. All that they will be bothered about will be those which are out and those which are not yet in or out.

    1033
    Here there are two alternatives. The Ministers could either lay one order including all of these—those which they have decided are out and those on which they have not reached a decision—or they could Lay final orders relating to those on which they have made final decisions, and one, blanket order under the first part of the proviso setting out the doubtfuls as to which they want to preserve the position for three months. In either event this House would then have an opportunity to discuss on a Prayer the merits and demerits of the exclusion.
    I suggest there are two real advantages here. First, especially if the course were adopted of laying an order just for the doubtfuls, the House would be given an opportunity to discuss something before the final decision had been reached. I believe it is certainly right that the House should be given an opportunity to discuss matters like this. It is even better if the right can be given to discuss them before a final decision has been taken. It is pleasant to find the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who does not usually think much of what lawyers have to say, apparently agreeing with part of what I am saying. I hope that we may have some support from him later.
    The second advantage is that it would give the Departments concerned the opportunity to hear the views of this House, and even—dare I venture to say?—consider the advice offered in and by this House. I hope that we have not yet reached the stage where it is to be assumed that we neither wish to have that advice nor to pay heed to it.
    The Attorney-General said in Committee that there would be difficult decisions to be made on some of the inquiries in the 200. Is that not all the more reason for using a procedure which would enable the difficult cases to be discussed in the House, so that Members may express their views, and the Ministers and Departments concerned may have the benefit of knowing those views and such other views as could be given before they reach their final conclusions? All who have the interests of the House at heart would feel that those opportunities to enable the House to express its views and have its views considered, which are the heart and soul of the
    1034
    Amendments, are precious things that should be given the most careful consideration.
    I have been dealing with what has to be done within a month to preserve the position. Within the rest of the three months the final decisions could be taken and implemented by orders. That is the procedure we ask the House to adopt. It is very difficult to see any administrative difficulty or objection to that, other than the fact of someone having to make up his mind in three months. If he is taking longer the spur which could be given by the Amendments may be very useful.
    The Attorney-General was courteous enough to give a full reply in Committee. He referred to the following part of our proposals and I want to add not repetition but a further point about it: in the case of final orders we propose that each inquiry or class of inquiry should be the subject of a separate order. The Attorney-General suggested that this would lead to a plethora of orders. I am not sure whether he gave full weight to the fact that in our proposals we referred to exclusions, whereas he was referring to inclusions. It is to be hoped that the number of inclusions will far exceed the number of exclusions and that there will not be so many exclusions that to deal with each by a separate order would lead to a plethora of orders.
    A much more serious issue is at stake than the number of orders. It is the right of the House to voice its criticisms, and what is at stake is the right of the House to vote against something it does not like. Unless the Government depart from the procedure provided in the Bill and adopt the Amendments the House will be completely hamstrung in both respects.
    The Attorney-General said in Committee that our proposals were too wide and would even include Private Acts of Parliament. Not having the resources of all the Departments to assist us in working out whether that would necessarily be a bad thing, we have not had time to decide on that, but as a sort of quid pro quo, in the hope that the Attorney-General may offer something in exchange, we have excluded—in the last proviso in Amendment No. 2—inquiries held under powers conferred by Private Acts of Parliament.

    1035
    The Amendments in total are designed to improve the Bill, to put teeth into it and to strengthen the hands of those who want to see it work. Many people have paid lip service to it. Our proposals would produce a Bill which went into operation straightaway after the period of one month. We are doing much more than paying lip service to it in two principal ways; first, by a change of emphasis. Under our procedure all the emphasis is upon justifying exclusions. That is right and proper since that is where the emphasis should lie. That gives a great deal of strength to the hands of those who want to see the Bill properly implemented.
    Secondly, our procedure introduces an element of Parliamentary control and ventilation. Let Ministers who seek to justify the exclusion of inquiries set up by them state their reasons here, and satisfy the House that they should be excluded. If they have good grounds they will have no difficulty, but at least the arguments would be ventilated. If their grounds are bad they may be discouraged from coming here. If, nevertheless, they come, we can at least express our views and vote if we feel sufficiently strongly about it.
    Those are the objects of the Amendments. I hope that the House will appreciate and accept, even at this late stage, that it is in its long-term interests that those objects should be regarded as important and be achieved.
    Mr. Michael Foot: I must first apologise to the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) for not having heard the first few minutes of his speech, but if they were as persuasive as the last three quarters of an hour it would hardly be necessary for me to intervene. I do so because I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a series of extremely important matters which should be adequately examined by the House as a whole and I am most grateful to him for having done so.
    If I follow his lead in this matter he must not take it as a precedent, but in my opinion this is the most formidable example of Parliamentary opposition we have seen from the Official Opposition in the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman has always been my candidate for the Conservative Party leadership, and he has greatly strengthened his support by
    1036
    what we have seen today. I therefore feel that on both sides of the House we owe him a debt of gratitude for the way in which he has moved the Amendment. I hope that he will not take my remarks as being in any way flippant, because he raised many points to which I would like to refer.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman said that some of the points he made were obvious. If he had not told us we would not have known, but I shall leave those points on one side. Those matters which he said were so evident that he did not think it necessary to underline I will not attempt to underline either. I shall leave it to the good sense of the House. We do not need to go over those parts of this argument which are accepted on both sides of the House, and even the Liberal Party—though we have not had its support thoughout the evening—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are Liberal hon. Members?"]—will concur.
    The most powerful part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's case was his argument for trying to ensure that if action were to be taken under the Measure the Government should have to explain their views to the House. It is on that that I wish to speak. He specified the time limits prescribed in the Bill and in the new Clauses—a lapse of one month under new Clause No. 1 and a period of three months under new Clause No. 2.
    8.0 p.m.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman argued that either the period of one month or the period of three months should be sufficient for the Government to make up their mind and to come to the House and state their view. I entirely agree with him, particularly as it has been said of some members of earlier Administrations that once they had firmly made up their minds on a matter there was no power on earth which could make them change it. I should not apply this to members of the present Administration, but perhaps in years to come we shall not be blessed with the same Administration. There might be changes made in the present Administration, for all I know. The personnel might be changed after ten years or so. Some of us might welcome it. Some of us might think it superfluous that any changes should be made over decades. But it is

    1037
    always conceivable, even in this Government, that there shall be changes in personnel.
    Therefore, we seek to provide what might or might not be done, not only by Her Majesty's Government in their present immaculate shape, but by a future Government, even a Labour Government precided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) in some future decade or century. We may need safeguards which are not necessary today.
    I am glad to see the Attorney-General back here. He is an extremely busy man. I wish that he would tell us what he has been doing recently. That would make it unnecessary for me to make a speech or, what would be even more satisfactory, quite unnecessary for the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) to make a speech. That would have produced unanimity on both sides of the House. It is a great courtesy to the House that the Attorney-General should speak on this Bill, which none of us understands, particularly after the proceedings we have had so far. We should like him to apply to these problems the same good will and acute intelligence which he applies to these other problems. If he gets a little mixed up in what lie says—any little indiscretion which he may commit—we shall be only too happy to accommodate him. It might relieve the unutterable boredom of the proceedings with which we are now blessed.
    There are many other Bills which could have been pushed through in this time. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Iron and Steel Bill."] That is another Measure which I should like to be adequately discussed. This is why I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Southport in his proposals.
    I am amazed—to put it as strongly as I can—and staggered that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not draw attention to the fact that one of the reasons why we have this shoddy legislation to which Amendments have to be proposed at this late hour is that this Bill comes from the House of Lords. What can we expect of Measures started in another place? It does not seem to have examined even a trivial Bill of this sort.
    1038
    One of the main cases made for the House of Lords is that these elderly gentlemen who have been given life peerages to preside over our fortunes should be able to sit down coolly without pressure being put on them from any quarter and examine every Bill with the utmost consideration. They have all the time in the world to apply to every Measure which comes before them. They are not pressed for time as we are in this House. They do not have one Bill pouring after another.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone)Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone) rose—
    Mr. Foot: I give way most willingly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He speaks not only as the Member for St. Marylebone but as an ex-member of the House of Lords.
    Mr. Hogg: Although it must seem odd that Bill coming down from the House of Lords need structural changes at this late stage, the hon. Gentleman has no idea what a mess Bills coming up from this House look like in another place.
    Mr. Foot: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be so wanton in his strictures on this House of which he is an honourable Member. He should restrain his tongue, if he can. What I am discussing is the Bill before us.
    We have been told by the hon. and learned Member for Southport, speaking for the official Opposition, that this is a Measure in which the most obvious matters have apparently been overlooked. "Obvious" was the word which he used. The claim which he made for these Clauses was that they were obvious. They may be obvious to him. Why were they not obvious in another place? These matters should have been dealt with before. We have a crowded legislative programme, although nobody would hardly believe it, and we expect Measures of this nature to be dealt with entirely by the House of Lords. Instead, at this late date, it is only because of the vigilance and opportunism of the hon. and learned Member that the matter has been remedied.
    For all we know, this Bill might have swished through the House of Commons without these matters being dealt with. Then we should never have known what were the facilities under the Bill for

    1039
    Ministers to report on them. All this business of whether these matters should be included or excluded would have gone forth without any consideration having been given to them.
    I hope that after the experience we have had tonight no one will again tell us that the House of Lords is a fitting instrument to act as a sieve for these Measures. I hope that no more Measures will be started there.
    Mr. Archie Manuel: I hope that my hon. Friend, who is showing great discernment in telling us about what the Bill contains, will not sit down before he deals with that most pungent part of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) in which he dealt with the question of the inclusions versus the exclusions. This was the strongest part of his speech, and we must give it the weight which it deserves.
    Mr. Foot: Powerful though that part was, there was an even more powerful part. What the hon. and learned Gentleman said was that the purpose of the Clauses was to put teeth in the Bill. Why should we have been set this toothless, gutless Bill? That is what we have had served up to us. The Attorney-General is a very busy fellow. He has many things on his mind and many matters to attend to. He has to waste his time by being brought here to try to assist in putting teeth in a Bill with which the House of Lords should have dealt properly.
    Mr. Percival: I am sure that in his enthusiasm the hon. Gentleman will not overlook the fact that from wherever the Bill came it is a Government Bill and that if it has no teeth in it this is attributable, not to where it came from, but to who started it.
    Mr. Foot: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not provoke me to move on to other pleasant themes. I am critical not only of the House of Lords but of the Government. He need not think that that is an inhibition on me. I applaud many of the Government's Bills, but sometimes they make a mistake. Occasionally, Measures coming from the House of Lords are tolerable, but when these two get together, look what they achieve. The hon. and learned
    1040
    Gentleman need not think that he can distract me from discussing the Clauses by a remark of that nature.
    This is a tuppenny ha'penny Bill which has been shoved in by the Government. I do not know whether they do it to fill out time, but every now and again we find a Bill on the Order Paper which comes on late at night and which nobody takes much notice of. All of us know that because we are all waiting for another pronouncement proper consideration is being given to the Bill. I am not begrudging the hon. and learned Member for Southport the opportunity which he sees of ensuring that the House debates it properly. I am not criticising him in any way. But he knows as well as any of us that had it not been for the accident of other events for which we are all waiting this Measure might well have gone through the House at 11, 12 or 1 o'clock. It might have been——
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Toothless to the end.
    Mr. Foot: Yes, toothless to the end.
    Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am listening with very great interest to my hon. Friend, but I am not quite clear about his attitude to the Amendments. Does he regard them as tigers' teeth or artificial dentures?
    Mr. Foot: I do not use filthy language like that.
    I try to discuss these matters in the same plain legal terms which were used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    When I was nodding agreement with something that he said, he observed that I was not always in agreement with lawyers—or something to that effect. I could express my opinion about lawyers very much more strongly than that. The greatest journalist who ever sat in the reporters' gallery of the House of Commons was William Hazlitt, who said that the only thing that gave him any respect for the House of Commons was the contempt that it had for lawyers.
    That is an opinion that I generally hold, except for the exclusion of the Attorney-General, who is in a class all on his own. As I indicated previously, he would not be wasting his time here if we ordered our business properly.
    Hon. Members: What about the Solicitor-General?
    Mr. Foot: I am not sure whether the Solicitor-General is still a member of the Government or not. Once he gets out of the Government I shall really tell him what I think, but while he is still there the Government might accuse me of making a personal attack. I think that, according to his lights, the Solicitor-General is doing fairly well. I am not criticising the Solicitor-General, and nobody will distract me into attacking him. There are lawyers enough on the opposite side of the Committee to distract me if I were to be distracted.
    All I say is that a Bill of this character should be properly treated and cared for before it is sent to us, and, despite all the temptations from hon. Gentlemen opposite, this is an occasion when, to my mind, the arguments are so balanced that I must come down on the side of the Government.
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), in a delightful intervention, has spoken of the rôle of lawyers in Parliament. I would respectfully remind him that there have been lawyers in the House of Commons right through the history of the House. So far as I know, the only exception to that was a Parliament which excluded them, and it has gone down in history as the Mad Parliament.
    In his spirited intervention, my hon. Friend has shown a detailed knowledge of the technicalities of this Measure, which evoked the usual admiration that I have for him. Whether there are to be teeth in the Bill or not, it is splendid to find that there is no lack of bark in my hon. Friend.
    What I found surprising in this debate, which started in such dramatic circumstances—never did I expect to see so eminent and large an audience for the intruction of this modest Measure—was the gibe of the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), who moved the Amendment, about the Government considering this matter since last May. This gibe comes, indeed, curiously from the Opposition. The fact is that the Government's object in bringing the Bill forward is at long last to meet complaints which have been voiced by the Council
    1042
    of Tribunals in successive annual reports since 1960 about the inadequacy of the present definition of a statutory inquiry. The Council complained about that in 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963, and yet the watchdogs for the individual, who are supposed to be sitting on the other side of the House, did precisely nothing about it in those years.
    8.15 p.m.
    I want to make it very clear at the outset that the Government have introduced the Bill precisely because they want to strengthen the rôle of the Council on Tribunals as a watchdog for the individual. We have before Parliament now the Bill creating a Parliamentary Commissioner, and this is part of the Government's rôle in introducing measures to protect the rights and liberties of the individual citizen, and this Bill is aimed at remedying the defect in the Act dealing with inquiries. It is the Government's intention to give effect to the principle of Clause 1 of the Bill as early as possible by making the necessary orders bringing within the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals all discretionary inquiries which are appropriate for this treatment.
    As the hon. and learned Member has pointed out, there are as many as 200 different kinds of discretionary inquiry at the present time, and it is thought, after the studies that have already been made, that about 150 of these could be brought within the scope of the Council on Tribunals and that about 50 ought not to be brought within that scope.
    It might help if I indicate the kind of discretionary inquiry which we think ought not to be brought within the ambit of the Council on Tribunals. Perhaps I can give an illustration from inquiries which are held by the Ministry of Labour under the Conciliation Act into the causes and circumstances of differences between employers and workpeople, where the essential rôle of the Ministry of Labour is a conciliating rôle and where rules and regulations which would be appropriate to other kinds of inquiry would obviously be quite inappropriate. So the Government are proposing to introduce orders bringing within the scope of the Council on Tribunals the discretionary inquiries which ought so to be brought.

    1043
    The purpose of the four sets of Amendments tabled is to bring within the scope of the Council on Tribunals all discretionary inquiries except such as may be excluded by Ministerial order. We are anxious to introduce this Bill and bring it into effective operation as soon as possible, and with that object in mind the various Departments concerned have been working very hard in the last few months considering the discretionary inquiries which ought to be brought within the scope of a Ministerial order or orders to be made under Clause 1.
    It is not an easy task. Parliament has frequently conferred on Ministers the power to hold inquiries into a great variety of different matters, but not imposed a duty to do so. Our Statute Book over the last half-century is littered with these provisions, and it is not at all easy to be sure that one has ascertained all the relevant statutory provisions. The matter is made more difficult by the fact that some of them are, as I said in Committee, to be found in Private Acts of Parliament. I agree that the Opposition have tried to deal with the question of Private Acts by one of their Amendments to the Bill, but, unfortunately, they appear to have gone too far.
    If we were to accept the Amendment which is proposed, it would have the effect of covering all hearings and inquiries held under any power conferred by any Private Act of Parliament. We think that that goes much too far. It would make it impossible for Ministers to bring within the scope of the Council on Tribunals any hearing or inquiry held under a private Act.
    The main objection which has to be met against these Amendments, in my submission, is that they go the wrong way about tackling the problem. As I have said, it appears that about 50 different types of inquiry will probably be unsuitable for inclusion in a Ministerial order. Under the terms of the Opposition Amendments, it would be necessary for 50 separate orders to be made by Ministers. That would be an appalling expenditure of time, money and effort, and I submit that it is quite unnecessary.
    My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will be consulting the Council on Tribunals in the near future, and I think that
    1044
    he has already sent it copies of the first draft Order. He will be sending it a first list of the orders which it is proposed should be excluded from the Council's jurisdiction, and that list will be made up under the headings of the responsible Departments, so that the Council on Tribunals, which will be quick to take advantage of this, will be discussing with the Departments concerned any inquiry which it thinks has been wrongly included in the Order or in the list.
    I do not need to remind the House that it is the Council on Tribunals itself which has asked for this additional burden to be placed on its shoulders. It is right that it should have an opportunity of discussing both the draft Order and the draft list. I am not suggesting for a moment that this House should not have the principal and, of course, the leading responsibility in determining the content of subordinate legislation, but, in the circumstances of the problem, it seems more sensible and practical now to let the Council on Tribunals first tackle the work with its own particular expertise and experience.
    Accordingly, the view of the Government is that there is no reason why the operation of this Act needs to be postponed for a month after Royal Assent. The drafting of the first Order is already far advanced. We want to get on quickly with this additional protection for the citizen which it is the object of the Bill to confer. It is intended that a second Order should be made two or three months after Royal Assent to deal with any inquiries on which a decision has not been made in time for inclusion in the first Order.
    These Amendments will have merely a delaying effect on a useful Measure to bring within the scope of the Council on Tribunals a wide range of inquiries which are presently excluded. Whatever the motive of the Amendments may be, the effect of them will undoubtedly be merely to delay bringing about the introduction of a valuable piece of legislation.
    Sir J. Hobson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with this point? If certain inquiries were to be included within the scope of the Bill which subsequently required to be excluded, it would not matter, because the Bill only gives the power to make orders,

    1045
    rules and regulations, and that power need never be exercised. It does not matter if all inquiries are put into the Bill and there is some delay in excluding certain of them, because, in the interval, neither the Lord Chancellor under Section 7A nor the Council on Tribunals under Section 1 need take any action.
    The Attorney-General: As I say, the effect of what is proposed by the Opposition is that, if all these discretionary orders are included in an all-embracing provision, exclusion involves the introduction of a wide range and a large number of Prayers, and that would be contrary both to the convenience of the House and to good administration.
    I wish that I could feel that this subject has the undivided attention of the House. I repeat that I cannot recommend the Amendments and that they would be contrary to the purpose which unites both sides of the House in seeing that the Council on Tribunals is given the powers for which it has asked for the last six years.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am sure that the House is grateful to the right hon. and learned Attorney-General for the explanation that he has given, which was far more clear than that given by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). The hon. Gentleman assured the House that he was discussing the Bill, but no one would have known unless the hon. Gentleman had told us, although he was holding the Bill in his hand at one stage. It was a very entertaining speech. The hon. Gentleman managed to say nothing so brilliantly that it is quite astonishing that he is still below the Gangway.
    During his discussion of the Amendments, the hon. Gentleman forecast a change, but he hardly commended himself to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by his attack on the Bill and by his support of the very good Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). His attack on another place will not commend himself to any promotion there, although I am sure that he would not wish to go there, anyway.
    This is a very simple point. I start from the basic fact—
    Hon. Members: Get on.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand what is in the minds of hon. Members, but we must get on with our business.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.
    In considering these Amendments, I start from the basic fact that all inquiries should come within the scope of the Council on Tribunals. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, with his contempt for lawyers, might find himself—and I wonder whether he might not have said what he did had the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General been in the Chamber at the time——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) must come to the Amendment.
    Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Speaker, I was directing my remarks to the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. and learned Friend.
    The Amendments endeavour to ensure that the House will know what statutory inquiries do not come within the scope of the Council on Tribunals.
    As the Bill stands, it is possible for the Government to decide that a great number of statutory inquiries shall not come within the scope of the Council on Tribunals. The purpose of the Amendment is that the House shall be informed of those statutory inquiries which the Government have decided shall not come within the purview of the Council. Surely there is every reason why this should be brought before the House in the Statutory Instruments which are suggested in these Amendments, namely, that the House should know the decisions which are made? As the Bill stands, it means that there will be many statutory inquiries which will still be not subject to any rules of procedure, and still be in a raw state so far as the Council on Tribunals is concerned.
    Under these circumstances, I commend the Amendment to the House, and I trust that it will be accepted.
    8.30 p.m.
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: My purpose in intervening in this debate is precisely the same as that of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I hope that this will be the last time, as well as the first time,

    1047
    that this occurs, and it may be that in pursuance of this purpose he and I could join as Tellers in supporting the Amendments against the Government.
    To my mind, these Amendments are really largely drafting. When I look at the principal Act, I do not find that it contains words which are to be found in the Clause as drafted. The Clause contains the words
    "references to a statutory inquiry",
    but when I read the principal Act I do not find any reference to a statutory inquiry. All that I find are certain words in parenthesis, namely,
    "being the tribunals constituted under or for the purposes of the statutory provisions specified in that Schedule…"
    That does not seem to be a proper definition of what is contained in the principal Act.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Mr. Speaker, I thought that it was necessary to introduce what I was going to say by a reference to these matters, because, as I see them, the Amendments are intended to give a different kind of definition from that proposed in the Bill, and therefore one must look at the Bill to see what it is trying to define. And, as it is a Bill which is defining by reference, one has to look back to the principal Act, and it is there that one finds the words which it is seeking to define. I hope that I have made myself clear.
    The Bill proposes to add certain tribunals other than those referred to in the principal Act.—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I hope that my potential fellow teller will not find himself too much out of order at this stage of the debate.
    The Bill proposes to add certain other tribunals to those included in the principal Act. Its method of doing so is by permitting such other tribunals as may be proposed by Ministers of the Crown, and it defines who those Ministers are—the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State.
    1048
    The Amendments propose an alternative method. They propose to add all tribunals, and then to allow Ministers to knock out, so to speak, those which they do not wish to include. This seems to me a nicer and more enjoyable method of doing it, and I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the House.
    The Attorney-General: I am afraid that the learning of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) was not successfully conveyed to this side of the House. I venture to think that the House may not be principally preoccupied at this moment with this fascinating Measure. But in its concern for the rights of the individual citizen, the House may nevertheless be refreshed by the knowledge that this little Bill is intended to advance the citizens' protection.
    In its wisdom Parliament has created a vast plethora of administrative tribunals and has given Ministers power to introduce varying inquiries, but no duty to create such inquiries, and there is this enormous range of discretionary inquiries which it has been found exceed two centuries. Were the purpose of my speech merely to take up the time of the House it might very well be done by listing the enormous quantity of such discretionary inquiries.
    Mr. Speaker: We are not yet on the Third Reading. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must direct his remarks to the Amendments.
    The Attorney-General: Mr. Speaker, I was applying what I am pleased to call my mind to the Amendments, to the best of my ability in the circumstances presently prevailing. Whilst the Amendments propose ought to be unattractive to the House, for the reasons that I have already indicated, namely, that they would have the practical effect merely of delaying a Measure which both sides of the House welcome. They would involve reversing the considerable administrative procedures which have already been carried out through the different Departments in ascertaining what inquiries are amenable and suitable for inclusion within the category of the inquiries which should come within the ambit of the council and which should not.
    Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. and and learned Gentleman has said that

    1049
    this would give an opportunity to consider what inquiries should not be included. In fact, as the Bill stands is it not true that the House will not have an opportunity of commenting on the exclusion; that it will be entirely for the Government to decide without any reference to the House which of those plethera of statutory inquiries will be excluded?
    The Attorney-General: These matters will take time, and the initial stage will be the process of embodying in an order the inquiries which manifestly call for immediate inclusion within the ambit of the Council's work. If, when this operation is concluded, there are indications that, for some protective reason, any Ministry is excluding discretionary inquiries which ought to be included, there is no lack of Parliamentary processes by which such a Ministerial device could be called to account, and the Minister himself called to account.
    Accordingly, I invite the House to reject these Amendments as serving the opposite purpose to that which the mover has in mind, namely, quickly to extend the protection which the Council on Tribunals gives to a citizen who may be affected by the proceedings of inquiries and tribunals of inquiries.
    Amendment negatived.

  Title
  Amendment made: In line 6, after 'Scotland', insert:
  'to apply section 8 of that Act to procedural rules made by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue '.—[The Attorney-General.]
  8.40 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move,
  That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I commend the Bill to the House. It has received most detailed consideration in another place, about which some very direct observations were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) earlier, whose admiration for another place he has qualified on more than one occasion. He combined his qualification tonight, I am sorry to say with a swipe at the lawyers. That is a wholly unworthy exercise because, as the House well knows, some of the finest contributions to debate in the House are made by lawyers.
  1050
  I am afraid that what I have just said is not exactly calculated to win the unanimous support of my hon. and right hon. Friends behind me, but I think that in regard to the Bill they will give their full support, as the House as a whole will do, because its purpose is to give additional strength to the Council on Tribunals.
  I should like to pay a tribute to the work of that Council since it was introduced. It has provided a most valuable protection for the citizen, and its recommendations as to the procedures to be conducted in inquiries have undoubtedly resulted in a considerable improvement in those procedures. The Government shows no reluctance in encouraging the Council on Tribunals in its work.
  Sir Stephen McAdden: On a point of order. I wonder if you would be kind enough to help me, Mr. Speaker. I am anxious to know what the Attorney-General is saying. I cannot hear a word of what he is saying.
  Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the difficulty of the House, but it would be courteous if hon. Members would listen to the speeches which are being made.
  The Attorney-General: I am sorry that I cannot be adequately heard. I pray that the fault is not entirely mine and that no hardness of hearing is beginning to affect any hon. Member below the Gangway. As I was saying, when I was so appropriately interrupted, the House will join with me in taking this opportunity of paying tribute to the work of the Council on Tribunals, under the distinguished chairmanship of Lord Tenby, who has done a great deal to improve the position of the citizen before Tribunals of Inquiry. Therefore, the citizen has certainly in the past tended to be vulnerable and, perhaps, exposed in a way in which he is not in the ordinary processes of the courts. The supervision that has been exercised by the Council on Tribunals has been of immense value.
  8.45 p.m.
  It is now proposed that the wide range of discretionary inquiries which by reason of the inadequacy of definition of the Act were previously excluded will now be brought within the ambit of the Council's work. I know that the House will want

  1051
  to give a fair wind to a Measure whose sole purpose is to strengthen the rôle of the Council on Tribunals as a watchdog for the individual.
  The Council has asked—
  Mr. Charles Doughty: Because the work of this House is largely contributed to by lawyers, perhaps I may be allowed to ask the Attorney General two questions. Will he see that in future proper legal aid is given to those who appear before tribunals; that those who, like Attorneys General and Solicitors General, are somewhat, if only slightly, tainted with politics, can still appear at these tribunals, whatever the Committee may say?
  The Attorney-General: I had better not say anything about the latter part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention. We are here dealing with the ordinary tribunals and inquiries and not with the particular tribunals of inquiry set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out, legal aid does not extend at present to proceedings before tribunals of inquiry. This is a matter to which my noble Friend has been giving the most careful and anxious consideration.
  The problem is one of money. Legal aid is proving to be a great social service, but unhappily it is also—and perhaps inevitably—proving to be a very costly one. I do not say that the cost is disproportionate to the service, but the public purse is not bottomless for the purposes even of so admirable a social service as legal aid. Therefore, I fear that I can give to the House no undertaking—and I should be in great trouble with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer if I did—that legal aid will be extended to the proceedings before tribunals of inquiry, important though the issues are.
  The fact is that most of the tribunals do, I think, bear in mind the difficulties that an unrepresented person may have, and there is certainly no history or record known to my noble Friend or to myself of injustices being caused on that account by reasons of these proceedings—
  Mr. Robert Maxwell: I am not a lawyer, but I wonder whether
  1052
  my right hon. and learned Friend can say whether these tribunals of inquiry could be used as instruments for making our Civil Service a little more efficient and useful to the nation?
  The Attorney-General: I do not know what has prompted that somewhat fierce stricture on a Civil Service whose qualities are unrivalled in any part of the world. We have already taking place an inquiry, with the most distinguished membership, into the structure of the Civil Service. I doubt whether that inquiry would come within the ambit of this Measure. I see no grounds for such an inquiry, however, and it would have been interesting to discover why my hon. Friend put that question to me, save that he must have done so in the friendly spirit of giving me something to speak of in this situation.
  Mr. Percival: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was getting along so rapidly that I was afraid he would finish before I had the chance to catch his attention. I wonder whether, before he finishes, he would deal with two matters which, to use his own words, in all this plethora of words have not yet been touched upon.
  In moving the Third Reading of the Bill, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might like to tell us exactly what kind of Parliamentary control there is under the procedure which he is now commending to the House. Secondly, he has referred—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The intervention must be a brief one, otherwise the hon. and learned Member will exhaust his right to speak in this debate.
  Mr. Percival: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker, if I might have, say, another 30 seconds. The Attorney-General has referred to the fact that the Council will be consulted about exclusions. Will he assure us that the House will be informed of any instances in which the Council does not agree with an exclusion?
  The Attorney-General: I expect that that could certainly be done. I will certainly look into the point that is made. At present, as I have said, the Council on Tribunals is examining the list of inquiries which ought to be included in the order and the list of exclusions. I

  1053
  will certainly consider the suggestion that the House should in some way be informed what the exclusions are. The first task, however, is to get moving with the inclusions so that the procedure applicable to them may take effect quickly.
  As to the form of Parliamentary supervision over these proposals, the Statutory Instrument which will introduce the order listing the inquiries that are to be brought within the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals will come before the House and will be debated by the House, as will all other subsequent orders. In those circumstances, there will be full opportunity for the House to consider these matters with care.>
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. John Silkin.]

RHODESIA
8.54 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Rhodesia.
Since my announcement of 27th April that informal talks were to be held the House has been extremely patient and has recognised my inability to give information on the progress of the talks, which it had agreed would be confidential. The time has now come when the House must be put in full possession of the facts as they now stand, more than seven months after Mr. Smith indicated to the Governor his desire to engage in informal talks.
Altogether, three series of talks were held in London and Salisbury at official level before the first visit of my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary to Salisbury with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in September.
These talks were mainly directed to two main issues. First, the method and conditions of a return to legal and constitutional rule in Rhodesia and the determination of the question with whom official negotiations could subsequently take place. Second, an informal exploration in detail of constitutional problems
1054
to see what amendments would be needed to the 1961 Constitution to give effect to the six principles which had been the basis of discussions with the legal Rhodesian Government up to 11th November, 1965.
Practically the whole of the discussion during this period was on the problem of an ultimate constitutional settlement, though the representatives of Her Majesty's Government made it plain at the outset and repeatedly warned that a settlement would have to be reached on the problem of return to legality, and warned, too, that before independence could be granted a fair and free test of Rhodesian public opinion would have to be carried out under a constitutional Government.
Mr. Smith, through his officials, insisted on discussing the constitutional proposals first, indicating that he needed to be satisfied about the ultimate constitutional settlement before being ready to discuss what he regarded as a purely procedural matter of the return to constitutional rule. We insisted that before any settlement could be reached both issues would need to be dealt with.
By the time of the visit of my right hon. Friends, in September, no progress had been made in the constitutional talks. Nor, indeed, though my right hon. Friends' visit was extremely useful in informing a wide section of Rhodesian political opinion of our requirements and proposals for a settlement, was there any advance whatsoever on either the constitutional settlement or on the conditions for a return to legality during my right hon. Friends' visit.
Mr. Smith and his colleagues were left by my right hon. Friends in no doubt of our intention to act within the terms of the Commonwealth Prime Ministeres' communiqué and no doubt at all about the fact that, while adequate time remained for a settlement if the will were there, the programme envisaged in the communiqué did not admit to unlimited time nor to wasted time. It was not, in fact, until my right hon. Friend again took the initiative in visiting Salisbury on November 25th to 27th, just as we were getting very near the operation of the timetable of which Mr. Smith had been informed, that any signs of movement were detected.

1055
My right hon. Friend returned a week ago with a report indicating for the first time a real possibility that a satisfactory agreement might be reached on the constitutional issues which would give full guaranteed effect to the six principles on which we insisted. The report also indicated, very much for the first time, some sign of movement on the question of return to legality. Mr. Smith had, in fact, indicated that he was prepared to consider returning to the legal 1961 Constitution if a satisfactory constitutional settlement could be agreed. This was said last week for the first time. Mr. Smith said, in fact, to my right hon. Friend that, given a satisfactory solution, he would be prepared to consider surrendering what he called his independence by returning to the legal 1961 Constitution—provided that a satisfactory constitution and settlement could be agreed.
Despite all disappointments—and I can put it no higher—of every round of discussions which we, and indeed our predecessors, have had with Mr. Smith and his colleagues, the Government decided that before we finally had to report to the House, with all the consequences that would ensue, that there was no prospect of an agreement, one last effort should be made.
Accordingly, last Tuesday Mr. Smith was informed that my right hon. Friends and I would be prepared to meet him, on the clear understanding that the purpose of such a meeting would be to reach a final settlement, if it proved possible to reach agreement both on the terms of a constitutional settlement and on satisfactory arrangements for the return to legality. He was informed that I should have full power for this purpose and that it was essential that Mr. Smith should have similar powers and should be authorised to reach a final agreement, if the basis for a settlement were seen to exist.
As the House knows, we met him, and the Governor of Rhodesia, who was accompanied by the Chief Justice, for two days of intensive talks in H.M.S. "Tiger" at the end of last week. I will not weary the House with the successive twists and turns of these discussions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Twists?"] I shall be ready to answer any questions from hon. Gentlemen opposite when I have finished—but
1056
their outcome was that we both signed at midnight on Saturday, in the presence of the Governor, a working document setting out in detail all the essentials for a settlement.
On the amendments necessary to the 1961 Constitution which would be required to give effect to the six principles, Mr. Smith and I reached complete agreement, as hon. Members will see when the White Paper is available later this evening. The House will see that the requirements of the six principles have been met in full with effective constitutional and external guarantees.
On the return to constitutional rule, again the document sets out in detail what is required. The programme envisaged that an Order in Council would be made immediately to give the Governor the constitutional powers required for setting up an interim Government. He would then have appointed a broad-based interim Government, to be headed by Mr. Smith, and this Government would have been, in effect, on a legal basis by the middle of this week.
Mr. Smith and I agreed, subject to a condition which he laid down and which I will come to later, possible names for the five non-Rhodesian Front Ministers, European and African, who would be included in this interim administration. The existing Legislature would have been dissolved and the Governor would have exercised full legislative authority. During this period the test of acceptability under the fifth principle would then have been carried out and, provided that it had been completed, fresh elections would have been held not later than four months from the date of restoration of constitutional rule.
Agreement was also reached, without conditions and again in detail, about the procedure, as distinct from the timing, for testing the acceptability of the proposals for an independence constitution to the Rhodesian people as a whole. This was to be done by Royal Commission, to be appointed by Her Majesty's Government, after consultation with the new Rhodesian Government. Censorship was to have been lifted and freedom of political association and activity on democratic lines would have been permitted.
We agreed, also, on a procedure to give effect to the requirement laid down in the

1057
Commonwealth Prime Ministers' cormmuniqué for the release of political detainees. To deal with this, a judicial tribunal was to be appointed by the legal Rhodesian Government, but including a British representative nominated by the Lord Chancellor, to consider the detention and restriction of persons on security grounds.. Such detention and restriction would have been authorised only if the tribunal was satisfied that the persons concerned had committed, or had incited the committing, of acts of violence or intimidation.
It was agreed that if, as a result of the report of the Royal Commission, Her Majesty's Government were satisfied that the proposed constitutional settlement was acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, then immediate effect would be given to it by legislation, which we undertook to introduce in this House, the agreement to be further underwritten by a treaty binding both of us to maintain the Constitution. This treaty, as I explained to Mr. Smith, would be registered, as we are required to register it, with the United Nations. And any breach of this treaty, such as a coup d'état, either by European or by African extremists, would entitle us—indeed, I feel, would require us—to seek from the United Nations mandatory sanctions under Chapter 7, sanctions not necessarily confined to economic sanctions.
If, as a result of the report of the Royal Commission, Her Majesty's Government decided, however, that the proposed Constitution was not acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, there would still have been a legal Government under the 1961 Constitution with whom we could have explored alternative new proposals for an independence Constitution.
After all that has happened, the House will understand the anxiety I expressed to Mr. Smith that in these circumstances, if complete agreement had been reached, Mr. Smith, if the Royal Commission reported adversely, might perhaps again illegally declare independence. Nor did Mr. Smith's reply to my expression of anxiety do anything to dispel those suspicions. This would mean that while we had ended sanctions, as we were ready to do this week if Rhodesia returned to constitutional rule, he might once again return to illegality, an easier
1058
operation, you might think, than the reimposition of sanctions. Therefore, I thought it right in these circumstances to leave him in no doubt that if this were to happen we would go immediately and without any preliminaries to the United Nations for effective mandatory sanctions.
Equally, I thought it right to warn him that in conditions of a second U.D.I. he could no longer in all circumstances count on, still less abuse, the assurance I had given before the first declaration, that we would in any circumstances not use force, for example, to reinforce economic sanctions. And in the condition envisaged in a breach of the Treaty to which I have just referred, including a possible coup d'etat, either by European or African extremists, equally we would not consider ourselves bound by our earlier pledge that force would never be used. Mr. Smith understood this.
By 5 p.m. last Saturday it was open to Mr. Smith to sign an agreement with me covering all the issues providing for an immediate return to constitutional rule, the immediate unwinding of our sanctions provisions, and the urgent initiation of all the procedures leading to independence on terms which I would have no hesitation in recommending to this House as fully implementing all the six principles and that of the guarantees, internal and external, that this House has the right to demand, and as equally implementing the terms of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué. This was the position at 5 o'clock last Saturday.
Mr. Smith who had throughout indicated his willingness—within the authority he had been given—to reach agreement on the terms of an appropriate independence Constitution, continued—as he had every right to do—to reserve his position on two points related to the return to constitutional rule.
First, while he was prepared to discuss the procedures for an immediate return to legality—which he had told my right hon. Friend a week earlier he was prepared to consider—he had yet to make up his mind whether he could accept a situation in which he gave up what he called his independence with only the hope and not the certainty that the independence Constitution we had agreed

1059
would be shown by the Royal Commission to be acceptable to the Rhodesian people as a whole. While he was confident that it was acceptable to the Rhodesian people as a whole there was, he felt, the possibility that the final verdict might go against him. He continued to insist that the illegal Government should continue, sanctions being lifted, until he knew where he stood as a result of the Royal Commission's report.
I told him that a fair and convincing test of acceptability would be quite impossible in circumstances where an illegal régime was possessed of emergency powers and executive control including broadcasting and television and that we were not prepared to grant even interim recognition which he demanded, particularly since it was clear—as he made clear—that if the verdict went against him he would insist on maintaining his present illegal powers indefinitely. No British Government and few hon. Gentlemen could have agreed to such a proposal. Equally, though we discussed in great detail the composition of the broad-based Government, including the outgoing as well as the incoming personalities, he said that he had not yet accepted the principle that a broad-based Government should be created.
It was understood that having the document as a whole now before him, he would inform me later in the evening whether it was acceptable in its entirety or not. However, after a delay of some hours, Mr. Smith informed me that he had no authority whatsoever from his colleagues to give his agreement on either of these two points, or even to commend our agreed working document to his colleagues. Knowing his difficulties—and I did not underrate them—I agreed that instead of reaching a final settlement which I had authority to do—and I understood that he had come on the same basis—he should return to Salisbury without any commitment on his part either to sign the document as a whole, or even to agree to recommend it to his colleagues. It was, therefore, agreed that both documents should be considered by the British Government, and by Mr. Smith and his colleagues, on the clear understanding that it must be accepted or rejected as a whole, and a straight answer
1060
given, "Yes" or "No", by this morning. It was, therefore, understood and agreed that there could be no question of further amendment of the document which expressed clearly a decision on the principles and issues of policy which have been discussed time and time and time again between the British Government and the Rhodesians for many months—indeed, many of them for many years—and which could not, as we both agreed, be fluffed by any form of words which sought to evade that decision.
Before he returned to Salisbury, Mr. Smith, in the presence of the Governor, was left in no doubt about the consequences of any refusal or failure to accept the document. He was told that the consequences set out in paragraphs 10A and 10B of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué—on the conditions laid down in those paragraphs—would be set in motion. He was told what this would mean for Rhodesia, and of the immediate dangers for Africa and even more widely, if he and his régime, whose claim to legality has not been recognised by a single country in the world, insisted in continuing on a course which has earned the condemnation of practically the whole of mankind. He was left in no doubt about the action which we would take, and also the action which would be taken internationally. Equally he was left in no doubt about our resolve—however long it might take—to bring to an end a situation which, when he created it, he said would be a nine-days' wonder.
The House knows Her Majesty's Government announced yesterday their acceptance in its entirety of the document Mr. Smith and I worked out together. This evening the House will have heard with sadness that that same document has been rejected by Mr. Smith and his colleagues. They have confirmed that they insist on maintaining their illegality until, in conditions in which no free expression of Rhodesian opinion would be possible, a Royal Commission has reported and independence has been granted.
They have announced that they have accepted the principal changes in the 1961 Constitution which are set out in the document, as a basis for independence. Their refusal to accept the settlement as a whole stems from their insistence on

1061
their refusal to return to legality unless they themselves can remain in power while the agreed constitutional settlement is being tested by Rhodesian opinion. The implications of this are obvious, and no one in this House would be ready to accept those implications. Indeed, if reports from Rhodesia which have come this evening are correct, they have also rejected any concept of sharing power with representatives of a wider section of Rhodesian European opinion and they have rejected the proposal that two respected Africans, whose names were agreed between Mr. Smith and myself, should become part of the interim broad-based Government that we have proposed.
At least the House, and the world, have been left in no doubt about the isues which are at stake, after all that has happened since last Thursday. It is clear that power for its own sake and the insistence of retaining that power in the hands of a small unrepresentative minority have dictated the outcome.
I believe that it was right to try to reach a settlement which we could defend consistently with the principles we have proclaimed and consistently, equally, with our honour both in this House and before the bar of world opinion. No one—including many in Rhodesia who have previously put their trust in that group of men—could condone their refusal to accept the settlement which would have provided for them an honourable way out of the situation that not we but the illegal régime created. For us to have accepted what they were demanding would have been a betrayal of the principles on which our own democracy is based and the principles to which the multiracial Commonwealth and the United Nations are dedicated.
When my right hon. Friends and I decided to hold this parley with Mr. Smith, we knew that some might say that we were mistaken to venture on such a task. I believe that we were justified in what we did. The fact that the hand we proffered has been rejected does not alter that conviction. From that rejection certain inevitable consequences must now follow in accordance with the programme that we agreed with our Commonwealth colleagues in September. Mr. Smith was clearly warned of this in terms he clearly understood.
1062
He knew that we, the British Government and this House, were not prepared to suffer the destruction of our principles—or of the Commonwealth—for the sake of safeguarding from world opinion the actions of a small and irresponsible minority.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be flying to New York tomorrow to take personal charge, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, of the actions which must follow in the United Nations. My noble Friend, Lord Caradon, has been instructed to ask for an early meeting of the Security Council.
Mr. Speaker, I regret to have had to present this report to the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman did not have to."] I am prepared to face hon. Gentlemen opposite in a minute, and to face them with the consequences of their attitude. Until then, I have to say that I regret that I have had to present this report to the House. I believe that we could have done no more.
Mr. Edward Heath: The House is grateful to the Prime Minister for coming here tonight and making a statement after the efforts he has been making during the past few days, which, I am sure, the House will believe were fuly justified, and I thank the Prime Minister for making that statement.
The House will realise that the statement is one of the utmost gravity, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has emphasised. It will be a bitter blow to millions of people in this country and far beyond that it has not yet been possible to reach a negotiated settlement of this problem.
The situation, as I think the Prime Minister will agree, is a complicated one, judging from his statement, and it is in many ways, as far as Salisbury is concerned, also a confused one. I am sure, therefore, that the House would wish to consider the Prime Minister's statement most carefully, together with the White Paper which, we understand, is to be produced later this evening.
In the meantime, I ask the Prime Minister to clarify the position in what I think is one vital respect. Is it correct to say that the proposals in the working paper fell broadly into two parts, the first being proposals for the Constitution based on the six principles, on which the

1063
Prime Minister's words were "The requirements of the six principles have been met in full, with effective constitutional and external guarantees." If that is so, I think that the House would agree that very great progress has been made, and this is a remarkable achievement.
Secondly, the other lot of proposals deal with the method of the return to legality, and it is here that it has not been possible to reach agreement. May I ask the Prime Minister this question on this vital point, which we have always emphasised ever since his statement of 25th January: what was he proposing should be the legal basis for the interim Government to which he proposed Rhodesia should return?
From reports on the tape tonight, it appears that it was being asked that the control of the Armed Forces and the actual appointment of Ministers should be placed under the Governor, and if this were to be under our own Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, this would, therefore, be the direct responsibility in both cases of the British Government at Westminster, as I understand the situation. Is this what was being proposed?
While I fully recognise the point made by the Prime Minister about the request of Mr. Smith as far as their own powers in Rhodesia were concerned, could the right hon. Gentleman clarify the point as to what is he proposing for the future interim Government?
Finally, I am sure that the House would feel that where so much agreement has been reached on the constitutional procedures for the future, it would be a matter of the utmost regret if the dire consequences which are to follow, which the Prime Minister has foretold, were to come about as a result of differences about the return to legality on which the whole House was hoping that it would have been possible to reach agreement between the two Governments concerned which would satisfy the principles and requirements of both.
The Prime Minister: I can reply only by leave of the House.
First, may I say that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the statement which I have made is not only one of gravity, but one of some complexity. There is a White Paper available in the Vote Office, or it will be available in a
1064
few minutes. I understand that that will have to be studied. I regret that, for reasons which he will understand, I was not able to send the right hon. Gentleman an advance copy of my statement. It was so late that we got final confirmation. I should have liked to have sent it to him.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it is clear that the argument falls into two parts and that progress was made on the constitutional issue—perhaps surprising progress. That progress was not made, not by one inch, during all the months that we have been discussing the matter since April, until my right hon. Friend's visit, on his own initiative, to Salisbury a week ago. [Interruption.] We have been talking since April and were willing to talk in January. No progress has been made by one inch on the Rhodesian side to a solution. There was no insistence throughout on a braking mechanism that even the right hon. Gentleman would not have accepted. It was not until my right hon. Friend's visit, during the last few days before the Commonwealth communiqué time-table began to operate, that there was this beginning of movement on the part of Mr. Smith and his colleagues.
It is a fact that after some very hard bargaining—we made a number of concessions, too, although none which I could not defend against the background of the six principles—it was only at the meeting this weekend that we were able to reach agreement here. But I think that it is wrong to suggest that we can separate these two, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be trying to do.
In the first place, in my view and that of my right hon. Friends, it is impossible to say that we could operate a free test which is required under the fifth principle which the right hon. Gentleman, my predecessor, insisted on with so much determination against a background of an illegal constitution, armed, as the Leader of the Opposition has said—I quoted this to Mr. Smith—with all the powers of a police State.
But, secondly, it is not only a question of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of making such a test which we argued with Mr. Smith. It is also the fact that if one is to hand over to Mr. Smith and his colleagues, as we were prepared to hand over, the responsibility for a future

1065
Rhodesia, this must be based on trust as well as on the test to which I have referred. If he was not willing to agree to return to legality as a condition of that offer—which I know many people have condemned—I do not believe that one would have the conditions of trust which would justify his being given what no Government in this country has given in our generation, and that is the right of independence without majority rule.
We have a very distinguished record in that in successive Governments right hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as ourselves have over many years handed over to their own sovereignty one people after another, and we have always insisted on majority rule first in our lifetime, in the lifetime of most of us. If we have been prepared to hand over to Rhodesia, uniquely, independence without majority rule, I think that it requires some trust and some sense on their part that they are prepared to make some sacrifices. In this case the only sacrifice that we asked them to make was a sacrifice not of independence, but of an unreal dream world of a Walter Mitty independence which is recognised by no one except them.
There is not a Government in the world which recognises the 1965 Constitution. European Governments of various complexions have been expelling Mr. Van der Byl—known to some hon. Gentlemen opposite—because he did not carry a valid passport.
I hope that no hon. Gentleman opposite will claim that the Rhodesians have a legal independence under the 1965 Constitution. All that we were asking them to accept was that they should return to a legal constitution—under the same Prime Minister. That was all that we were asking. That should not have been difficult. Without that, I submit to the House, there is not the trust which would justify handing over to them responsibility for the conduct of the country and of guaranteeing the progress to majority rule over a period of years which was involved in our constitutional settlement.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what legal basis there would have been if Mr. Smith had accepted return to constitutional rule. The answer is, simply and plainly, the 1961 Constitution. That is
1066
all—I will come to the military point in a minute—that we were asking of him, though—it is an arguable point but he and I agree—if he returned under the 1961 Constitution it would be appropriate to dissolve the Rhodesian Parliament, which would first require an Order, which would have been done under the 1961 Constitution in this particular. What would then have been involved would have been that the Governor would dissolve Parliament constitutionally, which would mean that the Governor could govern for four months without Parliament. In these circumstances we proposed that the legislative authority would be vested in the Governor, and in this he would be advised by his own constitutional Rhodesian Government
We required, also, that it would not be the existing purported Government with all the same members. I do not think that anybody in this House could have agreed to a Rhodesian constitutional Government including Mr. Dupont, who, during this year, has purported to represent the Queen as quasi-regent in Rhodesia. We would have had to insist on his removal. I would add that in my discussions with Mr. Smith there was no controversy about the removal of some of his colleagues.
Hon. Members: Cheap.
The Prime Minister: This is not cheap. This is a statement of fact.
I would hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite would insist that someone who had purported to be the Governor without the Queen's authority could not be a member of a legal and constitutional Rhodesian Government. If any of those hon. Gentlemen opposite who have enjoyed his hospitality, and have encouraged him in the course that he has followed, believe that he should have been a member of a legal constitutional Government, I hope that they will have the guts to stand up and identify themselves.
I return now to the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. It would have been under the 1961 Constitution, as it would have been under the powers of that Constitution, that the Parliament would have been dissolved. But, under the same Constitution, that would have

1067
required an election in four months, during which we hoped that the Royal Commission would have completed its task. There would have been no question—and I know that this has worried the right hon. Gentleman for many months, and I have not been free to deal with it because of what I have said—and there has not been any question in any of our discussions with Mr. Smith from May onwards of direct rule, whether direct rule from Whitehall or direct Governor's rule. As I say, I know that that worried the right hon. Gentleman. I only wish that I could have made it clear. He knows why I could not.
As regards control of the Armed Forces, I hope that, now that there has been this break tonight, we shall not start using the facilities which Mr. Smith has for uncorrected means of disseminating information through Government-controlled radio and television and a Government-censored Press, to falsify the facts. We shall publish tonight in a White Paper the document which he and I agreed. I will tell the House now in advance—and hon. Members can study this for themselves—exactly what was involved in the control of Rhodesian troops.
There was no more in the document than that, while the Governor is and always was the titular head and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and while he would act as advised by his legal constitutional Government, we would have agreed with Mr. Smith—and he raised no difficulty about this—the appointment of a Defence and Security Council which would consist of the Governor, of the Ministers in the legal Rhodesian Government responsible for defence and for law and order, of the heads of the Armed Forces, who are Rhodesians, of the chief of police, who is a Rhodesian, and of one representative of the British High Commission.
If that is now being presented to Rhodesia so soon as being taking control of the Rhodesian Armed Forces, then I think that I am justified in some of the things which I have said about misrepresentation of the facts.
That would be for four months only—from now until independence. It would only be for this limited period while the Royal Commission was doing its task and
1068
while this House, if the Royal Commission so reported, was carrying through the independence legislation. After that, the only reference to defence in the document—and we have agreed this—is that we would enter into discussions for a defence agreement between two sovereign countries.
How that can be represented as control over the Armed Forces, as I understand he is reported to have said tonight, I cannot myself comprehend, though we must always bear in mind, in the overheated atmosphere in Rhodesia, the possibility of being misreported, not least as I gather that he was addressing from outside his offices a crowd of exuberant and perhaps rather extremist supporters.
The right hon. Gentleman came finally to the point where he said that there are dire consequences resulting from this decision. I agree. That is why I so much deplore the fact that, when settlement was within our grasp, we could not get it because they insisted on a constitutional settlement based on "Heads I win, tails you lose". They had to give up their posture of illegality and enter into a legal constitution, and they said that they would not do that until they knew that they were to have legal independence on their own terms. That really is the point. They refused to accept the test of acceptability by the Royal Commission, and said they must hold on to what they have, or what they think they have, so that they could hold on to it for ever if the Royal Commission reported against them.
I am in no doubt where responsibility lies for this break, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is making too small a thing of this to suggest that we had agreed on all the big things about the Constitution and disagreed over a quibble about the return to legality. The question of the return to legality—[Interruption.] I was not suggesting that that is what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I think that it might have been deduced, from some of the noises from behind him when he said it. I know that he is not easily persuaded by those noises, but it is important that he should not be—[Interruption.] There is no doubt about the response given by some hon. Members to that statement by the right hon. Gentleman.

1069
I am sure that when the right hon. Gentleman has had time to consider this—and it is only fair that he and the House should have time to consider it—he will feel that this is not a quibble over protocol. It is essentially a matter of principle that this House could not possibly justify handing to those who have voluntarily, for their own purposes, entered into a condition of rebellion, the fact that they should be free to end that rebellion, and end it only on conditions when they got what they wanted.
Mr. J. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people will have heard with deep regret of the determination of Mr. Smith to persist in his illegal course of conduct? May we have it quite clear that he has refused all supervision from outside over the return to legality?
Further, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, now that he is taking the serious course of sending this matter to the United Nations, he is in a position to assure the House that if the United Nations agree to mandatory sanctions, they will be effective? I ask that because many of us feel that if we are to have sanctions we should be assured that they will this time be effective.
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am not sure to what the right hon. Gentleman is referring when he says that Mr. Smith has rejected all possible terms for outside supervision. The position is as I stated it. We were proposing to act in the mast constitutional way in accordance with the Constitution. We did not ask him to go and say to the Governor that he had sinned against the Constitution. We just wanted to authorise the Governor to say that since Rhodesia has no Prime Minister, or no Minister at all, the Governor on noting that vacuum should invite Mr. Smith to fill it on some of the conditions laid down. There was no outside supervision. The only outside supervision would have been, I think I am right in saying, the supervision of the test of acceptability of this proposition to the Rhodesian people as a whole, where Mr. Smith not only agreed, but suggested, that a Royal Commission should be appointed by Her Majesty's Government.
The only other element of supervision would have been the appointment by my
1070
noble Friend the Lord Chancellor of one member, and one member only, of a tribunal otherwise appointed by the legal Rhodesian Government to supervise the release from detention of detainees whom it was considered safe to release and who were not there on any criminal charge.
It is our intention that the mandatory sanctions should be effective. I hope to have a chance of saying—I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I think that it is important to say this—that we have now, in accordance with our undertaking, proceeded, or shall be proceeding, to move in the Security Council for selective mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia. I am confident that, given their acceptance by the Security Council, all members of the United Nations will fulfil their obligations and will loyally apply the sanctions in question. This does not involve any of the issues which have been the subject of recent public comment.
The first step is to lay down the effective sanctions. If, and it is entirely hypothetical, any country were to decide that it could not conform with the United Nations' decisions, this would create a new situation, which in due course would no doubt be raised. It has not been raised yet. It is not raised this week. But the House must be clear that at the Commonwealth conference I had the fullest support from and understanding of my colleagues, particularly leading African statesmen, that we are committed to selective sanctions against Rhodesia only.
Moreover, they agreed with us that not only must we proceed step by step—and this is a lengthy process—in dealing with this situation, but also, as we said, and they agreed, that this must not be allowed to develop—they understood this—into a confrontation whether economic or military involving the whole of Southern Africa. As the House will join my Commonwealth colleagues in recognising, such a confrontation, economic—and economic might lead to military—could have incalculable consequences for Southern and Central Africa going far beyond the issues raised by the Rhodesian problem. Indeed, as I told my Commonwealth colleagues, it could rapidly dwarf the Rhodesian problem, and nothing would ever be the same in Central Africa

1071
again, whether in Rhodesia or some of their own States. Certainly in these circumstances anyone in this House might predict the consequence that my Commonwealth colleagues accepted at this Conference, that in these matters we must continue to be in control of the situation.
Mr. Robert Maxwell: Can my right hon. Friend say what rôle South Africa played in these negotiations? Does he expect South Africa to comply with selective mandatory sanctions? Further, can he tell the House, now that we have regrettably had to hand this matter over to the United Nations, whether the United Kingdom is to bear alone all the economic consequences of these sanctions, and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to alleviate the cost of these sanctions, which are inevitable?
The Prime Minister: So far as South Africa's actions in the last few days are concerned, I have no direct knowledge of these. We have been in touch with a number of countries—both inside and outside the Commonwealth—which might be affected, but I have no knowledge of what action or line they have taken. As for the future, it is entirely hypothetical to assume that South Africa will or will not take a particular line.
As for the bearing of the burden by this country, the burden that we have been bearing has been exaggerated—perhaps rather damagingly from the point of view of the impact on Southern Rhodesia. I had to point out to Mr. Smith that we had lost about £35 million worth of direct exports over the last year—very serious, and we all regret this—but, on the other hand, our exports have risen by £350 million in total in world markets—so it is possible to exaggerate the effect—although I have left out particular invisibles and certain other things.
As for our bearing the whole burden of economic sanctions, the purpose of making them collective and universal is to ensure that some countries which have been quietly cashing in—or nationals of friendly Governments who have been quietly cashing in—will now have to conform with the general situation. More effective sanctions will be possible, and a much fairer sharing of the burden.
Mr. Sandys: The Prime Minister's statement is a very grave one. I should like him to clarify one point, which he stressed. He said that the proposal was to return to the 1961 Constitution and that there was no question of asking for agreement on direct Governor's rule. I cannot reconcile that with the Prime Minister's statement that during this period the Governor was to have complete legislative power and that the interim Government were to have purely advisory functions. That, surely, is direct Governor's rule. It is the normal kind of rule which comes about in a Colony before it is established with full internal self-government. I should like clarification on that point.
All I would say is that the Prime Minister has told us that there was—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ask questions at this stage.
Mr. Sandys: I did not hear what you said, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would ask questions at this stage.
Mr. Sandys: On a point of order. I understood that we were on the Adjournment. I was making a very short speech. I can try to put it in the form of questions, but I did not think that it was necessary. Are we not on the Adjournment?
Mr. Speaker: Do not let me take away valuable time. We are on the Adjournment, but I think that we get a much wider expression of opinion if we have a number of questions.
Mr. Sandys: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has told us that complete agreement was reached on the basis for a future constitution for Rhodesia which fully satisfied the six points? Does he realise that the British people will need a great deal of convincing that he was right to throw that away on account of disagreement over the procedure during the four months' interim period?
The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's first question, the answer is, yes, it would be a return to the 1961 Constitution. Parts of that are already suspended by Orders approved by this

1073
House. We would have to reinstitute, for example, the power of the Governor to appoint the Prime Minister and other Ministers. The fact that there will be no Parliament is permissible under the 1961 Constitution. Parliament is currently in abeyance. Mr. Smith was rather keen on this as we were. The Governor would dissolve Parliament and within four months there must, under the Constitution, be an election. In those difficult circumstances it would be better for the broad-based Government not to have the particular Parliament which has been there up till now. This was no matter of controversy in H.M.S. "Tiger". It might be for the right hon. Gentleman, but if he is to the Right with Mr. Smith, he must get up and tell us.
That is the executive power. Regarding legislative power, it was thought it would not be likely that any legislation would be required during the period we are talking about. In case legislation was required—and I can see circumstances where it might be; for example, to deal with the work of the Royal Commission, the setting up of the Commission on tribunals, and things of that kind—we said we were prepared to clothe the Governor with legislative power by Order in Council approved by Parliament that the Governor, in exercise of that legislative power, would, apart from one or two exceptions, be advised by the legal 1961 Constitutional Government.
I think the right hon. Gentleman, when he studies this, will feel that it is, for all practical purposes, a return to the 1961 Constitution. We did insist that it should be a broad-based Government. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would have done the same. He knows some of the personalities involved. We have to re-create trust and confidence in that country, including the trust and confidence of the vast proportion of the population who had no vote or voice in choosing the Government that committed U.D.I.
Regarding the second question of the right hon. Gentleman, he was trying to suggest that while we reached agreement, as basically we did, on the Constitution—Mr. Smith has said so, and so it would appear to be so—he said that we threw away the possibility of an agreement by insisting on the conduct that was required
1074
in the next four months. If the right hon. Gentleman treats so lightly the issue of the return to legality, which is a matter, however he may disguise it, in constitutional terms of rebellion against established authority—[An HON. MEMBER: "What is the penalty?"] It is not for me to apportion the penalty which he, if I may say so, with great distinction upheld for so many years at the Commonwealth Conference; if he now suggests it is a light matter that anyone taking account of it is throwing away a vital issue, he is sinking a long way from the position which he occupied only two years ago.
With his knowledge, and with my confirmation of that knowledge, he insisted with so much courage on these principles which we have been upholding, that for him to say that they could be carried out on the basis of an irresponsible illegal group of men who rejoice in their irresponsibility and illegality—[Interruption]—who have nothing to lose by accepting our invitation to return to legality, then I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument. The position was that I had the authority, the Governor had the authority, and Mr. Smith had the authority to accept this. Before he left H.M.S. "Tiger" on Saturday night, he could have accepted the Governor's invitation to become the Prime Minister of Rhodesia on the terms I have said. If the right hon. Gentleman says that on those terms I threw away the chance of a settlement, it means that the right hon. Gentleman has lost all sense either of the constitutional argument or of everything he has upheld as a Privy Councillor.
Mr. Archie Manuel: With reference to what has been said by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), is my right hon. Friend aware that I believe that the great majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the vast majority of the people in the country, will support my right hon. Friend for his unceasing efforts since last April to get Rhodesia to return to constitutional Government? Is he further aware that we applaud his last effort, and that many thousands of people in this country will be very sad tonight that he did not obtain the success he deserved?

1075
Is my right hon. Friend aware that we recognise that sanctions are now the last stage, that many innocent people will be hurt by them, but that we are, nevertheless, delighted that he is sending my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to ensure that these sanctions are strong? And I hope that they will be as complete as possible in the circumstances now facing us vis-à-vis Rhodesia.
The Prime Minister: I particuarly welcome what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). He expressed doubts a fortnight ago about the visit of my right hon. Friend to Salisbury and it is generous of him now to say what he has said about my right hon. Friend's visit, and my own. It would not have been possible to have come near to agreement but for the visit of my right hon. Friend, as the whole House recognises, a fortnight ago, and I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said.
With regard to the fear that there will be widespread suffering as the result of the rejection of chances of settlement, I hope that my hon. Friend is wrong, but I fear that he may be right. Mr. Smith is in no doubt of the possible consequences of the action he has taken. I have always taken the view about Mr. Smith—some would say, contrary to all the evidence—that he allows himself to be pushed around by some pretty evil men. I still like to think of him as wanting this agreement to go through, but that he did not have the weight or the courage, or however one wants to put it——
Sir Cyril Osborne: Did the Prime Minister give him enough time?
The Prime Minister: I hope that the one thing that we shall not hear about now is time. In the first place, we were closeted together in H.M.S. "Tiger" for as long as we needed to reach agreement—for 48 hours—and on Saturday morning we could have pursued this. But he had told me—I thought that he had come with authority——
Sir Robert Cary Sir Robert Cary (Manchester, Withington) rose—
The Prime Minister: I am answering my hon. Friend, and dealing with interruptions as I go along.
1076
I had hoped that he had come with authority, but he told me that he had to go back——
Mr. Mark Woodnutt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It appears to me that the Prime Minister is making speeches. He has just said that he will deal with interruptions as he goes along. Can you explain precisely what the form is?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the Prime Minister will be brief, as I want to allow more questions.
The Prime Minister: By leave of the House to speak again, the position about time—[Interruption.] If the House does not want to hear me—[Interruption.] If some hon. Members prefer to wallow in ignorance and prejudice they may do so, but I think that the rest of the House wants the facts.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there was enough time. Mr. Smith made it very clear that he knew all the issues, understood the issue; that it was a question of whether his Government, as he called it, would or would not accept the issue. There was nothing more to argue about, or come to a possible compromise. We all tried—there was not one. Therefore, time would not have made any difference.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the sanctions will be thoroughgoing, that they will be effective, and that they will be selective.
Mr. Reginald Maulding: One question that seems important is that of the interpretation of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué. Is it now the position that all offers are withdrawn, and that the Government will not in future contemplate any proposal for independence before majority rule?
The Prime Minister: The position is—and, again, Mr. Smith understands this—that, as we said in the communiqué, if, and only if, we have the support of our fellow Commonwealth countries on the question of sanctions—not merely in introducing them, but in limiting them in the way we feel it right to limit them—we are prepared to go ahead on mandatory sanctions, and make that declaration. Mr. Smith has been under no

1077
illusions. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman emphasised to him when in Rhodesia that this will be the position. Mr. Smith has since had three months to make up his mind about the kind of settlement he would accept. It really is no longer our responsibility. I had to tell him that we were not prepared at the end of the day to risk the very existence of the Commonwealth in September by demanding the right to have a last go at reaching a settlement with Mr. Smith. The Commonwealth very nearly broke up; it was very near indeed.
I am not prepared to recommend to this House that we let the Commonwealth break up for the sake of a very small group of people in a country whose electorate is only one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the population of the Commonwealth as a whole unless I feel that that small minority is right. Nothing that has happened in the last 72 hours persuades me that it is.
Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): In spite of the main disappointment, is it not undeniable that the Prime Minister has made very real and precious progress? In that case, and in view of the vast dangers which lie ahead if he takes this matter to the United Nations, I put this to him as a perfectly serious suggestion. Would not be possible to appoint the Royal Commission, which presumably would contain Rhodesians as well as people from this country, and let it go out there and be the judge of the free expression of opinion? I put this to the Prime Minister as a serious suggestion of a way out, even at this hour.
In the course of the Prime Minister's first statement, it seemed to me—perhaps I heard him wrong—that he said he had told Mr. Smith that in certain circumstances he would see fit to back up sanctions with appropriate force, or some such phrase. Will he explain to the House what he meant by that?
The Prime Minister: On the first question, the hon. Member, who, I think, has had some contact with Rhodesia himself in the last year, will agree that it would not be possible for a Royal Commission to do this task against the present background in Rhodesia, where there is no freedom of political
1078
expression. I do not think that the Royal Commission would get any more balanced a picture of Rhodesia than the hon. Member has if it tried to operate in those conditions.
I feel also that it is not much that we have had to ask the regime in Rhodesia—not to give up anything of value, not to give up independence, because it has no independence, but to give up a titular independence which they and they alone believe in. It is a delusion from which they suffer. That was all that we asked. For that, they could have had immediate constitutional power in Rhodesia. They could have had the chance of proceeding to independence on terms never previously granted.
They could have had the chance of a peaceful, democratic Rhodesia. They would have had guarantees against premature African rule. They would have had the chance of an economically prosperous Rhodesia. They have thrown all that away because they refused to end what does neither them nor anybody else any good—this illegal claim to independence.
On the question of military force, I said that if Mr. Smith accepted our terms and then turned back to a second U.D.I., in those circumstances our pledge not to use force to get a constitutional settlement would be ended.
Mr. John Lee: Will my right hon. Friend accept that some of us on this side, hearing how near the Commonwealth came to breaking up, feel a sense of relief at what has happened? If sanctions do not succeed, is my right hon. Friend now prepared to use military force in backing them? Secondly, may we be assured that we will never again have any more negotiations with this man Smith? Thirdly, may we ask that although, up till now, my hon. Friend has refrained from considering direct rule from Whitehall as a possibility, he will now reconsider this in view of the latest break?
The Prime Minister: I said that the danger to the Commonwealth arose from my demand that I should have one last chance with Mr. Smith; but once it was conceded, after a very difficult conference, that the Commonwealth was committed, as I was, to allow this to

1079
happen, I do not see that the Commonwealth was in danger if that particular thing had succeeded.
I think that some of the other points raised by my hon. Friend are a bit unreal. We are now in a very difficult situation as a result of this refusal today, and it would not help if I were to go further in saying what we will and will not do.
Sir Lionel Heald: Although this is an Adjournment debate, I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will ask a question in the hope that I may have an answer and not a ninth speech. Is the Prime Minister aware——
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed without Question put.
Sir L. Heald Sir L. Heald rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has lost his opportunity. Sir John Hobson.
Sir L. Heald: On a point of order. I began my speech on the Adjournment debate, having been called by you, Mr. Speaker. Am I now told to sit down?
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not help. I am sorry to appear discourteous to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He had just the opportunity to put his question. Unfortunately, when we reach ten o'clock the Adjournment Motion is talked out automatically. I am ever so sorry.

PAY INCREASES (RESTRICTIONS)
10.1 p.m.
Sir John Hobson (Warwick and Learnington): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty——
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not help on a serious night like tonight.
Sir J. Hobson: I beg to move,
That an humble Address——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will wait for a moment while other hon. Members leave the Chamber.
Sir J. Hobson: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Temporary Restrictions on Pay Increases (20th July 1966 Levels) (No. 1) Order 1966 (S.I. 1966, No. 1365), dated 1st November 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st November, be annulled.
I had been endeavouring to fill in the noisy interval by reading slowly the formal part of the Motion, Mr. Speaker.
This debate may well be somewhat of an anti-climax after the important and dramatic events which has just taken place, but it is, nevertheless, a topic of considerable importance for the internal and economic organisation of our affairs. This is the very first Prayer against an Order affecting wages made by the Secretary of State under Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act.
The Order vividly illustrates the pettiness and absurdity of the system which the Government have devised for the control of wages. Everyone in this country is under the impression that we now have a system under which all prices and all wages are controlled by law. Any hon. Member has only to look at his postbag to see that the general idea of most citizens is that Parliament and the Government have provided for a system under which everybody's wages and everybody's prices are subject to the rule of law. Even law societies and law students are under this general impression, and when one addresses them and tells them that it is not so, they look at one with amazement.
1082
The view is absurdly wrong, because there are almost no wages at all which are at present limited by law other than those of the 120 supervisors of Thorn Electrical Industries Ltd., whose case we are discussing this evening, those who are employed in the newspaper industry, in printing and distribution, both in London and the provinces, and, I believe, about 200 or more hot blast furnacemen, in respect of whom an Order has been made.
This is, of course, a minute proportion of the total working population of 23 million people. One might ask why have these three groups only so far been been picked out. Are they the only ones to be subject to a direction in law that their wages are not to be increased, or at least are to be restrained to the level at which they were on 20th July? The answer is because they attracted public notice. It was their intention to break the freeze that attracted the attention of the Minister, and that alone is the reason why they have been singled out for control by law and why 99·99 per cent. of their colleagues are not subject to any such control.
Naturally, in the case of Thorn Electrical Industries, it was the publicity attracted to the county court action in September of this year which brought down this Order upon a freely negotiated contract which had been made—before the announcement of additional measures—on 12th July, the very day after some inspired guidance which led the Financial Times to say that no further measures of restraint of any sort were needed. One may suspect that if that litigation had not ensued—if they had kept very quiet indeed—we should not have heard very much more about the supervisors at Thorn's.
Is it not a corrollary of this method of government that if both employer and employee keep quiet and say very little—if they are not members of a large organisation, and do not get involved in much publicity, or are not members of the newspapers, whose private affairs are printed on the front of them—the chances of an Order being made, such as this one, will be very small indeed?
What machinery is there for finding out what increases ought to be controlled and will take place, large and small? I know that Part II of the Act may very

1083
well draw the attention of the Minister to some proposed increases, but what proportion of the 23 million employed people in this country are subject to any direct attention under Part II which would attract to the notice of the Minister information that an increase was contemplated, because it would seem that, for anybody to whom Part II has not been applied, there is not, so far as I can see, any machinery that would draw to the attention of the responsible Minister the fact that an increase was proposed; that is, unless there happens to be some publicity about it or unless, by accident in some other way, it is drawn to his attention.
There is another question about this system of detailed control by separate and individual orders. How small a number does the Secretary of State intend to deal with in these particular and specialised orders? As I said, in this case we are dealing with about 120 people, 120 members of A.S.S.E.T. and a few members of the other union concerned. Is the Minister prepared to make Orders in respect of one or two individuals? For example, what about the gravedigger at Stow-on-the-Wold, if it is proposed to give him an increase in his wages? Does he get away with it because he is not a member of a large union or organisation, whereas those who are members of very large trade unions, whose affairs are bound to be the subject of pubicity, come to the notice of the Minister?
Unless the application of this power is to be universal and is to bite not only on large blocks of men but on quite small caucuses of employees, its application is bound to be unfair and will be seen increasingly to be unfair by those who, because of the accidental way in which these matters are brought to the Minister's notice, have the right hon. Gentleman's powers exercised against them.
There is another question, about the persons concerned at Thorn's Electrical Industries. I understand—I may be wrong, but the information I have obtained is—that this is not wholly a union shop. Are there any non-unionists employed at Thorn Electrical Industries who are in a position similar to that of those who are members of one or the other of the two unions mentioned in the Schedule to the Order who will be
1084
free of this Order, whereas those who are members of the union will not?
I know, of course, that the Schedule to the Order provides that if the agreement between the employers and the unions of 12th July is expressly or by implication incorporated into the contract of employment of any individual he is controlled, but does the Minister know, and can he tell us, whether it is the fact that all people in a supervisory position at Thorn Electrical Industries have such terms in their contracts? Particularly, is it not the position if any new person is taken into employment in that grade he will be enirely free of control if the employers are willing to make with him a new agreement which expressly excludes the agreement of 12th July?
Is that not a very absurd position? When one makes an Order in a form which does not attract particularly the people at a particular type of work but—I am devoting this argument to the form of the Order—which is directed only at such persons as have a particular form of term of employment, is it not then possible for any new employees to be entirely free of the Order simply by the form in which their new contract of employment is drawn?
I think that I ought to say something to the House about the history of this matter. From October, 1965, manual workers at Thorn's got two sets of increases which they had the benefit of drawing immediately and which they are still drawing today, which is still being paid and is subject to no control. Administrative grades did not reach agreement quite so quickly, but it was agreed, long before 20th July—and, as I have said, before the new intention of the Government to introduce extreme measures and the actual measures were announced.
It was agreed on 12th July between Thorn Electrical Industries and A.S.S.E.T., representing, I think, the supervisory staff, that there should be a rise from 4th April in the wages of such persons from £20 to £21, an extra £1 a week, and I understand that there was no term at all in that agreement postponing the date of payment of either the extra sum due or the sums due retrospectively. Therefore, as I understand the position, they did become payable from the making of the agreement: £1

1085
a week from 4th April to 12th April; and from 12th July to the next pay day, an increase of £1 became due.
As we know there was in mid-August a test case in the county court by one supervisor to recover £1 a week for 21 weeks, and in September there was judgment for him for £21, which he has been paid. I understand that now the Order has been made Thorn Electrical Industries have paid to all their 119 other supervisors £1 a week for the period from 4th April to 2nd November. So they have had their increase for all that period. Now the impact of this Order will be to put back the level of wages to what it was on 20th July of this year.
Can the Minister confirm whether or not it is the position that a further action is now pending in the county court claiming that the material level for the purposes of the Act and the Order at 20th July is the amount lawfully due on that date, and not the amount actually paid? Is it right that that action is due for hearing on 18th January next? Will not the Secretary of State look rather foolish if the contention of the union, of A.S.S.E.T., in those proceedings turns out to be right? Because was not the Secretary of State notified, before making this Order, of this very point that the union intended to take?
Therefore, in making this Order, is he not supporting the view that if an employer, on 20th July, was neglecting to pay the full wages due to his employees, or was withholding an increase in breach of contract, that neglect or default by the employer extends the powers of the Secretary of State to reduce the wages still further than he otherwise could have done, to a lower level than if the employer had not been in breach of his contract or failed in fulfilling his duties? Is it not disgraceful of the Government to rely on neglect and breach of contract by an employer to extend their powers to depress wages?
This is what they are doing by making this Order on the basis that that is exactly what they can do. If they cannot do that, there is no point in making the Order. The whole basis of this Order must be that all that the employee can now get is the level of £20, which is less than he was entitled to under the contract as existed at that time. Is it
1086
not an extraordinary attitude for the Government to adopt, that they should make an Order which depends for its validity upon a breach of contract and failure to pay full wages by an employer to the people in his employment?
There is another question that I would like to ask about the Order. Would the Minister explain the effect of this Order upon the contract of employment and the legal right to recover remuneration by each supervisor who is affected by it? This point was raised in the debate of 25th October by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) and was never answered. There seem to be two perfectly possible views of the impact of this Order on individual contracts of employment. First, the payment of the agreed wage of £21 becomes illegal and is, therefore, unenforceable in law, because the Order operates to prevent the payment of the agreed figure of £21. It becomes an illegal payment. Neither the Order nor the Act nor any contract gives any right of any other remuneration for each supervisor.
Therefore, each supervisor affected by this Order is unable to sue in a court of law for an agreed amount of his wage, namely £21, and nobody has provided—neither do the Act on the Order provide—for him to recover any other sum of money as his wages. Perhaps he will get it. Nevertheless, there may be occasions of dispute, and there may be occasions when he might want to have a legal right of action to recover his wages. That is a rather serious thing for the Government to have removed—the right of a man to recover an agreed sum of wages. He would be left with no other right than to sue upon what is known as a quantum meruit, which is to recover wages for the work that he has done as the court may think reasonable. The court might think that £20 is quite unreasonable for the work which some employees had done. It is a serious matter to leave employees with no other claim than to sue upon a quantum meruit.
The alternative view—and I think this is the correct one—is that the Order post-pones the payment of the increase only during the period when the Order is in force but will not prevent each supervisor from suing for the £1 increase after the Order has ceased to operate. In other

1087
words, if this Order ceases on the expiration of the Measure, say on 12th August next, each supervisor will be entitled to get his £21 a week—the agreed extra figure—as from that day forward and he can also claim £40 in respect of the £1 a week which he has been kept from getting between 2nd November, 1966 and 12th August, 1967.
Mr. Julius Silverman: That is provided that the employer has not served a notice under Section 30. If he has, it would seem that he can escape liability, but if he refuses to serve a notice under Section 30 I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in saying that the effect of that Section will be null and void.
Sir J. Hobson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That may arise on another Order, but Section 30 does not apply to that contract because that section deals only with a contract of employment made
"before the date of the coming into force of this Part of this Act"—
that is, before 6th October, and therefore that contract qualifies—
"under which any person who has worked for the employer since before that date is to receive remuneration for the same kind of work for any period after that date which is at a higher rate …"
I should have thought that that was limited to contracts which began to operate before, but provided for increases after 6th October. I always read that as applying to contracts made before 6th October to operate after 6th October. There may be other cases where that argument of the right hon. Gentleman would be valid, but the Thorn Electrical Industries contract was made on 12th July to operate on 12th July.
I do not know whether Thorn's want to deprive people of that increase, but if I am right in thinking that Section 30 does not apply to the Thorn case, the supervisors will get their £21 a week on 12th August next year and will have a pent-up accumulated claim for the increase of which they have been deprived, namely £40, and Thorn's will have to put that aside. There will be a quite substantial accumulation in this case, and every time the Minister makes an Order of that sort in the future he will not be taking out
1088
purchasing power, but only pinning back purchasing power to the time the Order expires.
Suddenly, the pent-up accumulated increases which employees might otherwise have had will all be released together in a flood upon the economy, at a time when it may very well not be convenient for the Government to release that additional purchasing power. If, as we hope, they do not make many of these Orders, the problem will not arise. However, if they have increasingly to make them, pinning back people's increases, and if my view of the law is correct, they will be merely postponing an excessive release of purchasing power into the economy.
I do not think that my view or the Minister's view will matter, but it will be interesting for the Government to tell us which interpretation they think is right. The courts will decide, and I do not suppose that any employer would be very safe not to put money aside for increases which are affected by the Order unless he is absolutely certain that there is no possibility of a claim on this basis. Whichever way one looks at it this either deprives employees of their right to sue for remuneration other than on a quantum meruit basis, or payment of the increases is simply postponed to the expiration of the Order. It may be less convenient to release the accumulation then than to let it out weekly over the intervening period. Either of those views produces a thoroughly unsatisfactory result.
We therefore think that the Order is based on the unsound principle that the Government can control in detail individual wage negotiations between employers, whether big or small, and employees, and that everybody should be subject to the risk of being discovered in an unsatisfactory increase in wages and that the Minister may make an individual Order in respect of them, whereas large numbers of other people may take an increase and the Government may never hear about it. There is no control, and what they do is lawful. Either, if there is control, it should be done generally or we should allow the pressure of the economy, as no doubt it is doing and will do, to keep down the general demand in the economy.
This is a thoroughly bad Order in examining the use of this power, because

1089
it proceeds on the entirely false premise that the Minister can rely on the breach of contract or neglect of the employer to pay an amount of wages at a particular date. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory that an Order should be made on the basis that, although the men were entitled as of 20th July to one figure, just because, by accident, it had not been put into operation and had not begun to be payable, the Minister will use his powers to press them back to the figure which they should have had on 20th July.
I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to do all that they can to ensure that this Prayer is passed by the House.
10.26 p.m.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: After listening to the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir John Hobson), I am beginning to understand why lawyers are so suspect in this Chamber. Surely the words in Section 29(4), to which he has drawn attention, are clear. If he is arguing for his latter assumption, namely, that the increase is deferred by the Order until the Order expires, and that on the expiry all the accumulated credit would have to be paid by the employer, surely the word "for" in the second line of the subsection, should "during".
The implication of the word "for" must be that the increase is not payable in respect of work done during the period while the Order is in force. I should have thought that the words of the subsection were perfectly plain. We must wait to see whether the county court judges take my view. I should have thought that this was a case in which common sense would prevail.
Sir J. Hobson: County court judges will decide the right level at which the wages should be fixed. When the Order expires there will be the different and separate question which I have raised as to what is the effect of creating illegality in the performance of the contract. The county court judge will not decide that question.
Mr. Lyon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in saying that the county court judge will not have to decide that question in the pending case to which he referred, but if the decision is to be made it must be made by some tribunal, and presumably it would be made by a county court.
1090
I turn to the wider question. The Order indicates in an enlightening way the kind of control which is being exercised by the Government under Part IV of the Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said that the Orders which have been made under Part IV affect only a very small minority of the working community. They are only the sensitive portions of the community in the sense that these are the areas in which people have decided to be completely irresponsible, although 99 pr cent. of the community have decided that in the national interest they should be responsible and accept the lead given by the Government.
In other words, this is not the kind of statutory compulsion in respect of wages, or, indeed, of prices, which would justify any suggestion that these are draconion measures by the Government. This is an overall control, it is true, but it is an overall control which is limited to dealing only with the mavericks in industry.
I come back, in relation to this Order, to a point which I made in the economic debate last week, that it is this kind of Order which gives the outer limits for negotiations in respect of wages, and similar Orders in respect of prices, for industry during this period of freeze. The same kind of Order will be applied during the period of standstill, and all that is being done is to set the limits. If the limits have been set, after the period of standstill there could be a situation in which there could be free negotiation within those limits.
I therefore welcome this Order, because it is to me the kind of control which is required in all our future negotiations about wages, and, indeed, about prices. I would only suggest that in so far as this kind of control has been successful during the period of the wage freeze it could be equally successful in the period after the period of standstill, of severe restraint, has expired. It might be that the Government should look again at the whole question of whether there ought not to be a continuance of permanent statutory control.
Mr. John Biffen: I rise only to inquire whether the hon. Gentleman made a slip of the tongue. He said, "after the freeze period" and then "during the period of standstill". Was

1091
he thinking, in saying "after the freeze", of the period of severe restraint?
Mr. Lyon: Yes. The point to which I was directing my attention was after the expiry of Part IV of the Act, which would be after the period of severe restraint. It was a slip of the tongue.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out, this restraint which has been used under the powers conferred on the Government by Part IV has had to be used only in relation to a very limited area of the working population. Nevertheless, the figures show that it has been eminently successful. I suggest that in so far as it has been successful now in a period of freeze, it could be equally successful after the expiry of the Act.
Mr. Julius Silverman: Does my hon. Friend suggest, that apart from the cases affected by the Order, there have been no increases in wages or salaries?
Mr. Lyon: The facts speak for themselves. If one takes the figures which have been given for the increases in wage rates—I grant that the figures for earnings may be different when one has the full facts—and in so far as one has any figures to compare, the increase has been very limited indeed during the period of wage freeze.
I accept that during the period of severe restraint the problems will be very much more acute, and that if one were to continue thereafter with some kind of statutory control the problems would become even greater as the years went on. But I think that the country is prepared to accept that some kind of permanent overall statutory control which does not impinge on detailed wage negotiations, or, indeed, price negotiations—something that provides an umbrella beyond which the negotiations cannot go—is required in this area.
I therefore welcome the Order, and only hope that the Government will think again about the continuance of this power.
10.35 p.m.
Mr. John Biffen: It is encouraging to know that we are to have the modulated, careful Fabian, barrister, middle-class thinking of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) when-
1092
ever we discuss workers' wages, and that we shall have a continuing elaboration of the thesis which he adumbrated in the recent economic debate—that we need pervasive and continuing control. All that will be noted.
The hon. Gentleman's argument is that this was an act of enlightenment, to which I respond, "If this be enlightenment, send for more candles." His claim that the figures show that it has been eminently successful must be a triumph of hope over evidence. Certainly it discounts, purposely, I suspect, the effects of the squeeze.
Is the hon. Gentleman telling all those who now complain about the economic conditions which flow from the squeeze, that the stand-still in earnings, the inability to get more overtime and the inability to secure higher rates are not due to the squeeze, it is a highly successful wage planning machinery—the first real tangible evidence of which is in the Statutory Instrument which we are discussing?
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: If what the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) says is true, there would be no need for a squeeze at all. Why do we have the squeeze?
Mr. Biffen: I would follow that point, but for the fact that I might run into difficulties of order.
None the less, I would make this one further observation on the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He talked about wages and prices. That is more than a Freudian slip. It omits the question of salaries. It is precisely the insubstantial quality of information available to the Ministries when making their Statutory Instruments—that lack of knowledge affecting salaries—which makes it so important that, every time the incomes of employees are discussed, we discuss them in terms of wages and salaries and demand parity of treatment and parity of information.
My objection to the Statutory Instrument arises largely from the description contained in the Schedule, where it says that it is to affect remuneration for work
"… by or on behalf of Thorn Electrical Industries Limited, the Association of Supervisory Staffs, Executives and Technicians…"

1093
The cardinal feature of the Order is that it affects the earnings of those employees who are organised into a trade union. That is what distinguishes it particularly, because no one doubts that there must be many other incomes increases taking place which are not the result of any union presence, about which the Government know nothing or are pleased to know nothing.
Indeed, the Government have indicated in their latest White Paper on severe restraint that there are fairly wide areas where they are rather anxious to know nothing. Paragraph 38 of the White Paper says that where increases affect employees numbering less than 200, there is no moral requirement upon the employer to notify the Government; though I agree that it goes on to say "unless" and so forth.
Therefore, under that very term, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) mentioned, the 120 employees would not be covered by the moral requirements of paragraph 38 of the latest White Paper of the Government's economic policy. The fact is that this is a piece of selective wage restraint, or selective income restraint, which is designed particularly against the activities of the Association of Supervisory Staffs, Executives and Technicians because of the well-known and widely-publicised fact that the general secretary of that union is determined that the Government's incomes policy shall rest on law and not on blandishments.
This is the reason why the Thorn workers have been selected. It cannot be because of their importance or their significance to the community. It cannot be because they established, as it were, some parameters, in the words of the hon. Member for York, in which the rest of the employers may take note. It is because it would have been extremely difficult for the Government to have turned aside from a direct challenge which was presented to them by Mr. Clive Jenkins.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It is true that this was a test case of the responsibility of a large section of the community. No one can believe that, even with all the statutory power that is available, if the overwhelming mass of workers had rejected the wage freeze, and had decided
1094
as Mr. Clive Jenkins apparently decided, to oppose the Government, they would not have been successful in wrecking the wage freeze. Whatever the hon. Gentleman says about the figures, the only figures which we have show that so far, at any rate, it has been eminently successful.
Mr. Biffen: There is no question whatsoever but that under the existing conditions of credit squeeze any substantial or even significant rise in rates would be wholly unexpected. The evidence is there to be quoted, in the previous experience after the 1958 measures, and after the 1961 measures. It is broadly similar to the pattern that we see today.
When the hon. Gentleman talks about responsibility, the challenge of responsibility was of one man who said, "We shall accept the rule of law, and not the rule of White Paper". If this is something which the hon. Gentleman, in his good-natured barrister fashion, dismisses as an irresponsible action on the part of Mr. Clive Jenkins, then he can keep, cherish, and exhort that view of trade union activities, and that view of the rule of law, as characteristic of the thinking of the new Labour élite, and I am glad that it will be kept on that side of the House.
It seems to me that one lesson which one learns from this is that if an employer is confronted with employees who wish to have rises in earnings or rates, either at this time or in the future, and the alternative to not paying those rates is that he will lose the services of those employees, not perhaps just to another British employer, but to a North American employer—and this is a real issue when discussing the services of many of the members of A.S.S.E.T.—the thing to do is to keep as quiet as possible about it.
After all, silence might even be encouraged by the Government. I remember that when we discussed the Prices and Incomes Bill, which has given rise to this Order, there was much talk about the productivity agreement of British Oxygen. Suddenly, silence has descended on that difficulty for the prices and incomes policy. I suspect that this is because, under a cloak of good natured and general looking on the other side of the street, the productivity agreement is going ahead. I hope so. This is

1095
what I have assumed. I have not sought to make any noises about it which might cause embarrassment to either British Oxygen or the Government.
On the basis of this Order, I am certain that the lesson which we shall learn from it, which the House will learn from it, which employers will learn from it, and which the workers will learn from it, is that the less the Government know about the movement of earnings the better, unless we are to have a continuation of this kind of arbitrary and curiously selective legislation.
This is the first opportunity we have had to discuss in the House the effect upon incomes of the Prices and Incomes Act, and I am happy to have the opportunity of registering my vote in opposition to it.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): I rise to support the Government on taking the action proposed in respect of Thorn Electrical Industries Ltd. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—then the First Secretary—speaking in the proceedings in Committee on the Prices and Incomes Bill, at 8 o'clock in the morning on 4th August, said, in moving new Clause 5:
"This is a substantial power, but these powers, as I have said all the way through, will be used only if the period of standstill has broken down on a voluntary basis. It would be a complete nonsense to say that the standstill should be observed but then to have no power if, in fact, there are substantial breaches. We think it proper to take this power, but only if the voluntary system has broken down and only if we invoke Part IV of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee B, 4th August, 1966, cc. 711–2.]
I submit that the great majority of our workers—organised or otherwise—have accepted the need for the wage freeze. They have respected the decisions taken by the Government.
The reserve powers having been debated at length in the Committee and on the Floor of the House it would be quite wrong for the Government to allow any selfish minority to undermine the efforts of the great mass of workers who have willingly accepted the need to put the national well-being before personal profit. The fact that these reserve powers have been used on only two occasions underlines my point about the
1096
loyalty of our workers to the Government in the national interest. The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) said that in this case 120 people might seek back payment for 10 months, and then we should have this flood of people, with disastrous effects on our economy, in August, when all 120 of them, with their 10 months' back pay, would create a balance of payments crisis. That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to suggest.
At Thorn Electrical Industries we have an organisation which, through its general secretary, has declared war on this legislation from the word "off". In fact, long before the legislation ever reached the stage of being debated in Committee the individual concerned had declared war on the legislation and on the Government. It may be that the leaders of this organisation are concerned purely and simply with their own membership, or, I suggest, not with their own membership but only with a very small percentage of it.
Mr. Biffen: Will the hon. Member none the less confirm that at no point in his opposition to the Government has Mr. Clive Jenkins or his union broken the law? He has talked about Mr. Jenkins' making war on the legislation, but will he confirm that the law has not been broken?
Mr. Brown: I am not suggesting now, nor have I ever suggested, that Clive Jenkins, or A.S.S.E.T. as an organisation, has broken the law. But they have most certainly challenged the law. From the "off" they have said that they will not accept this legislation. This was long before they knew what form it would take. Clive Jenkins made that perfectly clear.
I submit that it would be almost immoral for the Government to pull the carpet from under the feet of the many very responsible trade union leaders who have accepted this legislation on behalf of their members—the very many responsible trade unionists and trade union leaders who see, in giving support to the measures taken in the national interest, a clear policy of supporting their own membership in total.
This, in itself, is a most important reason for supporting the Government on this issue at this time, for let no hon.

1097
Member forget that the goodwill of organised labour is a most important need for any Government, of whatever political colour they may be.
10.51 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: When Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act was introduced, it was clear that the Government had in mind a game of bluff with the trade unionists, and I suppose that when they introduced it there was a reasonable prospect of their getting away with that bluff. In fact, the bluff was called. When it was called, the Government got into a panic. As a result, we now have legislation that is absolutely discriminatory.
I took the view of the Prices and Incomes Bill from the very beginning that as long as the Government kept to a voluntary policy, with a certain amount of power given to the members of the Prices and Incomes Board to secure from unions and employers advance notice of possible wage claims, it will be all right, but that once they got into the sphere of compulsion they would get into trouble. The Government are in trouble and difficulty because of the foghorn voice of Mr. Clive Jenkins, who said from the start that he would have nothing to do with this policy.
If the Government had not brought in Part IV, it is more than likely that instead of the Minister and themselves being in trouble Mr. Clive Jenkins would have been in trouble. He has been able to carry his members very easily with him against Part IV—compulsion—and this kind of Order but he would have been in a rather difficult position if he had had to say to his members, "Everyone else is supporting the Government voluntarily, but I want you to go against the Government. I want you, in complete isolation in the country, to refuse to support the voluntary effort that is being made by everyone else on the wages and salaries front."
The matter was not allowed to take its normal course. The Government brought in the Order before allowing Mr. Clive Jenkins to get into conflict with his members, as he might well have done——
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that if Mr. Clive Jenkins had given a responsible lead with
1098
other trade union leaders it would have been necessary to have had this Order?
Mr. Lewis: It is within the bounds of possibility that Mr. Clive Jenkins would not have received support from his members in going against the Government's voluntary appeal.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) has just said that this was a test case for the Government, but the basis of any test case is that once the case is proved it is used to influence things right across the board and down the line. That is what the Government are not doing. For them it is a test case, but they are then saying to every employer with fewer than 200 employees, "You do not need to do this. You can increase wages and salaries—we do not want to look at you." It is a case of blinking the eye, so that a very large section of the employed population can get increases without the Prices and Incomes Board knowing anything about it.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If what the hon. Member says is true, it would be reflected in the statistics, but it is not; and if it is not reflected in the statistics, the hon. Member has no evidence for saying what he has just said.
Mr. Lewis: In the first place, we have not had time yet to get statistics. We do not know. Secondly, across this front total statistics are not available—on salaries, for instance, as my hon. Friend has pointed out on numerous occasions. A case was brought to my notice in my constituency the other week, when I was asked whether it was possible to increase a groundsman's salary——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. I cannot see what this has to do with the Order.
Mr. Lewis: I am dealing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with an increase. It may not be in connection with the Order, but it is parallel to it.
Mr. Bob Brown: The hon. Member must surely accept that when we have a quarter of a million local government officers and 72,000 British Rail staff in the same position as these 120 supervisors, it would be morally wrong to allow these 120 to get away with it when these others are observing the conditions.
Mr. Lewis: I do not suggest that it is right that they should be allowed to get away with it.
The Thorn Company took a view on this. It had a contract. It decided to put the onus entirely on the Government. It was forced into this position by Mr. Clive Jenkins. The Thorn Company was entirely right. I believe that the Government could have got a situation of wage and salary control and a limit of increases under the voluntary system without bringing in Part IV and that by bringing in Part IV they destroyed much of the voluntary effort for which they had asked and which previously they were getting.
The worst feature about the Order is the possibilities that it creates for the future. It is extraordinary what enthusiasm there is now by hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for York and others, including, indeed, the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Board, for keeping this control permanently.
A number of us on this side made it clear that we believed that a prices and incomes policy was desirable on a voluntary basis and that the Board should have certain responsibilities and be encouraged to influence. We draw the line on the downward slope towards permanent compulsion. The trade unions as a whole will, I believe, very soon come to the view that their support of the Labour Party will be less enthusiastic in the future if this is the road on which hon. Members opposite are going.
If the Labour Party and the Government decide, following the next 12 months, to have some form of compulsion permanently in this way, one should ask the Minister this question. There will then be many Orders of this kind which come before the House. Is it to be compulsion that is restricted——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is travelling far beyond the scope of the Prayer. He must confine himself to the merits or demerits of the Order.
Mr. Lewis: I will return to the Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Will we in future be in the position of having to argue many Orders of this
1100
kind late at night? I ask the Government to be very careful where they are going. It is one thing to bring in Part IV of the Bill in an emergency situation. It is another thing to have a voluntary incomes policy, and it is quite another thing, which would be completely unacceptable to us, to have compulsion permanently imposed in this field.
11.0 p.m.
Mr. Julius Silverman: I should declare my interest, as I am a member of Mr. Clive Jenkins' union, though I do not see eye to eye with Mr. Jenkins on his policy on wages, or, for that matter, on the standstill.
When Part IV of the Act was adopted by the House, I expressed my reservations upon this Order, which I cannot support tonight. One of the reasons is this. It is said by my hon. Friends that if this sort of increase were allowed it would wreck the whole of the standstill. But this is very far from being the truth, because we are dealing tonight not with all wages or all prices, but with a small section of wages where a legally enforceable agreement was entered into before 20th July and where people are able to claim what is theirs in law. We are not discussing the whole question of the standstill.
It would have been quite possible for the Government to have drawn the line on the standstill so that it applied only to agreements entered into after 20th July. In my view they have drawn the line at the wrong date by interfering with legally enforceable agreements.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does my hon. Friend realise, when he talks about a small section of people, that this affects 6 million workers who had agreements already signed and with the amount determined before 20th July? If this section had been allowed to slip through, so would 6 million other workers.
Mr. Silverman: I do not accept that there are 6 million. I know that there have been a large number of agreements, but I am talking of contractual, legally binding obligations, effective before 20th July. There are certainly not 6 million people who could have taken their case to court. This is a very small section indeed.
How can it make sense. Supposing that Thorn Electrics had paid this

1101
increase one or two days after their agreement. They would not then have come under Part IV. How can an Order such as this be justified when it is based on the accidental fact that this firm did not pay the increase until 20th July? If another firm had entered into a similar agreement and paid up the first week's wages before 20th July it would have escaped this Order. It does not make sense. It is illogical and irrational, and I do not see how it is justifiable.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) said that in his view it was very likely that these men could claim their wage increase when the Order expires in twelve months time. I would ask my hon. Friend this—and I put a point to the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington which I do not think he entirely followed. Suppose that a notice is given under Section 28. Then one gets Section 30, which provides a mechanism by which the employer can defeat his liability. There is no similar mechanism in the case of an Order under Section 29 which would seem to indicate that this Order really will not amount to anything anyhow because the employer could not give notice under Section 30 to dispose of his liability. If the employer cannot dispose of his liability, his liability must be met when the Order expires, so what is the point of this Order anyway?
I hope that the Government will not persist in Orders of this character. I do not think that they do any credit to the wage freeze or to the standstill when they are interfering with legal obligations which have been entered into, but which, by sheer accident, have not yet been executed. I believe that the White Paper dealing with the period of severe restraint provides that contracts such as these—where a contract was completed before 20th July—should be released during the period of severe restraint. How does that apply to these members of A.S.S.E.T. and the clerical workers under this Order?
How can my hon. Friend justify, under this Order, the discrimination between trade unionists and non-trade unionists? That is one of the least justifiable features of the Order. Is this an action taken against one union with whom the Government ate in conflict and who have had the impertinence to question the Govern-
1102
ment's legislation in a court of law? If that is so, this is not very commendable behaviour. I should like the Minister's answers to all those questions.
11.2 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): Tonight, we are not discussing the broad question of the prices and incomes policy or the Prices and Incomes Act which received Royal Assent in August, or for that matter Part IV, which we discussed on 25th October. We are discussing the narrow point whether the Government were right to make a Section 29 Order in the case of Thorn Electrical Industries Ltd. at the beginning of November.
I greatly respect the legal expertise of the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), and in so far as I am unable to give him a wholly satisfactory reply to any of his questions, I hope that he will not assume that I have not taken note of them, and that they will not receive the closest consideration. If it is his wish, I shall be happy in correspondence to deal with any points which I do not cover satisfactorily tonight.
Having said that, there were times when listening to him I felt that his ingenious legal arguments were somewhat remote from the realities of making a prices and incomes policy work. I was glad to hear the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown), who brought a sense of proportion to a discussion which sometimes had been removed from the need, having decided upon a policy, to see that it is satisfactorily carried out.
One of the points of substance argued at the beginning, and returned to, among others, by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), was the suggestion that there had been a conspiracy of silence between employers and employees about breaches of the standstill. I have a rather higher opinion of the parties involved than has the right hon. and learned Gentleman or others who have suggested that breaches have occurred. There is every reason for believing that the great majority of those who were covered by the White Paper, and in particular those who already had commitments, have respected the standstill, and certainly we have no evidence to suggest the contrary.

1103
It is true that we are considering, as we must, any other breaches that have been brought to our attention, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) that we do not want to have to use Part IV and Section 29 if we can avoid doing so. The remedy lies not in our hands but in the hands of those who, if they wish to do so, as the majority do, will respect the standstill rather than provoke us into what we believe to be necessary action in defence, not simply of those others who have respected the standstill, but of all those who will benefit from the success of the prices and incomes policy. Public opinion shows that the overwhelming majority of people endorse the measures which we took last July in regard to the standstill and the period of severe restraint.
I will repeat, for the benefit of hon. Members who may not know the exact sequence of events, how this matter first arose. The account of the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington was substantially accurate, but perhaps I should fill it out a little. On 12th April last A.S.S.E.T., the Association of Supervisory Staffs, Executives and Technicians and the other union, the National Association of Clerical and Supervisory Staffs, N.A.C.S.S., opened negotiations with Thorn Electrical Industries Limited for an agreement for an increase in pay for certain of their members—I will return to this later—about 120 in all, employed in a supervisory capacity by Thorns.
The position at the time was that the supervisors concerned were on a basic rate of £20 a week and the claim, for a 5 per cent. increase, represented an additional £1. With overtime, most of them would have had total weekly earnings, before deductions, of between £23 and £24. These negotiations were concluded on 12th July, and the position then was that Thorns had agreed to pay certain members of A.S.S.E.T. and N.A.C.S.S. an increase of 5 per cent. as from 4th April of this year, and a further increase of 5 per cent. as from 3rd April, 1967.
That was the position at 12th July and, for that reason, the position at 20th July, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the pay standstill.
1104
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston, suggested that it was illogical because only some people were caught. He implied that there was an anomaly in the standstill, as it was applied after 20th July, in that they were caught only because the money had not been passed over whereas if it had been paid they would not have been. I am not saying tonight that there were not some anomalies or even some injustices in the introduction of the standstill. Let us be frank and admit that it was inevitable that there would be some. But we could not have made the standstill work unless we had determined a date and had been quite rigid about it. Having formulated the rules, we had to apply them honestly and fairly to all the groups affected by them.
The next stage in the sequence of events was on 18th August, when the solicitors for A.S.S.E.T. gave notice to the solicitors for Thorns that one of its members proposed to bring an action to secure payment of the 5 per cent. increase which had been agreed on 12th July. On 26th August, the solicitor for Mr. L. A. Allen, the member in question, served a county court summons on Thorns for payment of the increase as from 4th April. Then, when the case came up in the Edmonton County Court on 29th September, Judge Granville Smith found for Mr. Allen. The firm consulted with its solicitors and, after consideration, decided not to appeal.
The formal notice of the proposal to make the Order under Section 29 was given to the parties on 14th October. I think, in view of previous discussions in the House about consultation, including the one last Monday, it would be right if very quickly I referred to the consultation which took place. On 12th October the C.B.I. consulted the D.E.A. about the proposal to make an Order against Thorn's employees. They accepted, after discussion, that it was important to make clear that the workers concerned should be no better off at the end of the day as a result of the court action than other workers who were observing the standstill.
The T.U.C. was also consulted in the same week, and the T.U.C.'s attitude was similar to that of the C.B.I., and I think that this bears on what was said by my

1105
hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West. They did not want a particular group to get away with it at a time when the great majority of people were in fact respecting the standstill, although they had outstanding commitments at 20th July. At the beginning of the previous week the First Secretary consulted both the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. about the need to bring in Part IV of the Act in the light of Edmonton County Court's decision. The Order in Council was made on 5th October, to come into effect the following day. That is the course of events up to the beginning of October.
In view of the consultations which we have had with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., at the end of the day, although the decision was, rightly, the Government's, we decided to serve formal notice on 14th October to the parties concerned of our proposal to make an Order, allowing, as the Act requires, an opportunity for representations. We received representations, which were most carefully considered by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, but he took the view that there were no new facts, no new arguments, in the representations which would justify him in failing to make the Order. The Order was made, and came into force on 2nd November.
One of the arguments which we have heard both within the Chamber and outside is that in making this Order, which had the effect of neutralising the effect of the judgment of the county court, the Government were in some way showing disrespect for the processes of the law, but I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself answered this point in dealing with what has happened since the county court decision.
The county court found in favour of Mr. Allen on the facts of the case and in accordance with his contractual rights. At that time, Part IV was not in force, although it had been passed into law. Parliament had given the Government power to override existing contracts by further action if payments threatened to undermine the voluntary standstill.
The Order made against Thorn's did not set aside the county court decision. The sum of £21 which the court awarded to Mr. Allen has in fact been paid. The object of the Order made on 1st November is to ensure that Mr. Allen
1106
and his colleagues as a result of their successful court action are no better off than the great majority of the workers who are voluntarily observing the standstill.
There is a further argument which I think I should touch upon, and that is that remuneration means the rate of pay to which the employee is legally entitled rather than money which he actually received. I do not think, however, that this argument has been pursued much tonight, and I hope that it has now been accepted that remuneration means money actually paid and not simply money due.
Sir J. Hobson: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me. I did not pursue it because it is sub judice; but it does not matter what we say here. Certainly I should not like it to be thought that I accepted that there was not a great deal to be put forward in court.
Mr. Rodgers: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made his view plain, but I think I ought to say quite clearly that, having considered all the facts available to us, in the opinion of the Government remuneration does mean money which has passed and not money which is due. Of course, it is right to add that any difference of legal opinion—and there can be difference of legal opinion on this question—is one which, in the last resort, only the courts can decide.
Mr. Biffen: Could the Under-Secretary tell the House whether it is the belief and the intention of the Government that should A.S.S.E.T. be successful in its appeal on the grounds that he has been talking about, the Act will give the Government further powers which would enable them to set aside the decisions of the court?
Mr. Rodgers: It would be wrong to consider a wholly hypothetical situation. We do not know what A.S.S.E.T.'s next move might be. We all hope that this may be the end of the road on this matter. It would be wrong for me to prejudge what course of events might follow.
A point which was raised, properly, on both sides of the House was the suggestion that the Act discriminates against trade unions. This is not at all the case.

1107
Section 29 can be used to restrict the pay of any workers who have a contract of employment whether or not they belong to a trade union. In the case of Thorns, the company treated all its supervisors in the same way. It deferred the increase agreed with A.S.S.E.T. and the N.A.C.S.S. from all—and I think it would be true to say that it does not necessarily know who amongst its workers are members of the unions concerned and who are not.
The firm then paid the extra money, following the Edmonton decision, to all its employees within this category and not simply to Mr. Allen. It stopped paying the extra money in all cases with effect from 2nd November. Therefore, I think it is clear that Thorns has not discriminated, and this Order does not discriminate, against trade unionists.
Two other points have been raised on which I can touch briefly. One concerned the question of the revival of rights after the expiry of Part IV of the Act. In our view, after 12th August no rights arise again if they have been stopped by the Order. I am advised that the Order takes away the contractual rights. It does not just suspend them.
Mr. Julius Silverman: If that is so, what is the object of Section 30 of the Act? It clearly provides that an employer can get rid of his liability so far as Section 28 is concerned. The same provision would apply to Section 29. If that is so, what is the object of Section 30 at all?
Mr. Rodgers: I think my hon. Friend is wrong in saying that the relationship of Section 30 to Section 29 is the same as the relationship of Section 30 to Section 28. As I say, I am advised that the effect of this Order—that is the point that we are discussing—is such that after 12th August it will not be possible to claim the money that has not been paid during the period in which Part IV of the Act has been applicable.
Sir J. Hobson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has said that the effect and the view was that the workman has his contractual rights taken away. What is put in their place, and what is the situation of the workmen who have had their contractual rights taken away?
Mr. Rodgers: The right hon. and learned Gentleman draws a rather wider conclusion from what is a fairly narrow power. I made clear that in this specific case the effect of Section 29, dealing only with the settlement which was reached on 12th July last, is such that the money cannot be paid after the end of the period. I do not think that in other respects contractual rights are affected in the way which the right hon. and learned Gentleman anticipates. I agree that the point about the consequences after Part IV of the Act expires was important and powerful. It is not for me this evening to enter the interesting arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West and York about the need to continue statutory powers after 11th August. That is not the Government's view, and we very much hope that the period of standstill and severe restraint during which we have Part IV powers will be sufficient to produce an atmosphere from which we can again go forward to a policy which is wholly voluntary.
Whether or not we can do so depends on the attitude of those who want to see the policy work, and whether they are prepared to make the effort and respect the decisions once they are made. I hope that we shall not have to make many Orders. But the plain fact which hon. Members sometimes seem to have forgotten is that despite all the forebodings—I remember how many there were during the long nights when the Bill was in Committee—the voluntary standstill has been respected by the great majority of those workers for whom commitments had been entered into for increases between 20th July and the end of the year.
They have accepted the hardship and inconvenience involved and I pay tribute now, as I and my right hon. Friends have done on other occasions, to what they have done. The earnings of many of them were less than the earnings of the supervisors employed by Thorn's, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West said. If it had been a matter of staking a just claim to their increases they could have done so at least as readily and with as much cause. In a sense it would have been less anomalous in the terms of what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston said for them to have pressed

1109
their claims than it was for the supervisor employed by Thorn's. The fact that they did not do so was an illustration of the widespread understanding of the circumstances which led the Government to declare a standstill.
Listening to the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington, and trying to follow him through the intricacy of his arguments, I felt that the Opposition remained obscure to the end in their attitude. Most of them know that a policy for productivity, prices and incomes is
essential and that in the circumstances of July it was necessary to take the powers we did in Part IV of the Act. On the other hand, they are very reluctant to admit it in public; nor are they prepared to see the Government use the remedies which are essential to ensure that the policy is faithfully carried out. They have not told the House on any previous occasion what alternative course they would recommend and they have not done so tonight.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 91, Noes 150.

Division No. 221.]

AYES

[11.29 p.m.

Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Nott, John

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Biffen, John

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Percival, Ian

Biggs-Davison, John

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Pink, R. Bonner

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Hawkins, Paul

Pounder, Rafton

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Heseltine, Michael

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hill, J. E. B.

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Burden, F. A.

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Russell, Sir Ronald

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Holland, Philip

Sharples, Richard

Channon, H. P. G.

Hunt, John

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Sinclair, Sir George

Cooke, Robert

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Stainton, Keith

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

Costain, A. P.

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Tapsell, Peter

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Thorpe, Jeremy

Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

Longden, Gilbert

Tilney, John

Deedes, Rt Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

Loveys, W. H.

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Doughty, Charles

Lubbock, Eric

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

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

Maude, Angus

Weatherill, Bernard

Farr, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Whitelaw, William

Fisher, Nigel

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Foster, Sir John

Miscampbell, Norman

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Gibson-Watt, David

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Worsley, Marcus

Glover, Sir Douglas

More, Jasper

Glyn, Sir Richard

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Grant, Anthony

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Mr. Peter Blaker and

Grant-Ferris, R.

Murton, Oscar

Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Grieve, Percy

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

NOES

Abse, Leo

Concannon, J. D.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Allen, Scholefield

Conlan, Bernard

Foley, Maurice

Archer, Peter

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Ford, Ben

Armstrong, Ernest

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Fowler, Gerry

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Fraser John (Norwood)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Dalyell, Tam

Freeson, Reginald

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Gardner, Tony

Binns, John

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Garrett, W. E.

Bishop, E. S.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Garrow, Alex

Blackburn, F.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Gordon Walker, Rt, Hn. P. C.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

Gourlay, Harry

Boardman, H.

Dempsey, James

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Hannan, William

Bradley, Tom

Dobson, Ray

Haseldine, Norman

Brooks, Edwin

Doig, Peter

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b's)

Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Eadie, Alex

Hooley, Frank

Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyrre,W)

English, Michael

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Ennals, David

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Buchan, Norman

Ensor, David

Howie, W.

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Faulds Andrew

Hoy, James

Carmichael, Neil

Fernyhough, E.

Hynd, John

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

Coe, Denis

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Janner, Sir Barnett

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Judd, Frank

Moyle, Roland

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Kenyon, Clifford

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Lawson, George

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Leadbitter, Ted

Norwood, Christopher

Slater, Joseph

Lestor, Miss Joan

Oakes, Gordon

Small, William

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Ogden, Eric

Spriggs, Leslie

Loughlin, Charles

O'Malley, Brian

Swingler, Stephen

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Oswald, Thomas

Taverne, Dick

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth S'tn)

Urwin, T. W.

McBride, Neil

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

MacColl, James

Pavitt, Laurence

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Macdonald, A. H.

Pentland, Norman

Wallace, George

Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Wellbeloved, James

Mackintosh, John P.

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Maclennan, Robert

Price, William (Rugby)

Whitaker, Ben

MacPherson, Malcolm

Redhead, Edward

White, Mrs. Eirene

Manuel, Archie

Rees, Meriyn

Whitlock, William

Mapp, Charles

Richard, Ivor

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Marquand, David

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Mason, Roy

Roberta, Goronwy (Gaernarvon)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Mellish, Robert

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Millan, Bruce

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

Woof, Robert

Mitchell R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Moonman, Eric

Roebuck, Roy

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Rose, Paul

Mr. Charles Grey and

Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (CARSHALTON AND BANSTEAD)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bishop.]
11.37 p.m.
Captain Walter Elliot: Although my view may not be shared, I for one have a sense of relief in turning from the world-shaking events of the last couple of hours to the down-to-earth matters that affect the ordinary person. Nevertheless, the subject which I wish to discuss is a serious one.
I have before me three of my last week's local papers which contain headlines typical of the events which spotlight the problem. The headline in the Carshalton Times is:
"Woman's death sparks off demand for crossing."
That in the Wallington and Carshalton Advertiser is:
"New move to get pedestrian crossing."
That in the Banstead Herald is:
"Nine cars crash in same spot in space of three minutes."
That last incident occurred in one of the roads which I intend to discuss tonight.
I want to make two points at the outset. Firstly, this is entirely a non-party matter. If I refer to the Ministry of Transport, it is because I have been collecting information only over the last couple of years or so. However, what I say might just as well apply to earlier Governments. It is a problem which is
1112
building up and it has been for some years.
My second point is that, although, naturally, I am dealing with my own constituency, it is a problem which affects all the fringe areas of Greater London and one which is of vital interest to hundreds of thousands of people.
My constituency is a rather long, thin one, stretching from north to south. The northern half is Carshalton, the old Carshalton Urban District, now part of the Borough of Sutton, and is entirely in Greater London, but it contains quite large areas of green belt. The southern half of Banstead is entirely in the green belt. I think it is well known that during the last decade hundreds of thousands of people have moved out of central London further afield, many of them into the country, but there has been no building, or very little, in the green belt areas, for reasons which we know, so London has very largely leaped over the green belt and established itself further afield.
In addition, we know that an enormous number of new jobs have been generated in central London during the last decade, and this has made for greatly increased commuter traffic. It can be seen that areas like mine and others on the fringe are a sort of transit area for a lot of this commuter traffic. And it moves north, south, east, and west.
There are three aspects of the problem, and each of them must be considered and a proper balance reached. First, there is the traffic. Secondly, there are

1113
the pedestrians, and thirdly there are the amenities of the area. We know that traffic must move, but with due consideration for pedestrians. My contention is that the relationship between the traffic and pedestrians has got out of balance in favour of the traffic in these fringe areas, and this imbalance is getting worse.
Perhaps I might give one example to illustrate that. In the whole of my area, with dense traffic going through at all times of the day, but with its peak hours, there is only one pedestrian crossing. This is opposite St. Helier Hospital in Carshalton. It is there to assist visitors to get across the road into the hospital, and this is by no means my busiest road.
I think that many people going through and not knowing these built-up and green belt areas on the fringe look on them as a somewhat amorphous area without any rallying points. In fact, when one gets to know my area, one realises that there are distinct village centres, which no doubt originated in the old medieval times. The people who live there are intensely concerned with the preservation of such amenities as have survived, and, of course, quite a number have. They are quite right to take this view. They would resist to the death any attempt to bulldoze these amenities out of the way so that motor cars could drive from central London down to Reigate or Dorking, south of my constituency.
I thought that to illustrate the traffic problems I would pick out certain key areas and describe the situation there. They are by no means all the difficult spots, and I expect that I shall get a shoal of letters from my constituents asking why I did not raise the case of their particular trouble spots.
First, there is the Rose Hill roundabout, on the edge of my constituency of Carshalton. It has two great—almost arterial—roads leading into and out of London, with a dual carriageway on one side, and then a side road, and another road leading off into Carshalton, another to Sutton, and another dual carriageway by-passing Sutton. That means that five big roads and a minor road all meet at that roundabout. In the rush hour it is a veritable Piccadilly Circus, but without the advantage of traffic lights.
I want to read one paragraph from a letter written to me by my local council:
1114
"The Borough Engineer has indicated that he has received a request for pedestrian crossing facilities at the junctions of all the roads leading to the Rose Hill roundabout, but he could not support the application as there are sufficient refuges provided to enable pedestrians to cross each road in relative safety."
That word "relative" accurately describes the situation it is an extremely busy roundabout, with practically no facilities for pedestrians. The only way to get over the difficulty is by way of flyovers or underpasses. I shall come to that possibility later.
My second trouble spot is Carshalton High Street. This is a burning issue. This is a very busy shopping centre in Carshalton, and I have had a vast number of demands from individuals and various associations about pedestrian crossing facilities. I want to read another paragraph from the same letter, on this subject:
"The volume of traffic along High Street, Carshalton has been steadily increasing, and a count of traffic taken in 1965 gave an indication that the average traffic flow was 1,200 vehicles per hour between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. with the peak flow of 1,877 vehicles per hour. This average traffic flow was 11 per cent. above a similar count taken in 1964 and 84 per cent. above the 1958 figures. The total pedestrian flow across the High Street measured between the Square and Carshalton Place amounted to 2,368 during the twelve hours or an average of 197 per hour with a peak…of 291 pedestrians."
It is difficult to count pedestrians along a High Street—they cross everywhere—but if a crossing were provided it would concentrate people at that crossing, to a large extent—especially mothers with perambulators out doing their shopping, of which there is a large number.
I have consulted the police in the area about this spot, and they tell me that with the completion of the Croydon fly-over—which I understand is in course of construction and development of the Croydon Airport Housing Estate—they expect traffic in this High Street to increase, and make more a very serious problem.
It does not end there. The High Street continues to an area known as The Ponds, which is very dangerous. There have been many accidents there. It is rather narrow and winding, and carries a great deal of traffic. But The Ponds happens to be one of the most treasured amenity spots in Carshalton. It consists of a small area of clear water

1115
fed from springs—very ancient—overlooked by a nice old coaching inn, with fine grounds and trees round about, and there is no doubt that if there was any attempt to widen the road, thereby concreting over part of The Ponds, the people of Carshalton would man the barricades. I have no doubt that I would be with them.
It seems to me that the solution there is possibly a bypass, re-routeing, and certainly a pedestrian crossing in the High Street. I quote:
"As you "—
it refers to me—
"are aware the appropriate Committee of the former Carshalton Urban District Council made repeated applications to the Ministry of Transport for the necessary authorisation to provide a pedestrian crossing in High Street, Carshalton, but they met with no success."
I turn now to Banstead High Street, which is very similar in a way to the Carshalton High Street. I can quote traffic flows, but as I do not want to take up too much time I will content myself by saying that at the peak it rises to 800 per hour, with about 50 pedestrians crossing but, again, this is a rather long street and the pedestrians are spread out. If pedestrian crossings were provided they would concentrate the pedestrians.
There is one special feature about the High Street at Banstead. At the southern end it is crossed at right angles by Bolters Lane, on the southern side of which there is, fortunately for the area, a large open space which has been used for many purposes. It has the public library, schools, a clinic, there will be a youth centre, and an old people's home. All those people using this area have to cross the road to get into Banstead proper.
I say that these are special circumstances because I want to quote what a previous Minister of Transport said in reply to a Parliamentary Question in November, 1964:
"There are several factors to be taken into account in considering the provision of pedestrian crossings. The most important are the numbers of pedestrians and vehicles at the site. These would in differing circumstances be given different weight, which precludes a decision being taken solely on the basis of the number of pedestrians or vehicles involved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 190.]
1116
In the light of that reply, I suggest that the schools, the library, the youth centre, the clinic and the old people's home are special circumstances.
The next special case, also in Banstead, is Fir Tree Road. At Banstead, the British Rail station for London is on one side of Fir Tree Road, and on the other side is a large built-up area called Nork, while a little further away is Banstead itself. Large numbers of people use the Banstead railway station to go to London. At the peak time, there are 1,300 vehicles in Fir Tree Road, and the average is about 800 throughout the day. There is a peak of 155 pedestrians crossing. They go in bunches at a time, and they are often held up by or try to make their way through this very dense traffic at the rush hour. That situation would be helped by a pedestrian crossing.
My next spot is Brighton Road. That is a large main road running more or less north and south and cutting the Banstead area in half. It is dual carriageway for about half of its length but, in itself, it offers quite an obstacle to pedestrians. Many children have to cross it on their way to school. There are islands in the middle, and I admit that this is a difficult problem. I get a lot of requests for pedestrian crossings but I do not think that is a practical proposition, although underpasses at key points might be.
Another point about the Brighton Road is that there is dense traffic either way, coming north to London in the early morning and going south in the evening. It is extremely difficult for residents to get access to it. For example, from Waterhouse Lane, which serves a developed area known as Kingswood, I have had complaints of residents having to wait 20 minutes before being able to get on to the road. It seems to me that the installation of lights, slip roads, and so on, should be considered.
The Brighton Road continues south and subsequently is no longer dual carriageway and becomes a single road. Finally, it enters the village of Lower Kingswood, which it splits in two. In that area there have been a great many accidents. I would like to quote a submission by the local residents' association, 500 strong, to the Minister:
"In this connection, my committee wish me to remind you that this is a very busy main

1117
road, used by three London Transport bus services…it cuts in two the village shopping area, divides its four petrol filling stations, its two places of worship, and separates the primary school in Buckland Road from those children living across this road."
The residents' association submits its case for a speed limit of 30 m.p.h. through the area and pedestrian crossings.
My final point of trouble is in the Chipstead area. This is a built-up area.
The Banstead Council states:
"The Council have made two applications for the imposition of a 30 m.p.h. speed limit on all roads in Chipstead, but these were turned down by the Ministry of Transport."
The Ministry gave the reasons that there were many similar areas in the country and it was obviously not practicable to have a 30 m.p.h. limit in all those areas. That neglects, however, my transit area theory which I have put forward for the area as a whole.
There is one road in Chipstead—the High Road—where a speed limit ought to be imposed. This is what was stated by one local resident, the secretary of the residents' association:
"I find it quite incredible when one stops to think that there are children, some of whom go on foot to Fairdene school, and an old people's home, to say nothing of the frequent accidents at the Markedge Road junction, that no action has been taken to impose a 40 m.p.h. limit on this stretch. At least, this might have the effect of keeping motorists' speed down to 50 m.p.h."
Apart from those special places, it is a fairly well built-up area and well merits the imposition of a speed limit.
I think I have said enough to show that the traffic in this fringe, transit area is a great and growing problem and that we must strike a balance between the traffic, the pedestrians and the amenities. I believe that the balance now weighs too heavily to the advantage of the traffic.
I believe that consideration has to be given to major improvements such as by-passes, fly-overs, underpasses and road improvements, but I realise that they cost money and that the money available is usually earmarked for some time ahead.
A good deal can be done, of course, through traffic management, although in these sort of areas not a great deal. But what I think should be considered much more favourably now than in the past is the provision of pedestrian crossings. Requests by a local council for these
1118
crossings should be considered much more sympathetically. Secondly, much more sympathetic consideration ought to be given to requests by a local council for speed limits on certain stretches of roads. I realise the difficulties of enforcement, but today more regard is paid to speed limits than in the past, because they are now more selective—some are 30 m.p.h., some 40 and some 50.
So I believe that help is within reach—the pedestrian crossings and the imposition of speed limits at the behest of the local council. If these are regarded more sympathetically, it will be a start towards redressing the balance which is now too heavily in favour of the traffic, and I trust the Minister will accept this.
12.3 a.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) has left me five minutes out of the 30 minutes of the Adjournment debate to reply—I understand that this debate must end at 12.7 a.m. Therefore as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has confronted me with a long catalogue of complaints, I shall be able to deal only with a very small number of them tonight. But I shall certainly deal with the others in correspondence with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
As a reader of the Wallington and Carshalton Times, I had advance information of some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that I shall not be able to deal with all of them.
Let me deal first with the situation at Carshalton. The Urban District of Carshalton was incorporated on 1st April, 1965, in the London Borough of Sutton. There are no trunk roads actually in Carshalton, and therefore, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, the Greater London Council is the highway authority for the three metropolitan roads, the A232 and small sections of the A217 and A297, which are in Carshalton. For all the other roads in Carshalton, the Borough of Sutton is the highway authority and the traffic authority in all cases is the Greater London Council. Therefore, in the first place, it is a matter for the G.L.C. to consider what improvements and developments should be made,

1119
and I am certain they also take into account the important amenities to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred particularly to the problems of pedestrians. Under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, it is for the local authority, in the first place, to propose sites for pedestrian crossings on roads other than trunk roads, but all these proposals have to be approved by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
In all these cases—and we are very concerned about this—we insist that there must be a certain volume of vehicle traffic and a certain level of demand by pedestrians themselves in order to gain the respect of motorists for pedestrian crossings, on the basis that they are constantly used.
It is on the application of these criteria that the demands for pedestrian crossings in Carshalton to date have been refused. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that there was heavy traffic throughout the day on one road he mentioned. I should like to see evidence of it. On the information which I have, although the situation is very bad in these places during the rush hour, the traffic throughout the day is not continuously heavy. Nor is the demand of pedestrians for crossings such as to warrant special measures on the grounds that such crossings would be continually used.
The hon. Member said that there was only one pedestrian crossing in Carshalton, on the B278 outside St. Helier
1120
Hospital. There are also traffic signals at the junction of the A.217 and A.232 which are specially phased to assist pedestrians. As a Department we have laid down certain criteria in relation to the weight of traffic and to the demand of pedestrians for crossings, and so far these have not been satisfied in this district. I understand that during the past 18 months the G.L.C. have been discussing the position again with the London Borough of Sutton on the basis of new traffic figures, but I am also informed that the G.L.C. consider it unlikely that a site for a new crossing could be selected on the basis of the present criteria.
Let me offer the hon. Member this crumb of comfort: we have instituted a special experiment with pedestrian crossings in certain towns in the country. We are deliberately multiplying the numbers of crossings in certain towns and are comparing the experience there with that of other towns in order to check the existing criteria which we apply about the weight of traffic in relation to the demand for pedestrian crossings. It may well be that as the result of this experiment we shall be able to grant some of the demands which are made in Carshalton and Banstead.
As for Banstead, in the short time left I can merely say that we recognise that the traffic is heavy in this area, where the Surrey County Council are the highway authority, and a number of improvements to the roads are being programmed.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOSPITALS
  Agency Nurses
  Agency Nurses
  New General Hospital, Dorchester
  New General Hospital, Dorchester
  Staffing
  Staffing
  Hull General Hospital (Opening Date)
  Hull General Hospital (Opening Date)
  Frenchay Hospital, Bristol (Private Treatment)
  Frenchay Hospital, Bristol (Private Treatment)
  Castle Hill Hospital, Cottingham (Medical Officers)
  Castle Hill Hospital, Cottingham (Medical Officers)
  Victoria Hospital, Chelsea (Site)
  Victoria Hospital, Chelsea (Site)
  Control of Infection
  Control of Infection
  Storthes Hall Hospital, Huddersfield (Staff)
  Storthes Hall Hospital, Huddersfield (Staff)
  Tonsils Operations, Bolton (Waiting Time)
  Tonsils Operations, Bolton (Waiting Time)
  Maxillo-Facial Technicians
  Maxillo-Facial Technicians
  Physiotherapists (Registration)
  Physiotherapists (Registration)
  New Hospital, Camberley
  New Hospital, Camberley
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Census 1966
  Census 1966
  National Health Service (Delays)
  National Health Service (Delays)
  Births
  Births
  Cigarette Packets (Health Hazard Warning)
  Cigarette Packets (Health Hazard Warning)
  Lung Cancer (Cigarettes)
  Lung Cancer (Cigarettes)
  Scouring Powders (Children)
  Scouring Powders (Children)
  Homeless Families (Accommodation)
  Homeless Families (Accommodation)
  Medical Certificates
  Medical Certificates
  Scientology (Inquiry)
  Scientology (Inquiry)
  Italian Floods (Aid to Victims)
  Italian Floods (Aid to Victims)
  Invalid Cars
  Invalid Cars
  Rickets
  Rickets
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Homeless Families
  Homeless Families
  Smoking (Departmental Publicity)
  Smoking (Departmental Publicity)
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER (ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS)
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER (ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Redundant Workers
  Redundant Workers
  Government Training Centres
  Government Training Centres
  Employment (Over Forties)
  Employment (Over Forties)
  Asbestos Industry (Mesothelioma)
  Asbestos Industry (Mesothelioma)
  Coloured School-Leavers
  Coloured School-Leavers
  Redeployment
  Redeployment
  Engineering Operatives (Retraining Cost)
  Engineering Operatives (Retraining Cost)
  Unemployment and Vacancies (Birmingham)
  Unemployment and Vacancies (Birmingham)
  Milk (Selective Employment Tax)
  Milk (Selective Employment Tax)
  Part-Time Workers (Selective Employment Tax)
  Part-Time Workers (Selective Employment Tax)
  Retraining (Over Forties)
  Retraining (Over Forties)
  Manufacturing Industries, Shrewsbury
  Manufacturing Industries, Shrewsbury
  Radioactive Materials (Safety Regulations)
  Radioactive Materials (Safety Regulations)
  Unemployment (Easington)
  Unemployment (Easington)
  Engineering Industry (Pay Increases)
  Engineering Industry (Pay Increases)
  Unemployment (Nelson and Colne)
  Unemployment (Nelson and Colne)
  Period of Severe Restraint (Pay Settlements)
  Period of Severe Restraint (Pay Settlements)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Wages Councils (Awards)
  Wages Councils (Awards)
  Wages Councils Agreements (Workers)
  Wages Councils Agreements (Workers)
  Industrial Training Boards (Apprenticeships)
  Industrial Training Boards (Apprenticeships)
  Redeployment, Shrewsbury (Selective Employment Tax)
  Redeployment, Shrewsbury (Selective Employment Tax)
  Unemployment (East Fife)
  Unemployment (East Fife)
  Engineering Industry (Training Facilities)
  Engineering Industry (Training Facilities)
  MR. GERALD BROOKE
  MR. GERALD BROOKE
  UNITED STATES OVERSEAS TERRITORIES
  UNITED STATES OVERSEAS TERRITORIES
  BRITISH HONDURAS (BOUNDARIES)
  BRITISH HONDURAS (BOUNDARIES)
  ADEN (MR. BOWEN'S REPORT)
  ADEN (MR. BOWEN'S REPORT)
  FOREIGN OFFICE (ADMINISTRATION)
  FOREIGN OFFICE (ADMINISTRATION)
  FOREIGN OFFICE (RESEARCH CONTRACTS)
  FOREIGN OFFICE (RESEARCH CONTRACTS)
  INTER-GOVERNMENTAL MARITIME CONSULTATIVE ORGANISATION
  INTER-GOVERNMENTAL MARITIME CONSULTATIVE ORGANISATION
LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
  Forestry Commission (Headquarters Staff)
  Forestry Commission (Headquarters Staff)
  National Parks Commission
  National Parks Commission
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Common Rights (Registration)
  Common Rights (Registration)
  Pennine Way (Report)
  Pennine Way (Report)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Family Circumstances (Review)
  Family Circumstances (Review)
  Occupational Pensions (Disregard)
  Occupational Pensions (Disregard)
  Earnings-Related Benefits (Consultations)
  Earnings-Related Benefits (Consultations)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Additives
  Food Additives
  Marshlands, Cardiganshire (Reclamation)
  Marshlands, Cardiganshire (Reclamation)
  Flooding (Severnside)
  Flooding (Severnside)
  Oceanography (Research Ships and Staff)
  Oceanography (Research Ships and Staff)
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Northumberland)
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Northumberland)
  Brambell Committee's Report (Legislation)
  Brambell Committee's Report (Legislation)
  Chemicals Used in Agriculture (Notifications)
  Chemicals Used in Agriculture (Notifications)
  Agricultural Wages Board (Prosecutions)
  Agricultural Wages Board (Prosecutions)
  Bread and Flour Prices
  Bread and Flour Prices
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Asbestos Waste (Disposal)
  Asbestos Waste (Disposal)
  Parliament Square (Report)
  Parliament Square (Report)
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Derelict Land, Yorkshire (Reclamation)
  Derelict Land, Yorkshire (Reclamation)
  Rates (Fire Fighting Equipment)
  Rates (Fire Fighting Equipment)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Sonic Bangs
  Sonic Bangs
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Anglo-Indian Relations
  Anglo-Indian Relations
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Naval Contracts
  Naval Contracts
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Land for Training Purposes (Sale)
  Land for Training Purposes (Sale)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Agriculture and Forestry Students (Degrees)
  Agriculture and Forestry Students (Degrees)
  School Medical Service
  School Medical Service
  Initial Training Courses (Students)
  Initial Training Courses (Students)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Temporary Import Charge (Removal)
  Temporary Import Charge (Removal)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Investment (Scotland)
  Public Investment (Scotland)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Overseas Expenditure
  Overseas Expenditure
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Imported Toys (Safety Standards)
  Imported Toys (Safety Standards)
  Artificial Fur Fabric (Inflammability)
  Artificial Fur Fabric (Inflammability)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Illegal Entry)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Illegal Entry)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Independent Television (Programmes and Advertising)
  Independent Television (Programmes and Advertising)
POST OFFICE
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosks (Woolwich Area)
  Kiosks (Woolwich Area)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  North Sea Gas (Price)
  North Sea Gas (Price)
  Steel Companies (Earnings)
  Steel Companies (Earnings)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Caribbean Countries
  Caribbean Countries
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
SCOTLAND
  Local Authority Grants (Retirement Pensioners)
  Local Authority Grants (Retirement Pensioners)
  Promulgation List
  Promulgation List
  Law Hospital, Lanarkshire
  Law Hospital, Lanarkshire
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  General Hospitals (Airdrie and Motherwell)
  General Hospitals (Airdrie and Motherwell)
  Law and Stonehouse Hospitals (Orthopaedic Services)
  Law and Stonehouse Hospitals (Orthopaedic Services)
  Meat (Staining and Sterilisation)
  Meat (Staining and Sterilisation)
  Population
  Population
TECHNOLOGY
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Weights and Measures (Metric System)
  Weights and Measures (Metric System)
  Typewriter Manufacturers
  Typewriter Manufacturers
TRANSPORT
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Motor Vehicles (Road Worthiness)
  Motor Vehicles (Road Worthiness)
  Welsh-Speaking Driving Examiners (Location)
  Welsh-Speaking Driving Examiners (Location)
  Motor Vehicles (Testing Methods)
  Motor Vehicles (Testing Methods)
ROADS
  A34 (Diversion)
  A34 (Diversion)
  Abingdon By-pass (Spur Road)
  Abingdon By-pass (Spur Road)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Research Contracts)
  Waste Materials and Redundant Plant (Use)
  Waste Materials and Redundant Plant (Use)
  Newspapers
  Newspapers
  Advance Factories, Bedlington
  Advance Factories, Bedlington
WALES
  National Parks
  National Parks
  New Town Report
  New Town Report

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

AFTER-CARE HOSTEL PLACES
2.35 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the total number of places now available in after-care hostels in receipt of Home Office maintenance grants; and what plans are in hand for additional places.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, 335 places in 29 hostels. Proposals for an increase in the number and type of after-care hostels have been made by the Working Party on the Place of Voluntary Service in After-Care, and these are now being studied by Her Majesty's Government. The House will have an opportunity to discuss this Report on January 25.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that informative Answer, and ask him a further question? How far is the demand for places in excess of the numbers available? Also, to what extent has provision been made for special places, particularly to meet the needs of alcoholics?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the Working Party made an estimate of the number of hostel places likely to be required, but admitted that their estimate was very tentative. We are satisfied that we need a very considerable increase in the number of hostel places available, and, indeed, an increase in the variety of such places, and we are taking special steps to ensure that hostels shall be
892
available for alcoholics. In fact two are already in operation.
LORD PEDDLE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that answer.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, may I nevertheless ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, whether it is not true that the Working Party gave it as their estimate—perhaps the noble Lord has a better one now—that each year there were 5,000 discharged prisoners alone to be catered for by hostels? Would he not agree that, although his Answer shows an encouraging increase in the number of places, it is still a long way short of providing for these needs, and for many other needs—for instance, those of drug addict patients—which have still to be met? Is he satisfied that the present terms of grant are sufficient to induce the churches and other voluntary bodies to do more in this field; and does he not feel that very much more in the way of hostels, particularly probation hostels, will be required in order to implement the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, seems to have confused quite a number of points. It is, of course, the case that the Working Party tentatively suggested that as many as 5,000 after-care places in hostels might be necessary. But that was a tentative estimate: there is no precise estimate, and my Department is now engaged on getting a nearer estimate to the actual need. There is, however, no question that we shall need very considerably more places than we have now. With regard to the question of probation hostels (by which no doubt the noble Lord means adult probation hostels), that is quite a different matter, and we are dealing with it separately as these hostels are almost wholly provided for by the Home Office. I think that covers the points which the noble Lord raised.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I ask one further supplementary question? What are the main problems involved in dealing with this question of the supply of additional places?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the main problems involved are not, in fact, due to money, and I am satisfied that the maintenance grants allowed by the

893
Home Office are sufficient for their purpose, although we may vary their incidence. The main problems are the provision of housing and, even more important, the provision of trained staff. With regard to the first, we are vigorously going into the question of setting up a housing association so that houses may be acquired by purchase, or for rent, for the use of voluntary bodies. With regard to the training of staff which is a crucial matter, NACRO, with whom we are in touch on this matter, is now actively engaged in considering training facilities for the recruitment and training of wardens and assistant wardens, and I hope before very long to be able to announce progress in both these matters.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply.

PRESERVATION OF CHALK DOWNS
2.40 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: 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 now take special steps to preserve the rural nature of the Chalk Downs in Berkshire, Wiltshire, Dorset and Hampshire, in view of the possible large-scale growth of population at Swindon and near Southampton.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, before I answer this Question, may I apologise to the noble Lord and to the House for having inadvertently misled them last week, when I said at Question Time [col. 791, 1/12/1966] that the Minister of Public Building and Works was bound to be consulted on the erection of high buildings within 50 yards of Royal Parks and Palaces. The distance is not 50 yards, but half-a-mile.
In answer to the Question to-day, I would say that the reports of the consultants on both proposals mentioned by the noble Lord draw attention to this problem, which is in the first instance a matter for the county councils in
894
exercise of their powers as local planning authorities to control development. I am glad to be able to tell the House that extensive stretches of these Downs are already shown as areas of great landscape value in the counties' approved development plans, on which decisions on development control are, of course, based. My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government would naturally be very ready to consider any proposals put to him for further protection of this important stretch of countryside and he is himself considering the planning implications.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I first of all thank my noble friend for his supplementary answer from last week, which is reassuring. I must confess that I was a little shattered by the "50 yards" answer. May I also thank him for his Answer to-day? So far as it goes, it will no doubt be well received, but I should like him to remember—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No; ask a question!
LORD CHORLEY: Well, my Lords, will the noble Lord remember, or does he remember, that most of this area was surveyed by the Hobhouse Committee on National Parks, with a view to its being made a National Park? And if it has not been made a National Park, what he said shows that it is an area of outstanding natural beauty. Would not the Minister consider referring to the National Parks Commission the question of whether at any rate a large part of this area should be made an area of outstanding natural beauty? I wonder whether my noble friend could tell me this. There have been rumours that areas of outstanding natural beauty are no longer to be prescribed. Could he reassure us on that ground, because these areas are of great importance?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I remember, and will continue to remember, the Hobhouse Committee's view of these areas. I am not sure whether it would be appropriate for my noble friend to take the initiative with the National Parks Commission about a further area of outstanding natural beauty there. Far from the designation of areas of outstanding beauty being a thing of the past, it is very much in use. The last designation,

895
in the Cotswolds, occurred only in August of this year.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, as the county councils concerned are the planning authorities, can my noble friend tell us briefly the extent of their powers?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, as an area of high landscape value or of outstanding natural beauty, a given tract of country does not enjoy greater protection from unwanted development than if it does not have either status. In certain cases it attracts 75 per cent. grant from the Exchequer for certain operations of beautification. The planning situation, however, is the same as if there were no special position.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, could the noble Lord say how much pressure is brought to bear on local authorities in these areas to accept overspill from London? Is this policy a matter for their decision or are they being brought under very considerable pressure to accept overspill, whether the inhabitants wish it or not?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this is rather a different question, but it is my understanding the overspill arrangements are dealt with directly between the local authorities in the exporting town or conurbation and the importing areas.

BERMUDA AND THE BAHAMAS: AID AND TAXATION
2.46 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 what amount of aid from United Kingdom funds has been given to Bermuda and the Bahamas in the last two years; and what direct taxation in the form of income tax, surtax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, death duties or otherwise has been levied in these two colonies during this period.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, in 1964 and 1965 the total United Kingdom aid to Bermuda
896
amounted to £21,000, and to the Bahamas £36,000. Of this aid, the only direct grant was a contribution of £10,000 to the Bahamas Hurricane Relief Fund; the balance took the form of technical assistance. Apart from a real property tax in the Bahamas, which yielded £75,000 in 1964 and £95,000 in 1965, there is no direct taxation in these territories.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind the fact that there is no direct taxation, if there are applications for further aid from these two territories?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, this fact is continually borne in mind in all questions of aid to all dependent territories.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government any responsibility for direct taxation in Bermuda and the Bahamas, and did not this desire to recover in taxation what we have given in aid lose us the American Colonies in 1776?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Earl's question, I would say that the form of taxation they should have is primarily the responsibility of the territories themselves. As regards the second part, I would rather leave it to those more historically qualified than I to pass judgment.

CHINA AND THE UNITED NATIONS
2.48 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 it is true, as reported in the Press, that the U.K. representative at the U.N. has stated that Britain is supporting the admission of Red China to the U.N., and also the dropping of Nationalist China, both of which proposals are well known to be repugnant to so large a proportion of voters in the U.S.A. by reason of China's aggression in Korea and the heavy casualties resulting there from; and whether they can assure the House that such recommendations now have the full agreement of the Government of the U.S.A.]
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is "Yes", and to his second "No".
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the very decisive answer, and in view of the extent to which the Government see fit to lean on the United States for financial reasons, would it not be wise to be more reserved in our expressions on this matter? Further, is it not the fact that in this case we are going contrary to a principle in order to get a commercial advantage, which is very much in opposition to what the noble Lord greatly stressed recently in your Lordships' House? Would it not be quite wrong to disregard a principle for commercial gain?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the principle to which we adhere in this case is the principle of universality, and we are sticking to that. I cannot quite see where the commercial gain comes in on one side or the other, but I can assure the noble Lord that our relations with the United States are in no way impaired by our taking on a matter of this sort a view which is entirely different from theirs. They understand our position and we understand theirs.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to distinguish between the admission to the United Nations of Red China, which I think most Parties now support, and the dropping of Nationalist China from the United Nations, which does not necessarily follow from that admission? Have the Government any idea of what would be the position of Nationalist China if Red China were admitted?
LORD WALSTON: Her Majesty's Government and preceding Governments have always taken the view that the position of Formosa is still unascertained and remains to be ascertained in the future. The decision to vote in favour of the admission of Mainland China has been taken with that well explained and understood.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord would not draw the inference contained in the Question that the admission of Red China would necessarily mean the expulsion of Nationalist China from the United Nations?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, that is still for discussion. So far as the Government are concerned, no final decision has been arrived at.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, did I misunderstand the noble Lord when I thought he said he did not expect that our support for the admission of Red China to the United Nations would probably result in considerable commercial advantage to this country?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I said I could not see that in this matter there was a balance one way or the other of commercial advantage; the decision was taken purely on the principle of universality.

LAND COMMISSION BILL
2.51 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this morning I had discussions with noble Lords opposite, and I apologise to noble Lords who sit on the Liberal Benches that I was unable to include them in those discussions. It has been decided that it would be for the convenience of the House if we continued our Business to-day beyond the time indicated last week. Therefore, we intend to proceed with the Committee stage of the Land Commission Bill and to adjourn at about 7.30 in order that Members may have dinner. I fear that, in the circumstances, the meals available will have to be restricted to Members only. We have not been able to make provision for guests.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that, having been informed of the purport of the Local Government Bill, Her Majesty has consented to place her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of this Bill.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, relying on the traditional sympathy of the House on a maiden effort, I am tempted to offer a few valedictory observations at the Third Reading of this Bill, and to wish it well through its final stages. I do so because, whatever controversial views are expressed about its general provisions, I am sure that the excellent provisions that are to govern street lighting in the future will command general support. They will bring to an end the existing unsatisfactory system, making way for the development of an official, uniform and, I hope in due course, a continuous system of street lighting that will match modern needs. Many of us have campaigned over the years for these changes, and this Bill brings us our reward.
I cannot imagine a better purpose for a maiden effort than to shed sweetness and light on the Parliamentary scene. Humorous as it may sound, it is true to say that under the existing system the Ministry of Transport are not a lighting authority; nor indeed are a county council. But a district council and a parish council are. In short, this Bill will end the unsatisfactory situation in which these authorities have the powers of street lighting but not the means, and the authorities which have the means have not the power to carry out street lighting. For those reasons, I have great pleasure in commending this Bill.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate, because I have used enough words on the Bill at an earlier stage, but I cannot resist the temptation to rise and offer my humble congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Moyle, for his apt, well directed, delightful and brief contribution. I agree with what he said about the merit of a certain part of this Bill. Indeed, in general, it is, I am sure, a useful Bill, though, as I said on Second Reading, in various directions it does not go far enough. All I want to add now is that, having frequently listened to the noble Lordin another place I shall be one of those who will always listen with respect and enjoyment to his future contributions here.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I had not intended to speak either, but I do so for the very same reason. I am sure that the whole House will agree how nice
900
it is when a speech on Third Reading on a Bill sheds nothing but sweetness and light—even if it is sweetness and street light—and I join with my noble opponent, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in hoping that the House will often hear the noble Lord, Lord Moyle, speak in future on this and on other topics.
We have already spent nine and a half hours on this Bill, and there is nothing, I think, to go over again. I believe it is a useful Bill. It is almost as good as when it came to this House, and in some respects it is even better than it was.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ARMED FORCES BILL
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

LAND COMMISSION BILL
2.59 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 Champion.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 9:
General vesting declarations
9.—(1) Where a compulsory purchase order authorising the Commission to acquire any land has come into operation, the Commission may execute in respect of any of the land which they are authorised to acquire by the compulsory purchase order a declaration in the prescribed form vesting the land in themselves as from the end of such period as may be specified in the declaration (not being less than twenty-eight days) from the date on which the service of notices required by subsection (3) of this section is completed.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved, in subsection (1), after "Commission may" to insert:
", if the appropriate Minister or Ministers certify in writing that it is urgently necessary in the public interest that the Commission

901
should have power to acquire such land in accordance with the procedure laid down by the following provisions of this section,".
The noble Earl said: The Committee will be aware that this clause, along with Clause 10 and Schedule 3, deals with the Commission's powers of a speedy conveyancing procedure of property or what is termed in the Bill a "general vesting declaration" following on a compulsory purchase order. The effect of this will be that not only will the Commission be able to take possession of a property 28 days after serving a compulsory purchase order under Clause 8, but under this procedure in Clause 9 the legal title of that property may, at the discretion of the Commission, be vested in or passed to the Commission within some two months of a compulsory purchase order. This will allow the Commission to resell the property before any compensation has been paid, or even agreed with the poor unfortunate owner of that property.
On Second Reading of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in a powerful speech, suggested that this clause had been the subject of most thorough misrepresentation, and that this vesting procedure should not be viewed with such alarm, for the local authorities had been granted similar powers by Parliament some 22 years ago, in 1944; and, furthermore, the Government had had no evidence of hardship having arisen under this power. While perhaps at the time of the Second Reading one was impressed with this argument, I would suggest to the Committee now that there are three good reasons why the precedent of either the 1944 Act or the 1962 Act cannot be relied on to justify the power under Clause 9.
First, Parliament gave such powers to local authorities in 1944 under conditions of a national emergency, and no such conditions exist to-day. Secondly, since 1944, and particularly since 1962, this procedure has been used only in a very limited number of cases; and perhaps when the noble Lord comes to reply he will advise the Committee how often, to his knowledge, these cases have occurred, or how many there have been. But under this Bill, as the Explanatory Memorandum obligingly informs us, the Commission will use this power on most occasions when they acquire property
902
by compulsory purchase order. Thirdly, and perhaps most important of all, the procedure under the 1944 and 1962 Acts and the procedure under this Bill differ in a number of fundamental ways. One is that the Commission will now be allowed to re-sell the property before any good root of title has been established by them, and before, of course, any compensation has been paid, or even agreed with the previous owner.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor went on to advise us that in practice the Commission will put the onus on the vendor to submit both a claim for compensation and proof of his interest in the title. On the strength of this proof of title from the vendor, the Commission will pay out compensation, but will have the reserve power to recover part or the whole of that compensation if in the future another worthy claimant turns up. The noble and learned Lord went on to say:
"It"—
"it" being the clause—
"also removes the need for the Commission to employ lawyers to investigate the title of the vendor in order to ensure that the Commission have acquired a good title."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 277 (No. 67), col. 1082; 14/11/66]
He used the expression "unchallengable title". From this it becomes apparent that the Commission will in practice check a title only when some other claimant comes along and seeks compensation for his interest in the property. I suggest to the Committee that this sets a dangerous precedent, and one for which I believe not even this Government could produce a predecessor, unless they referred back to the days of Cromwell.
The noble and learned Lord's argument in favour of this clause at the time of the Second Reading appeared to give the impression that either the legal profession over the years have deliberately advised a long and expensive procedure of conveyancing at the expense of the public, which this clause will quite safely short-circuit, or that, due to the serious shortage of qualified lawyers employed by the Commission, this clause was giving to the Commission power of a skeleton system of conveyancing which was more of an emergency measure of conveyancing than anything else. I would suggest to your Lordships that neither of these I conclusions appears very satisfactory, and

903
that to most people the care with which normal conveyancing is carried out by lawyers to-day, albeit sometimes slowly, is always a comfort that their interests are being properly safeguarded.
To return again to the noble and learned Lord's case on Second Reading, he suggested to us that this procedure does not in anyway deprive the owner of his rights, for by this clause an owner cannot be dispossessed of his property any more quickly. Nor, the noble and learned Lord advised us, does it affect his right of objection to compulsory purchase, for Clause 9 is concerned only after such a compulsory purchase order has been made. Furthermore, he went on to say that the procedure has the advantage that in most cases the vendor will receive from the Commission compensation far more quickly than it is normally paid or settled.
Such, then, was the noble and learned Lord's case for recommending this clause to your Lordships. I would humbly suggest to the noble and learned Lord, and to the Committee, that this procedure, as it at present stands in the Bill, will clearly deprive certain persons of their interest in the property, and I give your Lordships these three examples. First, there is the case of the tenant of the property. As I understand it, as soon as the property becomes vested in the Commission, the Crown body, the tenant will immediately lose the security of tenure granted to him under the Rent Act 1965, and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Or take the case of some poor old lady who has an interest in a property and who, due to the Commission's lack of qualified staff, and the fact that her own lawyer has not been informed, never stakes her claim for compensation, simply because she has never been informed that the property has been taken over by the Land Commission. How long does she have for appeal; or, for that matter, how long does she have for putting in her claim? Perhaps again the noble Lord can answer that when he comes to reply.
Thirdly—and perhaps the most serious of all—there is the case of an owner who has his property compulsorily acquired by the Commission, and who finds himself having to purchase immediately alternative accommodation. Being a lesser mortal than the Commission, he will
904
have to produce the full capital payment before he can take possession of his new property. But due to the lack of qualified staff on the Commission, and because there is no time limit set in this Bill saying when the compensation shall be paid, this may take many months to go through; and during all this time the owner will have to pay heavy bank charges for the capital he has not yet received. Here again it appears that there is no redress at all, and that the owner cannot quicken the process of settlement for compensation.
Turning to my Amendment, it seeks to persuade the Government to recognise that, while this special procedure may well be an advantage to the Commission, in limited cases the normal conveyancing procedure should remain, for it has been built up over many centuries and is not only respected by those in this country but envied, I would suggest, by many outside this country. If the Government were to take steps to enforce that all properties throughout the country should be registered when sold, this would surely overcome the difficulty of the delay in conveyancing and would answer the basis of their argument about the need for this clause.
The Amendment, if accepted, would have the effect of requiring the Commission to make out a case to the appropriate Minister, and to state why it wished to use this procedure. In each case it would have to be established that speedy conveyancing was urgently required in the public interest. But perhaps the most important point of all about this Amendment is that it sets out the principle that, should this procedure lead to, say, a public outcry because of hardship to a vendor (and it does not need much imagination to envisage this), the Minister of the Crown, and not merely the Commission, must be directly answerable for such an event. I am sure we all know that the Railways Board has come under constant criticism for this very reason: that it is not directly answerable in Parliament. If the Bill is not amended the Commission, I suggest, will be ten times worse; and if it starts using these dictatorial powers as widely as the Bill suggests then I believe that every citizen in this country will live to regret the day the Commission was born. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 15, after ("may") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
LORD MITCHISON: If I may say so, I think this Amendment is unnecessary and rather dangerous. This is a clause which deals simply with the question of what happens about title after a compulsory purchase order has been made. It is a purely procedural clause and reasons have been given (and I should have thought no one could really deny them) why it was more convenient to have this form of vesting order in place of the numerous and detailed inquiries necessitated, not by the dark machinations of lawyers but by the complications of our own land laws. One has to remember the position. The position is that the Minister has already had to be satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to enable the Commission to obtain authority; that is as far as the special procedure cases are concerned.
With regard to the normal procedure case, the Commission have had to make up their mind about it; they have had to entertain any objections which have been made, and the Minister's authority is required. In those circumstances I should have thought it was unnecessary, besides the compulsory purchase order, with all its safeguards, to have yet another appeal to the Minister. In the case of the special procedure this is particularly dangerous because in effect it would give a Minister power to override an Order which had passed through both Houses of Parliament and had obtained Affirmative Resolutions there, and in consequence the position would in effect he that the Government of the day, the Executive, would have power to over-rule a Parliamentary decision made under Clause 9. I think that applies only to the special procedure case.
I think one also has to remember that it is necessary in all these cases that the Minister should be satisfied that the acquisition was urgently necessary in the public interest. I think that applies equally well to every act of a Minister and the Commission. "Urgency" is, of course, a rather vague term. If it means very much, then I should dispute the need for an urgent call for this form of procedure. If it has no meaning one wonders what it is adding to the pro-
906
cedure in the two previous clauses, bearing in mind that this clause is only substituting a general vesting order for the more detailed procedure which would take a great deal of time. As for depriving the owner or occupant of any rights, if that is the position one would expect to find Amendments to restore those rights in some form or another, but I cannot see what the general vesting declaration does to the prejudice of owners or occupiers. On the contrary, I should have thought it would accelerate the proceedings and enable them to get the same amount of compensation more rapidly. Therefore, with great respect to the noble Earl, I regard this as an Amendment which arises from a misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of the clause we are considering, and one which would hold up proceedings, confer no advantage on the owner or occupier, but, on the contrary, deprive him of the early fruits of compensation which he may otherwise expect.
I am all for providing a reasonable amount of work for the Bar, but one must not overdo it, and I think that if these land operations are to have the sort of significance which is indicated in the White Paper then one must have a procedure of this kind to simplify, so far as possible, what would otherwise be a matter of inquiries, conveyances and all the rest of it. I do not think the owner or occupier is a penny the worse off. I listened carefully and I could not see why the substitution of a vesting procedure for other methods disadvantaged them in any way whatever. I hope the Government will be firm on the matter and will not accept this Amendment, which I think is rather misconceived.
3.17 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): The noble Earl moved his Amendment cogently and, of course, with sympathy for the owner. He stated a point of view about the necessity for safeguarding the rights of owners, to which we all have to pay a great deal of attention in the matters we are dealing with in this Bill, but like my noble friend, Lord Mitchison, I am bound to say that I believe the Amendment is misconceived. As the noble Earl said in support of his Amendment, the effect of it would be to restrict the use of the vesting declaration

907
procedure to individual cases where the Minister had certified that it was urgently necessary that it should be used.
Clause 9 enables the Commission, once a compulsory purchase order has become effective in relation to any land, to obtain a good title to the land simply by executing a declaration that the land is vested in them, instead of by the usual method of taking a conveyance from the owner on payment of compensation, which payment can safely be made only after an investigation of title. This declaration is defined in the clause, as my noble friend has pointed out, as a "general vesting declaration".
The normal compulsory purchase procedure requires, first, notices to treat; secondly, settlement of compensation, and, thirdly, conveyances before the purchasing authority had good title. The vesting declaration method gives the authority a good and immediate title converting the rights of owners into rights to receive compensation, and I think this last sentence is really the gist of the matter. The position of a good and immediate title by the Land Commission will mean that once it has acquired land by the compulsory purchase method and has executed the vesting declaration it will be able, without further unnecessary delay, to put the land into the hands of the developer, and this, as I said on a previous Amendment, is what the Commission will be expected to do.
As we visualise it, the Commission will always be buying land in order to dispose of it, and will need a good title before it can do so. Under the normal compulsory purchase completion procedure, although the Commission would be able to enter into possession fourteen days after the notice to treat, it could not get a good title until compensation was finally settled, and if, for example, because of a reference to the Lands Tribunal or to the courts on a question of compensation the settlement was delayed, the land could be left in their hands.
Perhaps I ought to add that normal completion procedure, which requires investigation of title, and so on, is not only more expensive than the general vesting procedure but also makes heavy demands on scarce manpower. The de-
908
cision to adopt a general vesting procedure is to some extent the result of applying organisation and method techniques to the problem of acquiring land. The Commission's procedures will be based on the belief that land-owners as a whole can be trusted not to claim compensation for interests they do not hold, and the Commission will therefore do little or no investigation of title before paying compensation. I must here add a precautionary note, that the Commission will retain power to deal with the possibility of abuse in the isolated case. These powers are contained in Clauses 24 and 93.
The noble Earl mentioned the vesting procedure under the 1944 Act. That was not introduced to deal with war-time emergency or the post-war difficulties that might be faced, but was a measure introduced following the Uthwatt Report as part of the reconstruction of the planning procedures necessary for the post-war conditions.
With regard to the second point about which the noble Earl asked me a question, there are no figures immediately available of the number of occasions on which the procedure has been used, but certainly it has been used. The third point to which I must make reference is that there was no obligation to use the procedure to investigate title. This was done only to ensure that too much compensation was not paid. The last point I would make in reply to the noble Earl is that the period within which a claim for compensation can be made is six years from the date when the person first knew or could reasonably be expected to know of the vesting.
Perhaps I ought to stress the fact that the vesting declaration procedure cannot disadvantage owners or occupiers of land whether they be vendors to or purchasers from the Commission. As my noble friend said, payment of compensation might well be quicker than under the normal compulsory purchase procedure because of the saving of time from not having to investigate title. It will not be possible to dispossess occupiers earlier than under the normal procedure; this does not enter into this at all. For all these reasons we believe that the Amendment proposed is misconceived and would advantage no one. In the

909
circumstances I hope the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has said with great attention, and I am bound to say I still have one or two questions which perhaps he can resolve. I am thinking of land which is in the possession of trustees, the beneficiaries being householders of a community, which has very often been threatened with compulsory purchase because it happens to have considerable value for use for other purposes than those for which the trustees are bound to use it. In the case of compulsory purchase by a local authority, the land is bought by the local authority for a certain purpose and the local authority is there. In the case of land purchased by the Land Commission under compulsory purchase, I rather gather from what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said that the Land Commission would be acting as intermediary and they may transfer the land to somebody else, perhaps some developer. In that case the title will be taken from the owners, the trustees, and given to the developer. Supposing the developer proves to be a man of straw. Are the Land Commission liable for the compensation or would the trustees have to look to the man of straw? That is, I think, a very important point.
There is another point, which I do not suppose comes up here, but which might give rise to some question. Are the actual beneficiaries entitled to compensation or are the trustees? Those are questions I should very much like to be cleared up.
LORDCHAMPION: As I understand it, the noble Lord has cited the case of trustees and beneficiaries and has talked about their being subjected to compulsory purchase. We are not in this clause dealing with compulsory purchase, but rather with the way in which we shall bring about the payments to those from from the land has been obtained as a result of the compulsory purchase. What would happen in the event of the Commission purchasing land through the use of the compulsory purchase order is that the decision would be taken and all the necessary steps would have to be gone through, rights of appeal and so on,
910
by the trustees on behalf of the beneficiaries. What we are here considering in this Amendment is, once that compulsory purchase order has been made, how do we set about the job of paying the original owner of the land.
LORD SALTOUN: I want to know who pays.
LORD CHAMPION: In the case of the developer being a man of straw, the Commission would buy the land and would pay for it. If the Commission got into trouble with the man of straw, as the noble Lord put it, this would not affect the original person who sold the land in the first place to the Commission. I should have thought this would be the Commission's problem, not the problem of the man from whom the Commission had obtained the land. I hope that answers the noble Lord's point.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, described this clause as purely a procedural issue. I think possibly it would be fair to point out to him that his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor did not seem to take this view, as he took some pains to stress there had been precedents for taking these emergency powers.
I am quite prepared to withdraw this Amendment, but before doing so I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Champion, about the effect on tenants of properties. He mentioned that the rights of occupiers of properties will in no way be affected. As I understand it, the Commission will be a Crown body, and a Crown body is not affected by the Rent Act 1965 or the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Under both those Acts tenants have security of tenure. Before I withdraw this Amendment, I should like an assurance that in fact this position will continue; otherwise, perhaps we could put down an Amendment to that effect.
LORD CHAMPION: I think that if the noble Earl will look at later clauses in this Bill he will find that tenants have certain rights, and the Commission's task will be to take them into consideration. But this point does not arise on this clause, and we might have an opportunity of discussing it later. Perhaps if the noble Earl would care to see me afterwards—I do not mean out of school or anything of that sort, not in my study

911
but in my room—I should be happy to point out the parts of the Bill which in fact will provide certain safeguards for the tenants.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES) moved, in subsection (5), to leave out all words after "affected" and to insert:
"or a description by reference of those lands in the manner provided by section 61 of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1874".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment improves the drafting of an Opposition Amendment which was accepted at Report stage in another place. If the Amendment is made, subsection (5) will read as follows:
"In the application of this section to Scotland a general vesting declaration shall contain a particular description of the lands affected, or a description by reference of those lands in the manner provided by section 61 of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1874."
The effect of this Amendment, in both its forms, is as follows: Where the Land Commission acquires land compulsorily it may do so by executing a general vesting declaration. This procedure cuts out a good deal of the conveyancing which would otherwise be necessary. In the application of the Bill to Scotland, however, provision is made for recording the declaration in the General Register of Sasines, to which there is no counterpart in England, in order to preserve the completeness of the Scottish Land Register.
It was always the intention that, for the purpose of recording, the prescribed form of a vesting declaration provided for in Clause 9(1), should include a requirement for a legal description of the land concerned. The Opposition in another place however, desired to amend the Bill so as to provide in the Bill itself for a description of the land. There was no objection in principle to this Amendment, but the form of the Amendment as put in by the Opposition is open to misconstruction. It seems to suggest that the normal practice will be to have a particular description of the lands affected, whereas in Scotland a description by
912
reference is much more common. The Government Amendment which it is now desired to substitute corrects this false emphasis, and at the same time gives greater precision to the reference to the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1874, by specifying the relevant section. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 7, leave out from ("affected") to end of line 8, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hughes.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I take it that this registration of title through compulsory purchase would not affect any bonds on the General Register of Sasines? They would, I presume, continue to be valid, although the title to the land itself would be changed.
LORD HUGHES: I think that is the position. As I think the noble Earl is aware, we in Scotland have always prided ourselves that the General Register of Sasines provides a complete record of everything affecting title to land. The purpose of this Amendment is to keep the situation in this respect in line with the position as it has always existed.
LORD SALTOUN: May I understand that? Does that mean that the Land Commission will take over the responsibility for the bonds on the land?
LORD HUGHES: I am not quite clear about the point. Presumably, if the Land Commission is compensating the owner of the land for its full value, the responsibility will rest on that owner to give a clear title, one free of the encumbrances of a bond. Alternatively, presumably it is possible that if the Land Commission is accepting responsibility for the extinguishment of a bond, the price which it will pay will be correspondingly reduced. What is quite certain is that the Commission will not compensate someone for land on the assumption that it is free of bond, and then extinguish the bond also.
LORD SALTOUN: No. But the noble Lord must consider this point: that land which last year was worth a considerable amount, and which was used as security for a bond for a considerable amount, may, under this Bill, be purchased by the Land Commission for a price that is less than the bond. In that case, who takes over the responsibility for the bond?
LORD HUGHES: It seems to me that the noble Lord is raising a circumstance which is unlikely in these days to arise; that is, a situation where land which had considerable value last year has a lower value this year. If, in fact, that situation had been fairly common, I greatly doubt whether the Land Commission would have had the power that it has. In the meantime, I have had a note from the Box which confirms that both ways are possible, that the Commission can take over the land and the responsibility for payment of the bonds; but I want to emphasise that that does not mean that the Commission is going to become Santa Claus, in that the present owner of the bond is to have the benefit of the land without some account being taken of the bond liability.
LORD SALTOUN: I can give the noble Lord a practical instance of some land which I know quite well, which was valued before the General Election before last by a competent firm of valuers for a considerable sum. I do not think that the land is worth as much to-day as the value they put upon it. If that land had been the security for a bond, it might well happen that the sort of case I put before the noble Lord would arise.
LORD HUGHES: It is difficult to argue this on the basis of a single case. What would seem to be indicated by the noble Lord is either a piece of bad valuation or a piece of kind valuation.
LORD HAWKE: Surely the noble Lord is not right in thinking that we are legislating only for this year and next year. We are legislating for many years ahead. There have been booms and there have been slumps. If one looks as the price of land in the United States in 1930, it must have been a mere fraction of what it was in 1928, and the bond holders then lost all their money.
LORD HUGHES: With respect, I do not think that anything which is being done here—which, after all, is a registration of title—in any way affects the position of the bond holders. If land changes in value along the lines which are suggested, and which some of us would consider an improvement, instead of always rising in value, at least the bond holder will be in no worse position in such a situation than hitherto.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Effect of general vesting declaration]:
LORD CHAMPION: This is a drafting Amendment. As subsection (2) stands at the moment, it is not clear what the words "on that date" refer to. The Amendment makes it clear that they refer to the end of the period specified in the general vesting declaration, and the words refer back to the commencing words in subsections (1) and (2) of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 35, leave out ("on that date") and insert ("at the end of that period").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words after paragraph (c) and to insert:
"( ) In relation to land in Scotland, at the end of the period specified in a general vesting declaration, or if a notice of objection to severance is served under Schedule 3 to this Act, when that notice has been disposed of in accordance with the provisions of that Schedule, that declaration, if still being proceeded with or, as the case may be, that declaration as altered under paragraph 11A of that Schedule, shall be recorded in the General Register of Sasines, and on being so recorded shall have the same effect as a conveyance registered in accordance with section 80 of the Scottish Act of 1845."
The noble Lord said: With permission, I should like to link with this Amendment Amendment No. 45, to Schedule 3. These linked Amendments carry out an undertaking given at the Report stage in an-another place on October 26. Schedule 3, "Supplementary provisions as to general vesting declarations", provides, among other things, that if a declaration comprises part only of the building or area of land then the owner of the building or land can serve a "Notice of objection to severence" of his property, whereupon the Land Commission must withdraw the vesting declaration or agree to take the larger unit, or refer the matter to the Lands Tribunal—in Scotland, to an official arbiter. The defect in the Bill as it stands, as was pointed out by the Opposition in another place at Report stage, is that there is no provision for amending the description of the land which is contained in the declaration if as a result of the notice of objection to

915
severance a greater area of land is taken, or of stopping the declaration going on the record if the objection results in no land being taken. The Amendments put down by the Opposition at Report stage in another place exposed this difficulty but did not completely rectify it. They were withdrawn on the understanding that Government Amendments would be put forward at a later stage. The Amendments which I now put forward carry out this undertaking. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, leave out lines 28 to 32 and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [General powers of management]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I want to raise on the Motion that the clause shall stand part of the Bill the question of the management of agricultural land which is required by the Commission. We have not been told a great deal about the likely policy of the Commission in the investment of their funds, but we know that they have been charged with the purchase of land in advance of requirements so as to obtain for the community any profit which arises as a result of planning consent for development being given in respect of that land. I presume that this means the purchase of land which is known in town planning circles as "white" land; that is to say, land whose primary purpose is agricultural but where other uses can be sanctioned as a necessity arises. It is those areas which have had the biggest rise in value. The owner may overnight, by the issue of planning consent, find the value of his property increased from £200 or £300 an acre to ten times that value, and even more. I am sure this is going to exercise an almost irresistible appeal to the Commission.
I imagine—and I hope that I do not exaggerate—that quite large areas of land will be acquired by the Commission in this way, possibly as much as 50,000 or 100,000 acres, land which at present pro-
916
duces a good deal of food. Some of this land no doubt will be disposed of in a few months' time; some may be retained for a year, two years, three years, five years or even longer. I am wondering what will be the status of the present occupiers of that land during those periods. They will be of two classes, tenant farmers and owner-occupiers. I assume that if the Land Commission do not want to dispose of land at once for development, they will be disposed to let it back to the existing occupiers. In the case of tenant farmers, who usually enter into written agreements with their landowners, this will simply mean a change of landowner. But in the case of owner-occupiers, it would mean that by a stroke of the pen they would be converted from owners into tenants. I imagine that they would form the majority of those affected, having regard to the fact that some 60 per cent. of all farmland is owned by owner-occupiers. I suppose that in the case of the tenant farmer, and of the owner-occupier who is converted into a tenant, they would have to negotiate fresh leases or fresh terms with the Commission.
Your Lordships are no doubt well aware that, since the war, there has evolved a code with statutory force governing relations between landlord and tenant and covering such matters as notices to quit, arbitration in regard to rent, improvements, maintenance, and so forth. Most of this appears in the Agriculture Acts, but there are other Acts which come into consideration here; for example, the Protection from Eviction Act, which recently went through your Lordships' House, containing special provisions in regard to agricultural tied cottages. What I, and I am sure other people, would like to know is whether the Commission, as owner of that agricultural land, will in all these respects be under the same statutory obligations as any other owner of agricultural land and, if not, in what respects those obligations are going to be modified. I ask this question because it seems to me that in some ways the Commission will be in a different position from any other Government Department or statutory body or Commission.
Agricultural land is, of course, frequently bought by Government Departments and other persons with compulsory powers, but I think that hitherto it has always been for some immediate purpose,

917
such as planting of trees, or military training, or, in the case of local authorities, for the protection of amenities or water supplies. This is the first occasion of which I am aware where a body of people, armed with compulsory powers, will be able to acquire tracts of agricultural land as a sort of holding operation for purposes which may not mature for several years. This appears to raise new problems as it may well affect food production, which is a matter of great moment to us all. Therefore, this is a matter of general importance.
LORD KENNET: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having brought up this point. It is a point of general interest, and the Committee need have no fear that anything is going to change from the familiar situation. First of all, the Land Commission will be in business for development. It will not be any purpose of the Land Commission to acquire agricultural land as agricultural land. I think that the noble Viscount recognised this in his speech. It will from time to time be assembling parcels of land, and until it has got the last parcel it wants for a particular development it will be quite wrong and uneconomical of it to take any step to cause the agricultural occupiers of the first parcels of land to move.
By what will the Commission be governed when during this interim period it is an agricultural land owner? The noble Lord was quite right to distinguish between tenants who are there already and who would undergo a change of landlord, and, on the other hand, owner-occupiers who will have to become tenants of the Land Commission for the remaining months that they are on the land before development begins.
The agricultural land owned by the Land Commission will be managed in the same way as other agricultural land owned by Government Departments. The Land Commission is a Crown body as is any other Government Department, and the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, which is the main law regulating the relationship of agricultural landlord and tenant, applies to the Crown, and hence will apply to the Land Commission as well as to any other Government Department. That being so, I hope that the noble Viscount, and indeed the Committee, will agree with me that although we are adding the Land Commission to the
918
list of Government Departments which may hold agricultural land, we are not making any change in the provisions under which such Departments may hold such land.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I believe that I inadvertently missed my Amendment No. 17, but I wonder whether I may just raise a point now, because it was a probing Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment was to establish beyond reasonable doubt that in regard to the powers under this clause which allow the Commission to
"execute any building, engineering or other works in, on, over or under any land"
they must apply for planning consent before carrying out the work. I appreciate that this is confirmed in Clause 13, but it has occurred to many people that the wording of Clause 12 is such that it could be interpreted as meaning that the works may be executed without planning consent. A further query arises because normally Crown land does not require planning consent. Perhaps the noble Lord could confirm again that, although the land involved here will be Crown land, it will on this occasion require planning consent. It is obviously important that the intention of Parliament should always coincide with the interpretation of a Bill, and this may not happen under Clause 12.
LORD MITCHISON: May I intervene for a minute? This subject was dealt with very clearly, rather shortly and quite correctly—as I hope your Lordships will agree when you look at it—in another place. One must remember that this clause gives no compulsory powers whatever to the Land Commission. It gives them the function of acting as landowners and holding land, but it gives them no powers which would not be available to the ordinary landowner. In substance, what was said below was that it is intended to deal with the sort of objection which says, "You are doing something which is beyond your proper functions as a landlord. It is not within your powers", as the phrase goes. Therefore, though the clause adds no compulsory powers, it makes it clear that the Land Commission can function as ordinary landowners over agricultural land or anything else, to the extent that they have to hold it.

919
The position is made clear by what my right honourable friend the Minister below described as "that horrible subsection (5)". I entirely agree that subsection (5) is horrible, but what it comes to is this: "You cannot do anything which you would not have power to do under your general powers, and if you do any more you will not get any protection from this clause, except that you cannot be charged with doing something which you are allowed in general terms to do under this clause; that is to say, to manage and dispose of land. You cannot be charged with that being an excess of power, as it is the kind of thing that you are allowed to do."
Therefore, when one looks at the provisions of the first subsection and reads it in that light—in spite of what one might think if it stood by itself, or if it stood in some other context—all it means is that the Land Commission have a general power to hold land and execute certain works and so on, and shall not be charged with doing something which is not their duty or their function because they are doing what they are allowed to do under subsection (1).
May I quote a very short sentence from column 396 of the Report of the Committee proceedings below?
"As I think the honourable Gentleman, said the effect of this subsection…."
—that is, subsection (5)—
"…is to make clear that the powers under subsection (1) shall be within the vires of the Commission, but this applies without any compulsory powers for the purpose of doing them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Standing Committee E, col. 396; 12/7/66.]
LORD KENNET: To deal briefly with the point belatedly raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I would confirm once again that the Land Commission in their own operations are subject to planning law, irrespective of the fact that they are a Crown body. This is set out very clearly in the clause after the one which we are now considering—Clause 13.
VISCOUNT GAGE: So far as I am concerned, being a very simple person, I am easily confused by legal language. But if the noble Lord has assured me, as I think he has, that atenant under the Commission will be in exactly the same position as he would be in under any
920
other landlord, then I cannot ask for further assurances.
LORD KENNET: Provided that his landlord was a Government Department. The tenant would be in exactly the same position as if his landlord were any other Government Department.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I shall have to look further into that, because, to my knowledge, no Government Department has ever held land for long periods in anticipation of something else happening.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [General power of disposal]:
3.57 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved to leave out subsection (5) and insert:
"(5) If at any time it appears to the Commission or to the Minister that land acquired by the Commission compulsorily for a specified purpose it not needed for that purpose, such land shall be offered for sale or disposal first to the owners or successors in title from whom the land was acquired compulsorily, and in the event of their not acquiring it in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, it shall then be offered for sale or disposal on the open market."
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Government may be able to say something helpful in reply to this Amendment, because as subsection (5) of this clause is drafted it might be taken as a clause to give statutory sanction to Crichel Down procedure by the Land Commission. Most names have transient notoriety, but that of Crichel Down seems to have passed into the language. Twelve years ago such a scandal arose that the Conservative Government gave an undertaking that if any agricultural land was acquired by a Government Department or agency and afterwards was found to be surplus to requirements, and if it had not been so developed that its whole character had been altered, then, in the first instance, it should be offered back, at the current market value, to the original owner from whom it had been compulsorily acquired. That has been the accepted practice ever since. I hope I shall hear that that is the continuing practice of the present Government.
The Land Commission, however, is a new body, and one of the purposes of this Amendment is to seek an assurance from the Government that, either by

921
amendment of the Bill or by a ministerial direction or otherwise, the Land Commission will respect the principles laid down in that statement which was made to Parliament in July, 1954, and which has given over these twelve years considerable assurance to the public that a scandal of that kind would not arise again. My Amendment deals somewhat narrowly with the point that if either the Minister or the Commission finds that land which has been compulsorily acquired by the Commission for a specified purpose is not needed for that purpose, then it shall first be offered for sale or disposal to the previous owners. I appreciate that if my object is to be achieved by amendment of the Bill it will probably need a somewhat more complex Amendment, or shall I say more developed Amendment, to attain the purpose entirely.
The existing subsection (5), I would submit to the Committee, is drafted too widely. As I read it, the Land Commission might seek to acquire compulsorily a piece of land, and though the compulsory purchase order might be objected to by the owner, the Land Commission might get its way, maintaining at the public inquiry (if there was a public inquiry, as I trust there would be) that it was needed for some entirely social and desirable housing development. As I read the present subsection (5), the Land Commission could then say, having got the land, that it would be rather better to transfer the land to a local authority for use as a sewage works, even though that point had not arisen at all during the public inquiry or during any of the period of time available to the previous owner or owners for making objections and representations.
I take it that the Government have in mind some kind of safeguard. I want to feel I am right in assuming that the Land Commission is going to behave in an honourable way, and that it is not going to be the sort of body that would, almost in bad faith, mention an acceptable purpose for land that it desired to acquire and then immediately, or very soon afterwards, switch the use of that land to some purpose which might give much greater cause of offence to the previous owner or to the neighbouring owners. Part of my reason in moving to omit subsection (5) and to substitute
922
my new subsection was to see whether I could extract from the Government a satisfactory assurance that the Land Commission would not behave in that way.
But I come back to the Crichel Down point. I appreciate that it is not intended that the Land Commission should become a permanent or long-term owner of undeveloped land. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said only this afternoon that when the Commission acquired land it would normally be with the object of disposing of it again reasonably quickly. But I think the Committee must recognise that there are likely to betimes when the Commission acquires land in good faith and then discovers, again in good faith, that it is surplus to requirements. It may have been purchasing parcels of land in connection with some of the stated purposes under subsection (4) of Clause 6—let us say (4)(a) or (4)(b)—and then discovers that it has drawn the perimeter rather too widely, and has got possession of more land than it needs. What will the Commission do then? My Amendment is designed to ensure that in such circumstances there can be no question of the Commission proceeding to sell that surplus land to any Tom, Dick or Harry, perhaps without even informing the previous owner, from whom it was taken compulsorily, of the fact that it is being sold elsewhere.
This is more than a probing Amendment, but it is certainly not a wrecking Amendment. I trust that we shall hear that the Government are as anxious as my noble friends and I are to ensure that there are no Crichel Down scandals in connection with the work of the Land Commission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 37, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD SILKIN: I have very great sympathy with the speech which the noble Lord has just made, but his speech is at complete variance with the Amendment that he has put down. His speech dealt with the case where land was acquired and was subsequently found not to be wanted. I would certainly agree that in such a case the land should, in the first instance, be offered back to the original owner. But the Amendment provides

923
one purpose and it then turns out that it is not needed for that purpose but is needed for some other purpose—and that circumstance, I think, is not the circumstance of the Crichel Down case. It may be that in such a case, if the land is not needed for the purpose for which it was originally acquired, one should get the authority of a Minister to use it for some other purpose, but I do not think that in such a case one should go back to the original owner and offer it to him. I do not know how far the noble Lord meant to go, but his Amendment certainly goes much further than he did in his speech.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Perhaps I may try to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who I see is seeking to be helpful to me. I mentioned the type of case where the land might have been compulsorily acquired under a statement by the Land Commission that it was needed for some thoroughly acceptable purpose, a purpose which few adjacent owners would find unacceptable, and I pointed out that, under the Bill as it stands, it would appear that the Land Commission could then proceed to sell that land to a local authority for, let us say, a sewage works, that purpose never having been mentioned at any earlier stage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that my Amendment goes further than the Crichel Down type of case. My objection to the subsection in the Bill which I am seeking to leave out is that it seemed to me to be an invitation to the Land Commission to repeat another Crichel Down. But the words which I propose to substitute for that subsection are designed not only as a security against another Crichel Down scandal but also as a guarantee against the type of transaction which I exemplified by the case of the sewage works.
LORD PARGITER: Surely the Crichel Down case was not entirely in line with what the noble Lord has just said. The Crichel Down case was a case where land was acquired, where there was no change in the user of the land at all and where it was not offered back to the original owner, who was very anxious to re-acquire it, but was sold to someone else entirely different. It was not a question of price, or anything else: it was purely a question of the land being sold
924
to someone else when, logically, it ought to have been offered hack to the original owner. That is rather different from the case where land acquired for a particular purpose is possibly used for another purpose. The cases are not on all fours.
The case here, as I see it, cannot be argued in the way which has been put forward—at least, not if it is to be as it is in this Amendment, as my noble friend Lord Silkin has indicated. This Amendment is very wide. It deals with cases where the Land Commission acquire land for a particular purpose. It may well be that the land will not be required for the particular purpose for which it was acquired, but may be required for some other and equally good purpose. Under this Amendment, the land could not be used for that purpose: it would have to be offered back to the original owner at market value. Then, presumably, if it was again required for some public purpose, there would have to be another compulsory purchase order to acquire it again. In the meantime, the land would probably have increased its value two or three times—at least, that is what would be likely to happen. I do not think anybody could argue that this is a reasonable thing to do.
The Land Commission acquire land in good faith. It is the planning authority that alters the user of the land, for better planning purposes. What are the Land Commission to do in those circumstances? Are they to agree to the altered planning proposal and dispose of it for this purpose; or must they offer it back to the landlord? According to this Amendment they must take the latter course. At what price is it offered back to the landlord? The new planning consent may have altered the value of the land. It may be different from what it was in the original proposal. It it is sold back at market value, what becomes the market value? Does the new value become market value?
It seems to me that the Amendment could not stand up as it is at present. It would, in effect, from the point of view of acquisition of land under this particular clause, wreck the intentions of the Commission, the good intentions of the Commission, who acquire land quite properly for a particular purpose. They argue their case and get authority to

925
carry that purpose out, and then find, perhaps through no fault of their own, through circumstances outside their control, that the user of the land is altered. On this Amendment they could not offer it for sale to the local authority, or to a private developer, or to anybody else, for that particular purpose. I think the instance of a local authority acquiring it for sewage disposal purposes is stretching the argument too far. In any case, there would be stringent regulations regarding planning consent for that purpose. It seems to me that this is going to the extreme limit. It is hardly the type of argument which supports the Amendment which has been put down. I hope the Amendment will be resisted because it would make the position of the Land Commission in some circumstances untenable.
4.13 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Like my noble friend Lord Pargiter, I have for many years been a member of a county council and, for similar reasons to those that he explained, I should like to oppose this Amendment. I can see some virtue behind the ideas of this Amendment; but I feel that it goes too far. I do not want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in the matter of what he called the Crichel Down scandal. That was a scandal which occurred under a Tory Government; I hope that a Labour Government would not be guilty of any such action as that. But when we, as a county council, purchase land, as we frequently do, perhaps for a school in a community which we know is developing rapidly, we are sometimes approached a little later in the scheme by the urban district council or the borough council who suggest that the two councils should revise the layout for this new community. They say: "Let us take the land you had designated for school purposes as, possibly, land for a housing scheme. We, in turn, will give you part of the housing land for the purposes of your school. "That is quite an easy arrangement to come to between the two authorities; but in the light of the Amendment moved, if the original authority who acquired the land for the school discovered they did not require it for that purpose, then the next step would be to offer the land back to the original owner or else put it on the open
926
market. I think that would be to the detriment of good local government administration.
It is the fact that in my county the county council and the urban district council, who are undertaking some overspill development from Greater London, are entering into combination for the purchase of areas of land. It may be that the areas designated at this moment on the plan for the school and those designated at this moment for housing will be interchanged at some later stage in the development and negotiations. With that knowledge, I feel it would be much to the detriment of the two local authorities if they were hamstrung in this way, and if at the moment when the original purchasing authority say: "We do not require it now for the purpose for which it was originally required", we had to put it on the open market and offer it to the highest bidder. I can see what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is getting at. We do not want anything in the nature of a Crichel Down scandal.
But if this Amendment is passed in its present form it would wreak incalculable harm on the local authorities at two strata who are trying to operate together in the public interest.
LORD CHAMPION: My reply has been well argued, first, by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, whose knowledge in this field is so much greater than mine, and then by my two noble friends who have tremendous local government experience and who therefore will know something about the problem of switching land from one purpose to another. I hope I can give the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, the assurance he wants, without necessarily accepting the Amendment, As has been said, the Amendment goes very far and would extend the Crichel Down policy on the disposal of surplus land far beyond the original limits of the Crichel Down procedure that has been followed ever since the days of the difficulties that arose as a result of Crichel Down. This policy has been maintained by all Governments, including the present one, since the time of Crichel Down without any significant alteration. The policy is, broadly, that agricultural land which is still recognisable as agricultural land—and this is an important point—should be offered back to the person from

927
whom it was bought (if it was bought under the threat of compulsion) when it became surplus to Government requirements.
This policy does not apply—and never has applied, so far as I know—to any land other than agricultural land. If the Commission buy agricultural land under threat of compulsion and re-sell it as agricultural land, then, no doubt, they too would follow the Crichel Down policy and offer it back to the original owner. But it would not be wise to extend this principle to land other than agricultural land, because the special considerations that make it fair that agricultural land should be offered back to the original owner do not apply. These special considerations are that in many cases the land was torn away from a viable agricultural unit and it ought to go back into that unit if it is at all possible. The Amendment certainly embodies a vast extension of the Crichel Down policy.
But I must mention the fact that it is Government policy, which is not based on statutory requirements, that land is offered back to the owner in these cases. This can be enforced in the case of the Commission by ministerial direction; and subsection (1) makes this quite clear. It would be absurd to have a statutory requirement which dealt with only one compulsory purchasing body. If we put this direction into this Statute it would be the sole piece of legislation which contained it. We think it would be wrong to put it in here. In any case, we are sure that this policy will be followed, and we can give the assurance to the noble Lord that we will, by ministerial direction, enforce it if the necessity should arise.
There is another factor in the Amendment that I must mention. It has been mentioned by my noble friends Lord Pargiter and Lord Leather land. If the Commission did not want to use the land for the specified purpose for which they bought it but wanted it for some other purpose for which they had compulsory purchasing powers, the Amendment would cause them to have to go through the useless manœuvre of selling the land back to the owner and then putting a compulsory purchase order on it. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, would not want that to happen,
928
and, in the circumstances, I cannot imagine that he would wish to press his Amendment. The question of buying land for one purpose and switching it later for another goes further than the Crichel Down principle. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has said—and I think he is quite right—that we must assume that the Commission will behave reasonably; we have to start from that point. If they do not behave reasonably, we have the safeguard of the fact that they are answerable to the Minister and, of course, to the Parliamentary Commissioner, should any objection be taken to anything they do.
There is just one further fact I must mention. It is the fact that the Land Commission need planning permission and this is also a protection in this connection. I would add (and I hope I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, the assurance he requires) that we do not propose to permit—and this is really what it amounts to—the Land Commission to depart from what has been the Crichel Down policy in respect of agricultural land being sold which could suitably go back to the original owner.
4.21 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for having given to the Committee and to me the assurance which it was the principal object of putting down this Amendment to elicit from the Government. It seems to me most important that it should be known to be the fact that the Government will insist, if necessary by Ministerial direction under Clause I, that the Land Commission complies with the principles laid down in what I might call the Crichel Down statement of July, 1954. I would not ask the noble Lord to give me an assurance that those principles should be extended in this case, because I appreciate that there is a difference between agricultural land and other land, but before I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment I wonder whether the noble Lord could go somewhat further and explain to the Committee just how free the Land Commission will be to change its mind and to go on changing its mind?
Broadly, when a local authority obtains confirmation of a compulsory purchase order, having said that it wants land for a particular purpose, and then changes its

929
mind and wants to switch to another purpose, it has to get Ministerial approval for the change. As I see it, the Land Commission is not subject to Ministerial approval al all where it wishes to switch land from the original stated purpose to another. While accepting that the Commission will act in good faith, as I trust that it will, and as I am sure that under its present chairman-designate it will, nevertheless what is the safeguard to the public were the Land Commission to be found, for one reason or another, frequently to be, as it were, belying the statement it had made originally when it first sought to acquire land compulsorily?
It would be very bad for the reputation of the Land Commission if it became commonly said that not much faith could be placed in the statement made by the Land Commission at a public inquiry to the effect that it desired land for a specific purpose. Suppose the number of times mounted up in which it was found that afterwards the Land Commission disposed of land for quite a different purpose. It would begin to be felt that Parliament had not been sufficiently insistent in protecting the interests of the public against this. I am not imputing any bad faith to the Land Commission, because I entirely appreciate that on occasion it may find that land acquired for one purpose may be better disposed of for another purpose; but equally it is most important, particularly important to all those concerned professionally in the transactions that will take place, that it can be in general accepted that when the Land Commission says it requires to obtain land compulsorily for a particular purpose it really means it, and that there is no great likelihood of the land being used for a different purpose.
Would it not be wise to insert in the Bill a provision that the Land Commission must obtain the authority of the Minister when it wishes to change its mind? That would simply be an extension of the latter part of the existing subsection (5) in Clause 16, which requires the Commission to obtain Ministerial consent when there is to be a switch in the use of land acquired under Clause 6(4)(c). Would it not be a valuable reassurance to the public if the Commission had to obtain the consent of the
930
Minister in all cases of switching? The public would then have the normal democratic protection through Parliament of being able to question a Minister as to why he had given his consent. Here, it seems to me, one has a body which is protected from immediate Parliamentary questioning and criticism, yet is given a very wide discretion.
I do not know whether the Government will say that the Council on Tribunals could challenge the action of the Land Commission if it repeated its change of mind so frequently that people began to lose faith in its assurances, but I hope that the Government will agree that here is a genuine problem, and that I am not in any way intending to be obstructive or obstinate. I am simply anxious to see how we can best secure that the public will believe that there is always genuine substance in a statement by the Land Commmission that it desires to obtain land compulsorily for the purpose that it mentions. If that were to go, a great deal of harm would be done to the Land Commission, and I think I am entitled to ask the Government how they will protect the good name of the Commission and maintain the faith of the public in this important matter.
LORD MITCHISON: Metaphorically the loudspeakers are positively dripping honey and obviously I must be careful not to disturb this harmonious atmosphere. I do not want to do so. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. It is very important to keep the good name of the Land Commission, and it is important in the public interest that it should start well and continue well. But I think that it is not quite fair on the Land Commission to take the analogy of a local authority all the time. There is another possible analogy. Suppose land is sold to a developer who, having bought it for one purpose, uses it for another. The effective check on him in a case of that kind is the planning permission he may require for the new purpose, and it seems to me that this is really the effective check in this kind of case, too. If one takes for instance the case of an offensive trade, or something of that kind, being carried on, it does not seem to me that the right person to decide whether you should or should not have an offensive

931
trade carried on in the neighbourhood is the former owner, as seemed to be implied at one time. It must, I should have thought, be the planning authority, and if one is going to look at this matter at all one has to be clear on what is meant by "purpose".
The instance given by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is a long way away from the type stated in general terms, and solely with the object of limiting powers during the first transitional period under Clause 4 of the Bill. The noble Lord took another of these premises just now as an instance of the kind of thing he had in mind, but that is entirely different from the change of purpose when land, bought for development, say, as a housing estate, is, as regards part of it, changed from a house to a shop or from a shop to a garage or something of that sort. It may be these comparatively minor changes which the noble Lord has in mind when he spoke about protecting the public.
If this Amendment were to be taken any further, it would be necessary to be very clear, especially with regard to Clause 4, about what was intended by "change of purpose". I trust that no assurance will be given by the Government which will limit the Land Commission, subject as they are to planning permission all the time, to changes which would not meet with a similar limitation if they were carried out by a developer. A developer with general planning permission may or may not get planning permission for a change he has in mind. That is what planning permission is intended for.
When a similar point was raised below, there was some suggestion that the previous owner was entitled to buy back on special terms. I think that that is precluded by the wording of the Amendment. Therefore it is simply a question of whether or not to offer the land back on a change of purpose, and not of the amount of compensation. That being so, I suggest that the planning machinery is the right safeguard. When we compare the Land Commission with the local authority, we forget that a local authority buy land for the purpose of their function, for use as a school or playground or whatever it is. The change is carried out incidentally in their accounts and is not a change of purpose, because a
932
change does not really exist in the case of a developer who changes within the limit of his development or, as in the case of the Land Commission, when it is essentially a body for promoting development. I trust that the Government will not get so intoxicated with the verbal honey which has been descending on us that they will in any way tie the hands of the Land Commission in doing what they are really required to do—namely, to get the land of this country put to the best use in the public interest.
LORD CHAMPION: I am not sure whether my noble friend was complaining about the honey dripping about us. Some little time ago one of my noble friends on this side of the House came to me and said, "There is too much ' flannel' about this place." I took him severely to task. I said to him, "In this august assembly we do not use 'flannel'; we use plush." I hope we shall continue to use the courtesies of exchange during the further stages of this Bill.
I hope and expect that the Land Commission would never buy land with the underlying idea of just switching. We expect that those whom we should appoint for this task would be persons of integrity and good judgment. If the Commission met the circumstances suggested by my noble friend Lord Mitchison, I think they should be able to switch, always provided that the switch was in the national interest. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in hoping that they will not find it necessary to do this too often, but if they do have to do it they should have a clear purpose and be able to justify it, if necessary, to the public as a whole. The Land Commission in this matter are half-way between the Minister and the local authorities. We think it would be too restrictive to require the Commission to get Ministerial consent in every case where a change appears to them to be necessary in the national interest. The Commission might not even require to have the Minister's consent to buy, if there was no objection to the original intention of the Commission to buy. As I said previously, there is always the power of the Minister to supervise the administration. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, will accept this as

933
the further assurance for which he was asking.
LORD ST. HELENS: Before my noble friend replies, may I ask the Minister this question? He said that he hoped that the Land Commission would always be able to justify their actions as being in the national interest. What I should like to know is: how can any member of the public call upon the Land Commission to justify any action? How can a grievance be ventilated by a member of the public?
LORD CHAMPION: My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said on Second Reading that the Commission would be subject to the Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner. If any member of the public felt that something was happening which dealt harshly with him, he could lay a complaint before the Parliamentary Commissioner, who will be appointed under the Bill which is now going through Parliament. This is clearly the intention. But if there was found to be a mass of disquiet about the way the Commission were going about their work, there is always Parliament, and I am fairly sure that Parliament would be informed.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: How many staff will the Ombudsman have?
LORD CHAMPION: If we were discussing the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill I might be able to answer the noble Earl, but not on this simple Amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am entirely satisfied by the assurance given by the Government on the Crichel Down aspect of this matter. As to the other aspect, I should like to have an opportunity of reading carefully what the noble Lord said in both his replies, and I must reserve the right to put down a further Amendment on Report if I feel that the case justifies it. I am grateful for his obvious recognition that there is a problem here and that there must be some safeguard for the public, either by the Parliamentary Commissioner or by the Council on Tribunals, or by some other means. But it might simplify the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner if we could insert safeguards in the Bill. However, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for what he has
934
said, so far as he has gone, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD NEWTON: I should like to raise a point which I believe to be of considerable importance, not only to this Committee but also to the public at large and I mean public at large—and not just those who own land and property. I gave the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, notice last week that I was going to raise it. Clause 16, which we are now debating, gives the Land Commission a general power of disposal of property in its possession.
Subsection (2) of Clause 16 reads as follows:
"Except where so required or authorised by any such directions"—
that is to say, directions of the Minister under Clause 1—
"or by section 18 of this Act"—
which deals with concessionary crown-hold dispositions—
"the Commission shall not sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any land, or any interest in or right over land, except for the best consideration in money or money's worth which car. reasonably be obtained."
That seems to be to be quite an unexceptionable principle. But it immediately compels me to ask this question. With subsection (2) of Clause 16 in the Bill, how will the Land Commission carry out one of the objectives stated for them in the White Paper—namely, to secure that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced.
I think it will be most helpful to a great many people if the Parliamentary Secretary can take this opportunity of explaining precisely how, in the view of the Government, this Bill, when it reaches the Statute Book, will secure that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced. We know all about concessionary crownhold. But unless the concession is going to be considerable, it will not follow from the fact that concessionary crownhold dispositions can be made that housing will be any cheaper then than it is today. The only thing one can be certain about is that when land is disposed of by means of concesssionary crownhold the house built upon it will

935
probably be cheaper than a similar house that is not disposed of in that manner. But that is quite a different story.
I think it is important that the Government should tell us how this Bill will achieve its stated objective—because this objective has been made much of in speeches up and down the country, during the time of the last General Election and before; and I would go so far as to say that it was because people were led to believe that one of the consequences of having a Land Commission would be that, somehow, houses would be cheaper they thought it a good idea and gave the Government the mandate to bring in this Bill. The Minister, Mr. Willey, when he makes speeches in the country about the Land Commission, nearly always refers to the objective of securing that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced. But I am not aware that he or any other Minister has explained how, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, could tell us.
4.44 p.m.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord's intervention goes to the root of this matter and of several others. I am grateful to him for having given me notice of his intention to raise it, and for the opportunity to try to wrap up this whole matter in one. The White Paper on the Land Commission set out the intention that the Land Commission should
"secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community and that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced."
There are two parts to this: first, taking a share in development value to the community; and secondly, because this is done, ensuring that the burden of cost to the community is reduced. The question, therefore, is how the Government will secure the second of these objectives.
Many of the essential purposes for which land is required are functions of local authorities, and the White Paper explained broadly the way in which it was intended to help local authorities. Paragraph 35 said that it was intended that the proposals for the levy on development value would be complemented by arrangements under which local authorities would benefit financially from the operations of the Commis-
936
sion It went on to explain, however—and I think it is probably here that doubts and confusions have arisen—that, for a variety of reasons, it was the intention that the gain to the Exchequer from the operations of the Land Commission would in one way or another be reflected in the new arrangements under which local authorities will receive financial assistance from the Government. Most of these arrangements are already known to your Lordships, because they are contained in the Local Government Bill which we have just been considering. This was, indeed, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Champion at an earlier stage in Committee in the debate on Clause 4.
The Local Government Bill (I think I should perhaps recapitulate) provides for increased Exchequer assistance to local authorities amounting to £30 million in the first year, increasing to £60 million and to £90 million yearly, and in deciding that these amounts were appropriate the Government had regard to the cost benefit to the Exchequer from the activities of the Land Commission. The Government were also particularly concerned about the cost of land in two specific sets of circumstances and have, in the Local Government Bill, provided for specific grants towards the costs of redevelopment and towards the cost of acquisition of land for public open space. Through the grant system substantial Exchequer assistance is thus being given to virtually all land acquisitions by local authorities in one way or another, and the burden of the cost of land is thus reduced. The Government are also introducing a new Housing Bill which will revise housing subsidies. Through this channel of direct Exchequer grants the burden of the cost of land for local authority housing will be reduced. In these ways the Government have given effect to the promises made in paragraph 35 of the White Paper.
So far as private development is concerned, so long as an open market in land continues—and the Land Commission Bill leaves the market in land to continue—land cannot be made available at a price below the market value without some system of control to ensure that the concession in the price of land is not immediately turned into a cash profit by the wrong person. Thus, if land was made available cheaply to a builder, this

937
would not necessarily reduce the price of the house that he sold; it would go to swell the builder's profits.
It is for this reason that the Government have chosen to help private enterprise housing in other ways. There are two main methods of assistance. First, the Land Commission Bill provides for disposal of land for housing on concessionary crownhold terms. Here the burden of the cost of land is directly reduced by actions of the Land Commission, but it is necessary to associate this with rights of pre-emption in order to ensure that the concession is enjoyed by the person for whom it is intended. Although the possibilities of extending the scope of concessionary crownhold will be explored thoroughly by the Land Commission, the Government have indicated that they expect that at first this will primarily be a means of assisting housing associations and societies which provide an existing machinery for policing disposals. The Land Commission are, however, given power to make concessionary disposals on crownhold terms in any way that, in practice, proves to be effective. The Government are also introducing a measure to assist house purchase—the mortgage option scheme—and this also will reduce the burden of cost, including the cost of buying land.
The Land Commission must not, therefore, be looked at in isolation. It is part of a co-ordinated and coherent programme of legislation which the Government are introducing, and the Land Commission must be looked at in this context. To sum up, I think I can understand the perplexity about how the Land Commission is supposed to reduce the price of land to the public by itself if it is looked at alone. If it is looked at in conjunction with other legislation which has gone through your Lordships' House, or is shortly to come to us, and if one bears in mind that Exchequer funds themselves are to be swollen by the proceeds of the land levy, then I think it is clear that the claim in the White Paper, that the true burden of the cost of land to the community is reduced by the present Bill, is met.
LORD MITCHISON: May I be allowed to supplement what my noble friend has said, because I have had a long interest in this Bill, and like other Members I have spoken about it in the
938
course of Election campaigns. I accept the proposition that in the Bill there is no direct attack on land prices, in the sense that there is no attempt to control them, to put a fixed figure on them, or anything of that sort. I do not think that has ever been suggested. But I suggest to the noble Lord who asked the question that he must have regard to both Parts of the Bill, and to the effect of both Parts on land prices. I do not think I can do better than to quote these words:
"We need an agency which will acquire the land, make the plan, provide the services and then dispose of the land according to the plan either by selling or letting it to private or public enterprise."
The quotation continues:
"It is a by-product of this necessity that produces betterment; that is, the increase in the value of the land as it is brought into development will be either a total or partial compensation to the public."
That is what Sir Keith Joseph said about the subject matter of the Bill—it was not, of course, then in existence—on May 4, 1964.
I find nothing to quarrel with in those words. If it is a by-product of this necessity that produces betterment, that is really a way of saying that it is because of that necessity that the local authorities and other public bodies have had to pay constantly increasing prices and rapidly increasing prices for the land they needed in order to perform their public functions. If we can set up a body which, in one way or another, with adequate powers of compulsory purchase, can cope with that outstanding public difficulty, then indeed we shall have taken a step to lower the price of land. For if it is to be lowered to local authorities, then the general effect on the market is bound to he a lowering one.
I speak from my own experience and my own eyesight—I am subject to correction about this—but as I go about a good deal, as I am sure your Lordships do, I have the impression that more property is coming on to the market and that prices on the whole have ceased (I do not say they are falling much) the wild rise which took place some year or so ago. If we have done no more than that, that is a great deal. We shall be told that this is a dangerous and terrible Bill. The more noble Lords opposite go on saying that, perhaps the more frightened the people with land will be, and

939
land prices may be lowered in that way. I do not mind any help from wherever it comes, whatever the motives are, if we can cope with the land problem in this country.
The need to provide land for public purposes and the need to control this business of outrageous development values rising sharply and suddenly is, I am quite certain, a task which the last Governments, the Conservative Governments, ought to have undertaken, which they recognise they ought to have undertaken and which Sir Keith Joseph had in mind when he said the words I have just read out, but about which they did nothing. I think that is the real effect of this Bill. It is not an attempt to say, "You shall do this and that about the price of land". It is an attempt to remedy what I take leave to call "outrageous development value", to keep down the rise in the price of land and, we hope, to lower it quite definitely.
We have not reached the levy yet, and I think I should be out of order in referring to it at any great length. But the point about the levy seems to me to be this. If it were left to the capital gains tax to deal with this kind of matter we should be proceeding on a different principle. The levy is an attempt to take a substantial part and, we hope, a growing part, of the unearned increment on land for the public benefit—immediately, if you like, for the Exchequer—and ultimately, as my noble friend made clear, for the benefit of local authorities, too. That seems to me to be quite clearly a means of dealing with the rising price of land in this country, with the refusal of land for public purposes, and with those who took land for houses and, instead of using it for the purposes for which it could best be used, held on to it simply with the object of selling in time, perhaps in a short time, at a profit. It is for that reason that I regard this Bill as carrying out, quite effectively and quite properly, so far as I can see, the intention which was put before the country more than once, and which was stated in the words I have just quoted from Sir Keith Joseph.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I wonder whether at some time somebody from that side will explain how—it may be the inten-
940
tion—the spiral of high prices will not continue just as much as ever, but under new management, as it were. I realise that there are some good boys who will get rewards out of this, but it seems to me that the remainder (which, I suppose, goes for practically all industry and private houses) will have to pay as they did before. There is a certain dichotomy in this Bill, in that I do not see how you can make money out of it, as the Land Commission are supposed to do, and at the same time make land cheaper. I hope that some day somebody will explain that.
LORD MITCHISON: If I may reply to that question, as we are in Committee, I would say one thing to the noble Viscount. It seems to me absolutely essential for this purpose that there should be powers of compulsory purchase, as there are in this Bill, and that there should be a betterment levy, as there is in this Bill. Those were the things the comparative lack of which (because the local authorities had limited powers) frustrated the intention of those who, like the noble Lord and myself, would like to see the price of land moderate and fall for local authorities and the job they have to do.
4.58 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: I think this has been a useful little debate. At one moment it appeared to me that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, held the view that, because the first appointed day is coming nearer, land prices are beginning to fall. I should have thought that the reason was more elementary than the one he gave. It is because of the Government's freeze and squeeze that people have not the money to buy land.
I am grateful, as I am sure all your Lordships are, to the Parliamentary Secretary for taking great care to try to explain the inexplicable. Each of your Lordships will have to decide how satisfactory that answer was. I shall read it very carefully to-morrow. My first conclusion is that it is now quite clear that the Land Commission will do nothing whatever to reduce the price of land or the price of houses. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was at pains to point out that paragraph 35 of the White Paper states:
"The Government intends that its proposals for a levy on development value described in

941
this Paper will be complemented by arrangements under which local authorities will benefit financially from the operations of the Commission."
As I understood the explanation, they may in the future benefit financially from the collection of the levy, but simply because the Government are imposing a new tax, and they will then have new money which they will be able to spend in whatever way they like, and apparently by giving higher grants to local authorities. They could have got that money by increasing an existing tax or inventing a new one—nothing whatever to do with the Land Commission, as I see it.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said the Land Commission should not be looked at in isolation. He said that it should be seen as part of the Government's land and housing policy and that there would be before very long a Housing Bill to provide for higher subsidies for local authority housing. That seems to be another way of saying that the Land Commission in itself will not do anything to secure that the burden of the cost of land is reduced, and the Government have to look to other measures. I think most of us, and certainly the general public, look at the Land Commission in the way that the Government, when talking about it, both before and since the publication of this Bill, have led us to look at it. I think most people look upon the Land Commission as something which will mean that in the future land will be cheaper than it is now. That is why I said during the Second Reading debate that it seemed to me the general public had been "sold a pup". I still feel that after listening to Lord Kennet's explanation.
LORD KENNET: I cannot accept for a moment the implication that the public have been misled. The White Paper used the words
"that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced".
The noble Lord has addressed himself to other questions. I gave as comprehensive an account as I could of the way in which the burden of the cost of land is being reduced.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
General provisions as to crownhold
17.—(1) With a view to making land available for development and use for any particular purpose, while retaining for the benefit of the Crown any element of value which may be or become attributable to the prospect of any development of that land (whether by way of redevelopment or otherwise) for any other purpose, the Commission may dispose of the land by way of a disposition to which this section applies.
5.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "particular purpose" and insert
"purpose prescribed by the regulation made by the appropriate Minister or Ministers under this Act."
The noble Earl said: If the importance of each of the 102 clauses in this Bill were to be judged by the volume of criticism, I think it would be fair to say that Clause 17 would hold a very safe seat in the top ten. The Committee will be aware that this clause creates for the Commission a new type of tenure known as a "crownhold", which will be used by the Commission when disposing of land, whether it be freehold or leasehold. By this new tenure the Commission will, by a restrictive covenant which will limit the future use of the property, control all property they dispose of, and so, should the owner of such property wish to change its use at a later date, he will first have to negotiate with the Commission a waiver of this restrictive covenant. It is then that the Commission can recoup the future development value that may arise.
The main criticism of this new tenure would appear to be that when the Government create a new land tenure the country is surely entitled to know for what good reason, what benefit and what purpose it has been created. The Government's reply so far in another place has been, in my submission, both inconsistent and somewhat garbled. The Minister has said that the crownhold tenure is in line with their policy of returning to the community a substantial part of the development value which the community itself has largely created. But no one can believe, surely, that this important new tenure has been specifically set up to duplicate the Commission's main instrument of recovering development value namely, the levy.
It is interesting to note that the Government Chief Whip in another place recently wrote to the Daily Telegraph in defence of the crownhold tenure, following a letter from Dr. Denman of Cambridge University. In this letter the Government Chief Whip said:
"The Bill makes it plain that the purpose of a crownhold is to enable the Commission, when disposing of land for a particular purpose"—
and he put into brackets the following words
"(the erection of a church or a women's institute or for market gardening use) to return to the community the benefit of any additional value which may in future arise."
I think I should repeat "a particular purpose", because these are important words in this clause, but we find no mention in the Bill of churches or of women's institutes as mentioned by the Government Chief Whip. Therefore the examples he gave can be only an interpretation of what he thinks will happen.
If we study what the Minister has said in another place, particularly on the Committee stage of the Bill, we find that when winding up on this clause on July 14 he said, in column 440,
"…as land is being made available through the Commission for development, an increasing use might well be made of the crownhold provision."
So we see that the Government's real intention is not that the crownhold should be used for just "a particular purpose" but in fact for any purpose.
The effect of crownhold tenure if used widely by the Commission would, I suggest, be enormous. The first and most obvious problem that will arise is what is the value of crownhold as against freehold or leasehold? It is quite possible that some innocent person may purchase a crownhold property in the future and then find that the Commission wish to acquire it for redevelopment. So far as I can see, there is no reason under this clause why the Commission should acquire it at a figure less than the person paid for it, and I should like to ask whether the Government intend to issue a formula to act as guidance to people acquiring crownhold properties, or perhaps the Commission themselves would advise on a value.
The second effect of a crownhold is that it would appear to become a wasting
944
asset. For instance, if one takes the case of a factory, when it is first built its value could be, say, £100,000, but in thirty years' time the factory will have outgrown its use and will require redevelopment. Then I suggest its value will be site value only—it may possibly be only £10,000—but if the company comes to redevelop it will naturally require under this clause to apply to the Commission for permission. It will then find that not only will it be faced with the cost of the redevelopment but also with the cost of gaining a waiver of the restrictive covenant. I suggest that the crownhold tenure could well have a paralysing effect on modernising Britain—the very opposite, if I may say so, of one of the main objectives of the Commission.
A third and major effect the crown-hold tenure will have on property is that the Commission will control, by their use of restrictive covenant, the planning use of any particular property they acquire and resell. What one can see happening is that the crownholder could well approach the Commission and ask for a waiver on his restrictive covenant. The Commission, of course, could look into this, and, in my opinion, could, quite within their rights, say, "No we do not agree", or they could suggest such an abortive figure for waiving the covenant that it would completely preclude any economic development by the crown-holder. You could have here the Commission coming into direct conflict with the local planning authorities on what future use the property should have.
The professional bodies in a brief prepared for the Members of the House of Commons came out strongly against the widespread use of this crownhold tenure, and suggested it would be perfectly possible to implement the objectives by means of a positive covenant. They went on to ask why none of the recommendations of the Wilberforce Committee had been taken up. I hope that the noble Lord when he comes to reply will take the opportunity to answer this point.
The Amendment seeks to find out what are the particular purposes of the Minister in using this crownhold tenure, and what objections he has to being made responsible to specify those purposes by regulation. Is the purpose of this clause as narrow as the Chief Whip, Mr. Silkin,

945
suggested in his letter to the Daily Telegraph, or is it as wide as the Minister suggested in the Committee? If it is as wide as the Minister suggested, it would perhaps be easier if the wording of this clause was changed from "particular purpose", as I said, to "any purpose". One of the beauties, if it can be described as such, of the concessionary crownhold is that its purpose is crystal clear, for it will perform one of the two main functions of the. Commission—namely, provide residential building land at a concessionary price below market value. But the purpose of the crownhold tenure as worded under Clause 17 is both vague and, I suggest, sinister. One is left with the feeling that the Government could change the second main objective of the Commission,
"to return a substantial part of the development to the community"
to
"to return the entire part of the development value to the community by means of a 100 per cent. levy granted by the crownhold tenure".
If this is the case, I suggest that it is time the Government had the courage to declare it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 9, leave out ("particular purpose") and insert ("purpose prescribed by the regulations made by the appropriate Minister or Ministers under this Act.").—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
5.14 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: If we could look at the Amendment for a moment before we come to the very general issues which the noble Earl raised, the Amendment is, so far as I can see, not in any sense to change the general provisions as to crown-hold but simply to provide that they shall only be used with a view to making land available for development and used for any
"purpose prescribed by regulations made by the appropriate Minister or Ministers under this Act".
They remain with all the noble Earl's general objections to them, but their use is to be confined to cases prescribed by regulations. I find no provision for these regulations in the Bill, and I imagine what the noble Earl intends is that the Minister should make the appropriate regulations. I wonder if that is right.
946
The Land Commission have certain functions and duties, and if one looks at the clause in question one finds, I think, that it is the Land Commission which have a discretion here to dispose of land by way of a crownhold disposition. I should have thought that this constant attempt by noble Lords opposite to bring in a Minister was really rather illogical. As a rule they object to too much Ministerial interference. I should have thought it was reasonable in a matter of this sort to leave with the Commission the discretion which the Bill provides for and which the noble Earl, except in this one rather minor respect, does not really want to interfere with.
He does not say what the regulations are to be; there is no sort of limitation on them, and the effect of his clause would really be very little different, so far as I can see, from that of the language in the Bill. The Minister could make any regulations he chose and that is that. He mentioned the Chief Whip. In their absence, I might venture to doubt whether even Chief Whips are always the best expounders of a Bill, though in this particular case I thought Mr. Silkin was quite right. He gave a few instances, out of which the noble Earl sought to find a category or a principle or something of that sort. They were just instances, quite simple things. I do not know what it was about them that upset the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: What in fact upset me was that the Chief Whip of the noble Lord's Party gave the impression that this clause would only be used for these types of rather specific cases. But what I am suggesting is that in this Bill this is not the case.
LORD MITCHISON: The noble Earl has one advantage, or disadvantage, over me, that he reads the Daily Telegraph and I do not. I do not know what the Chief Whip said in any more detail than the noble Earl told us, but from what he told us they seemed to me to be instances and nothing more. I hope I may succeed in that respect in allaying the noble Earl's fears.
What was more important was that the noble Earl took this occasion to make an attack on the whole principle of crown-hold, which hardly arises on this Amendment, but we do not have any rules of order and there it was. I do not know

947
whether I ought to answer it. To answer it is not very difficult. One has to see what the purpose of crownhold is; to retain for the benefit of the Crown any element which may be or become attributable to the prospect of any development; that is to say, development value. The whole object of this clause is to allow the Land Commission to dispose of property while retaining the development value. That is what the covenants are for. I should very much like to know whether the noble Earl and other noble Lords opposite really object to that. I thought we had their support on this; that it was quite reasonable, in a number of cases at any rate, to retain the element of development value for the Crown in this case, and ultimately for local authorities; it is the same thing.
It did not appeal to the noble Earl. He preferred that it should stay where it is, that they should never be able to retain it, because he does not object to the machinery except in the one minor respect that appears in this Amendment. He therefore prefers that development value should stay where it is. The whole object of this Bill is to see that an element, quite a large element, of development value passes to the Crown, to use the language of this particular clause, and these crownhold dispositions are for that purpose. I am not quite sure whether we might or might not have been able to do the same thing by trying to twist the leasehold system in this country. In some ways, it is rather like a lease but there is some uncertainty about the position over covenants. I think that is probably the fairest way of putting it, and it seemed better to have a particular form of disposition, crownhold. I do not quite know what is wrong with it. I agree that it is not so good as freehold, but it is better than most leaseholds. What is it going to be worth? It is impossible to say. It will depend on what is the element of development value in any particular case.
It might have been possible to do the same thing by using the Scottish feu—indeed, in some ways this is rather like a Scottish feu. It is applied to feus. It is an elastic instrument. I do not think we have anything like so elastic in England as Scotland has for that particular purpose, and it is therefore a new thing. But the object is perfectly clear.
948
The means that are taken to do it seem to me to be perfectly reasonable. A man may be glad to have his own house without at the same time wishing to speculate about it. He usually wants to live in it. For a person who is going to live in a house, crownhold does not have that sort of damaging, disparaging effect that the noble Earl seems to wish to attribute to it. It is rather a recognition of some of the facts of life, one of which is that most people who own houses live in them. That is the purpose for which they buy them and use them. So far as I can see, there is nothing here that prevents that. Nor is that the idea. The idea is that the development value shall be retained by the disposing authority, that is to say, the Land Commission.
We can hardly go into the matter in detail on this Amendment. Perhaps I have gone too far as it is. The noble Earl raised the point, and I have been puzzled as to why people were frightened of this proposal. I think we ought to be more like the Athenians and welcome something new. Anyway, we live in a changing world. It is likely that our institutions, and particularly things like our forms of land tenure, could be changed from time to time. Here is the creation of a new form of tenure, if you like—one that is not radically different from other forms, but a new one, and it is for a particular object: the object I have set out.
As to the Amendment, it is, I suggest, a sensible thing here, having set up a Land Commission (incidentally, I, too, would congratulate the public on getting such a good chairman), to let them get on with the job. It seems to me quite clearly a question for them whether or not they ought to dispose in this particular form or in some other way.
LORD NEWTON: Earlier in his speech the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, expressed surpise that we on this side of the Committee were continually trying to bring the Minister into the Bill. I can tell him quite shortly why that is. It is because the Minister is responsible to Parliament, and the Land Commission are not.
LORD MITCHISON: If I might answer that at once, there is no difficulty at all in questioning about it, because

949
the Minister can give directions; and direction-giving power is quite wide enough (this was clearly stated below) to oblige the Minister to answer questions on almost everything in the Bill, including this.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, but that is asking questions. If he is required to make regulations, then Parliament can have a debate on the regulations.
LORD MITCHISON: If he is required to make regulations. We have not been told what the regulations are going to be, or anything about them.
LORD KENNET: My noble friend Lord Mitchison has, I think, answered the general attack upon the principle of crownhold with such spirit and such a wealth of knowledge that there remains little, if anything, for me to say. But I would take up just two points which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, mentioned. The first concerns his point about an industrial company and its factory, if it has crownholds or is under crownhold disposal. Of course, a crownhold covenant would not necessarily—or even probably: indeed I think it most unlikely—be so framed that it would cover the renewal of obsolete plant. It is no purpose of the Land Commission—how far a field do we have to go, for goodness' sake!—to thwart industrial modernisation. Even beyond that, it is no purpose of the Land Commission and the land levy as a whole to take money in respect of any consideration except development value. So that if a factory wants to renew itself, that is within its existing use. If, on the other hand, the company concerned wants to pull down an old factory and turn that land to a completely new sort of use which is going to be more profitable, then one might imagine that the effects of the crownholds would come into play.
Secondly, the noble Earl expressed the fear that under these crownhold provisions the Land Commission might be assuming the functions of the planning authority—that they would be an equivalent to the planning authority. Of course, a planning authority says, "Thou shalt", or "Thou shalt not". This is the way it is framed, and if the effects of the crown-hold covenants are such as to limit the future use of that land to something which the planning authority would be
950
willing to go beyond, then one can imagine discussions between the planning authority and the Land Commission; and one can, indeed, imagine the crown-hold land being put to the new purpose on the payment which is envisaged in the original covenant.
The noble Earl is always asking this question: Are the Land Commission going to take over the planning functions in this country? Let me take one more opportunity of saying, No, they are not.
To turn to the Amendment itself, the effect of the Amendment (we have almost lost sight of it) would be to limit crownhold dispositions to disposals for housing purposes or purposes prescribed by the appropriate Minister or Ministers in regulations. As the clause stands, un-amended, crownhold dispositions can be made in respect of land being disposed of for any purpose. In view of everything that has been said, and the general discussion of crownhold, I do not think it is necessary for me to go any further into the grounds for which the Government think it will be better to leave this clause unamended; and I hope that in view of that the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: One is always most obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, who takes an interest in one's Amendments. But, as he himself admitted, I think last week, he is of course an unrepentant Socialist; and an unrepentant Socialist is, I suggest, blinded by doctrine and, sadly, can never be persuaded by reasoned argument. As regards the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I believe that one of the real problems of crownhold would be the problem of the valuer, because if a site is purchased to-day and developed in ten years' time, how will the valuer decide what is normal inflation and what is development value? As I see it, this would be the real problem. However, I do not feel that I can press this Amendment, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Concessionary crownhold dispositions
18.—(1) Where land is disposed of by way of a crownhold disposition and the land is to

951
be used for the provision of housing accommodation to be occupied—

(a) by the purchaser, feuar or tenant, or

(b) by persons for whom such accommodation is to be provided by the purchaser, feuar or tenant in accordance with arrangements approved by the Commission,

the disposition may (notwithstanding section 16(2) of this Act) be made for a consideration less than the best which could reasonably be obtained.
5.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the words after "crown-hold disposition" down to and including "tenant" in paragraph (b) and to insert:
"to a housing association or housing society or co-ownership group".
The noble Viscount said: I move this Amendment, confined to concessionary crownholds, to housing associations, housing societies and co-operative groups, in the first place, because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Minister have told us that this is going to be the normal way to make dispositions of concessionary crownholds. I am glad to know that that is so, because, having been president of a federation of housing associations for some years past, I have seen the excellent work that these bodies have done. I am grateful to the Government for giving them an extra boost. All Ministers express sympathy with this movement, but some give more practical expression to that sympathy than others.
Having said that, I am a little disappointed to see that these crownholds are not going to be available to housing associations which have subsidy. I think that is unfortunate, because one of the most satisfactory forms of housing association we have seen is that in which one has blocks of unsubsidised dwellings, where people who are in full employment can well afford to pay economic rents, associated with a smaller group of subsidy-earning dwellings where people can go to retire and can be looked after by their relatives. It is a great pity that this very desirable form of housing society development should be interfered with for an administrative reason.
I am sure that the argument will be advanced that nobody should be in the position of receiving a double subsidy. But, in view of the discussion we have just had, I wonder whether that argument
952
can be sustained. We have had an animated discussion on the question of how local authorities are going to have land made cheaper to them. The explanation has been that they are going to get financial grants. Coming from a county which is always at the end of the queue for the general grant, I shall believe that when I see it. But it does not affect the argument that local authorities will get a double subsidy. They will get financial help and will get the normal housing subsidy in respect of their houses. Therefore it is a little mean and misguided that housing associations which have enjoyed charitable status and which provide for elderly people should be cut out of the concessionary crownhold land. I hope that this point will be examined again.
The other reason why I am suggesting this limitation is that I find it extremely difficult to see how otherwise the requisite continuing control will be maintained. I know that I am impinging a little on the next Amendment, but it would appear to be logical that a housing authority which looks after subsidised housing could also logically look after subsidised sites, which is what these are; but I feel that there would be a good deal of administrative complication about their doing so. It would be passing the buck, as it were, to the local authorities in the difficult task of this continuing control and it would result in considerable difficulty if they had to account to the Land Commission, but I suppose it would be possible. The other alternative would be to have two authorities in the same area, one dealing with subsidised housing and the other with subsidised sites, and that would seem to be even more confusing. However, I do not wish to impinge on the subject matter of the next Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 42, leave out from ("disposition") to ("in") in page 19, line 2, and insert ("to a housing association or housing society or co-ownership group").—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD KENNET: The effect of this Amendment, as the noble Viscount outlined it, would be to limit concessionary crownhold disposals to housing associations, societies and co-ownership groups. Co-ownership groups are, of course,

953
usually housing societies, so it is these two categories with which we are here concerned. The noble Viscount based his objection to the wider power in the Bill to grant concessionary crownhold on the fact that it would allow local authority housing to receive concessionary crownhold facilities but would not allow housing associations, which already received a subsidy, to do so; and he complained that since local authority housing already receives a subsidy, it ought to be excluded. I hope I have the noble Lord's argument correctly.
The trouble with his Amendment is that if one were to limit crownhold disposals as he proposes, and cut out local authority housing, one would also, as the Bill is at present drafted, cut out the Land Commission too, in the sense that one would deprive the Commission of the possibility of building their own houses and then disposing of them direct to individuals with the benefit of concessionary crownhold. In other words, one would deprive the Land Commission of the possibility of saying, "We think that these individuals, Tom, Dick and Harry, are the kind of people who could benefit from this, and we will give them concessionary crownhold with such a covenant to ensure that they do not abuse it", and would limit the Commission's operations to those carried out only through housing societies which already exist or would be created for the purpose. I should be very reluctant to see the Land Commission circumscribed in that way, and I hope that in view of that consideration, the noble Viscount will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: What the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said is very important. When the Committee agreed to subsection (1) of Clause 12, which empowers the Land Commission to:
"execute any building, engineering or other works…where they are of the opinion that it is expedient to do so with a view to the subsequent disposal of that land or any other land."
I doubt whether noble Lords appreciated that apparently the Land Commission themselves are to go in for building houses on a large scale. This may be known in certain circles, but I do not
954
think it has been known or appreciated up until now by your Lordships' House. I must say that I feel somewhat apprehensive about this. The Land Commission have a great deal to do, and I understood that the principal purpose of the Land Commission was to acquire land which might not otherwise have come forward for development and then dispose of it as rapidly as possible so that development could take place.
It now appears, from what Lord Kennet has said, that the Land Commission will be able to divert a great deal of their energies from their primary purpose in order to set up in business as a builder. I cannot see any purpose whatever in the Land Commission occupying themselves in this way. They are going to have a very heavy task and I believe that it would be no bad thing if an Amendment to the Bill were to debar the Land Commission from indulging in building operations of this character. I had supposed when my noble friend moved this Amendment that he was primarily seeking to emphasise the great importance which this clause relating to concessionary crownhold might have for housing societies and housing associations, and indeed they had been specifically mentioned by the Government on the Second Reading of the Bill as the first type of recipient for the concession. That seemed to me reasonable. I think we are all in some difficulty, because this Amendment happens to come before the next Amendment standing in my name, which would perhaps render possible a wider discussion of the use of the Land Commission's powers here.
While I have no desire to stop the Land Commission from doing reasonable things under this clause, I certainly think that we require to have an authoritative statement from the Government as to whether the Land Commission are envisaged as a large-scale builder building houses for sale. I cannot remember anything of that kind being forecast in the White Paper—perhaps I did not read it carefully enough—and I certainly cannot remember anything of that kind being said on the Second Reading of this Bill. To my mind, it gives quite anew conception of the way the Land Commission will spend their energies, if it is believed by the Government that this is going to be one of their major activities.

955
As I say, it may be that this Amendment is too restrictive. It may be that we should amend the clause in some other way. We know from the Government that housing associations and housing societies occupy an important position in this whole conception of concessionary crownhold. But will the Government help us further by indicating how far they contemplate that the Land Commission are going to set up as a builder themselves and whether there are any other directions in which this Amendment will be too restrictive.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor appears to think that my Amendment would be too restrictive. I know that he is a great supporter of housing associations, and therefore his advice weighs heavily with me. I agree with him that the reasons advanced in support of the suggestion that I should withdraw it are somewhat difficult to understand, since Clause 12(2) states specifically:
"Notwithstanding anything in the preceding subsection, the Commission shall not, except with the consent of the appropriate Minister or Ministers, execute on land to he disposed of by them for housing purposes any works for the provision of housing accommodation or for purposes connected therewith."
I agree that the subsection says,
"…with the consent of the…Minister".
but, even so, I too am surprised to hear that it is the intention that the Commission shall engage in house building. But in view of my noble friend's advice, and in view of the fact that wider considerations may emerge from this, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD KENNET: Before the withdrawal of the Amendment is accepted by the Committee, may I just say that I am not quite sure what all the fuss is about here? It is stated in the White Paper that the Land Commission can build houses, and it is in the Bill itself, by implication, in the provision which the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has just read out: that the Land Commission may not build houses without the consent of the Minister. If a Bill provides that the Minister must permit something it is clearly envisaged that that something may be done by the body to whom his permission is necessary before it is done.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, made great play with building
956
houses on a large scale, and thought that the Land Commission might divert a great deal of their energies to becoming a large-scale builder. He asked for an authoritative statement from the Government that that was not envisaged among the purposes of the Commission. I most willingly give him a statement to the effect that it is not envisaged that the Land Commission shall immediately become a large-scale builder and go into great operations all over the country, in competition with the existing provisions for building houses. That is far from the purpose.
May I revert for a moment, just as further clarification, to the Amendment which the noble Viscount has already withdrawn; that is, the question of local authorities benefiting twice over, once from concessionary crownhold and once from the direct housing subsidies? It is not the intention that they should benefit twice over. We want to leave the Land Commission free to make concessionary crownhold disposals in favour of local authorities, when the local authorities themselves are acting as housing associations on a cost-rent or owner-occupation basis, but it is not the idea that they should get concessionary crownholds on houses which would enjoy normal housing subsidy in any case. I thought I should explain that at this moment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I do not argue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"( ) The appropriate Minister or Ministers shall prescribe by regulations—

(a) the manner of advertising the Commission's intention to make the disposition;

(b) the method of determining the consideration, and

(c) the principles for the selection of the purchaser, feuar, tenant or persons referred to in the last preceding subsection."

The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment would be to require the Minister to make regulations to guide the Land Commission as to the disposition of concessionary crownholds, and this will take us into a field that certainly my noble friends on this side are very interested to hear more about. The Bill as it is now drafted leaves the Land Commission completely free as to how

957
they will dispose of property which they have acquired at market price less the levy, and they will therefore be disposing of it at a significantly lower figure than market price. Ministers have stated before, and stated again to-day, that the Commission will normally dispose of crownhold land to local authorities, housing associations, co-operative housing groups and also to private builders, and possibly, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has just told us, may develop land themselves. This raises important questions of public policy which were asked in another place and, to my mind, were not answered.
Public money is involved and it should be properly accountable. Crownhold, in fact, carries a subsidy from public funds in two ways. First of all, there is a sum of £45 million provided by the Exchequer to start up the Land Commission. Secondly, as all the levies collected by the Commission will be paid into the Exchequer whenever a crownhold disposition is made, the amount of the levy concerned is in effect deducted from the total payments made to the Exchequer, and to that extent, again, the public purse is reduced. I have spelled this point out in some detail, because Ministers in another place threw some doubt on whether this really was a subsidy from public funds. I contend most strongly that this is a subsidy from public funds, and therefore the method of disposition must be clear and above board.
The background to the disposition of houses is well known to all of us here. Every housing authority—certainly,,in the southern part of England and, probably, in the Midlands—has a long waiting list exerting strong and continuous pressures by numerous families for a house—thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of families. This gives rise to many complaints and to many very hard cases. Over the years I have myself dealt with hundreds or thousands of them, and I know how very easy it is for suspicion to arise if there is any sense of favouritism over any case at all. It has been my privilege to take up many cases, and invariably I have been satisfied by the very high class of administration which the local authorities with which I was concerned invariably conducted. But I make the point advisedly, because this is the general situa-
958
tion that again and again I have heard complaints where some disappointed applicant for a house has seen somebody else get the house and feels that his application was stronger, that his circumstances were even more worthy of attention, and that there has been some favouritism.
With local authority housing, I am glad to say that throughout the country the general position is good. Local authorities take immense pains. They have elaborate systems of points, and so on, and they are therefore usually able to satisfy the applicants. This is the background to the questions I am going to ask, because I feel that unless Ministers can satisfy public opinion that these dispositions will be made fairly in every way, they are going to cause complaints rather than give satisfaction.
The first questions I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet (if he is going to reply), concern dispositions to a local authority. The first point I wish to ask the noble Lord (although I think he has partially answered it) is this. When a crownhold disposition is made to a local authority for the development of a housing estate, will the subsidy be regarded simply as a windfall for that local authority, or will it be set off in some way against some other Government grant? If the disposition is of land for housing to be provided by the local authority, will the local authority have an obligation to let or sell those houses at a figure below the market rate, or will the local authority simply take the benefit into its housing account and let or sell the houses according to its normal policy? And, if the local authority lets or sells at a special, reduced figure, will the local authority select tenants or purchasers from some special class or category?
The second category of dispositions about which I should like to ask the noble Lord is dispositions to a housing association or similar body. And may I say here that I very much support my noble friend Lord Gage in his praise of housing associations and the excellent work they do? Nevertheless, where a crownhold disposition is made to a housing association, the housing association gets the piece of land at a figure considerably below market price, and therefore has a very substantial advantage. I should be glad if the noble Lord would tell us how a housing association will be chosen for

959
this subsidy. In what circumstances will a housing association get this benefit? And will there then be any obligations on the housing association with regard to its own membership?
Then, thirdly—and this, I believe, is the most difficult class of case—there is the disposition to a private building firm. When the Land Commission are disposing of a piece of crownhold land for development by a private building contractor, how will the Commission choose the builder? Will there be advertisement and competition? And what obligations will be laid on the builder as to the purchasers of the crownhold houses? These are just a few of the major points that occur to me in that field.
Finally, there is the field that has just been discussed—development by the Land Commission themselves. I observe, as the noble Lord has told us, that this is mentioned in paragraph 24 of the White Paper, and I think it would be helpful if the Committee could be told in what circumstances the Minister would give his consent for the Commission to carry out such a development. And what would be the basis of selection of crownholders or tenants in these circumstances? On the face of it, it would seem that in selecting tenants the Commission would be very much at a disadvantage, compared with a local authority housing committee or a housing association. Through local circumstances, these other bodies know exactly the conditions, circumstances and merits of each applicant's application, and this is most important if a fair deal is to be given, and is to be seen to be given.
These are a few of the major points which occur to me by way of difficulty in the disposition of a crownhold, and it is for this reason that my noble friends and I have put this Amendment on the Order Paper. The Amendment requires the Minister to make regulations on the lines indicated, which would give some guidance to the Land Commission when they were making such a disposition. As I said at the beginning, I am sure that when they are making this disposition it is fundamental that it should be done in a way that is understood, and clearly understood, by the whole community, and in a way that is seen to be fair. Other-
960
wise, far from giving satisfaction and relief, it will do exactly the reverse. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
LORD KENNET: This Amendment would require (I draw attention to the word "require"; it is not just "permit") the appropriate Minister or Ministers to make regulations about the advertising of the Commission's intention to make concessionary crownhold dispositions, about how the price of disposal was to be determined and about the principles on which the person to whom the disposal was to be made was selected.
It is obvious that the Land Commission will be doing all these things, carrying out all these functions which the noble Lord has just listed, according to certain criteria. I think this Amendment puts before us very squarely the question: Are these criteria to be developed and formulated by the Land Commission, within their own organisation and as a result of their experience, directly, or are we to force the relevant Ministers to determine these criteria for the Land Commission now and to impose them upon the Land Commission from outside—and, if so, when? We want to think about that, because I think it would be most unfortunate if we were to pass a Bill which bound Ministers to make regulations about these matters before the Land Commission had any experience whatever of how they could best operate.
I think we should also be very cautious before we envisage tying the Land Commission in a way in which local authorities are nottied. At the moment, Ministers do not regulate all these activities when they are carried out by local authorities, and I think there would be a great and justified protest, both from local authorities and from Parliament, if they attempted to do so. Again, I should remind the Committee that, although I am resisting the idea of binding the Minister to make regulations about this, the power of direction—that is, the Minister's power to direct the Land Commission to do this or that, or to adopt certain criteria—is there and can be exercised at any time; and Parliament can debate the kind of directions the Minister is making, or failing to make.

961
Let me try to answer, very briefly, some of the specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. I may say, before I start on this task, that his questions really amounted to: What sort of an animal is the Land Commission going to be? What is it going to do—and where, when and why? His questions ranged very wide indeed; and I hope that the whole discussion on this Bill, both on Second Reading and in Committee, will, as we go along, answer many of these questions.
I would also ask the Committee to realise that one can go into these matters only to a certain depth. I understand the reasons behind the wish of noble Lords opposite to know in every detail how many buttons there will be on the boots of the chairman of the Land Commission, such is the distrust they feel of the Commission; but I hope they will feel that they need not go too far into detail. We are setting up a new creature; we want it to operate within certain rather widely defined limits. There is already a body of complaint that the Bill is too complicated. If we were to go much further into dependent regulations I think we should deprive the creature of any chance of living a normal, healthy life, and of finding its feet. Having said that, let me try to answer as many as I can of the questions the noble Lord has asked me.
He asked what would be the duties of the local authority about the value, as it were, of the concessionary crownhold. Would they have to pass it on, or could they swallow it for their own purposes? The answer is that they will be obliged to pass it on to the inhabitants of the houses in question and to police it subsequently to see that the inhabitants, whatever their form of tenure is, do not cash it by selling to later inhabitants. The local authority, in these circumstances, will choose who gets the houses as they do at present with their own houses. I think it would be no more appropriate for the Minister to regulate their choice in this case than it would be in existing cases. A housing association which gets the benefit of concessionary crownhold will do so only if it can show that its rules are good enough to ensure that it can do what I have just described in the case of the local authority. It is envisaged that the Land Commission will consult with the housing association concerned and see
962
that it is a capable enough organisation to prevent the concession from being improperly disposed of or passed on.
The noble Lord asked about disposition to private builders on concessionary terms. This is not envisaged at all; because private builders are not equipped to operate as housing associations or to ensure that the cash value of the concession remains in the right hands. Lastly, once again on the Commission's own right to build and to dispose under concessionary crownhold of the houses, I should add to our former discussion that the intention is that this right has been put into the Bill with a view only to circumstances where building cannot get done by any other method. Noble Lords know as well as I that these circumstances will be rare. Indeed, it is there as a sort of emergency provision, a long-stop. In the event that it does have to be used, or when it is used, then the idea at present is that the Land Commission should he as free in the choice of people to put in those houses as a housing association would be, or as a local authority would be, when acting as a housing association, for the purpose of getting the benefit of concessionary crownholds.
6.5 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: Two passages in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, aroused in me the gravest doubt about how this provision is expected to work. He referred to the Amendment as "requiring" the Minister to lay down certain conditions under which the houses built by the Land Commission were to be let. He said there was no reason why the land Commission should be tied down in advance to any greater extent than the local authorities. But, of course, there is absolutely no analogy between the two. There are local authorities covering the whole of this country who are responsible for houses. It is their duty to familiarise themselves with what is required. They normally have lists of applicants for houses; they have a long experience of choosing tenants for these houses. In the case of the Land Commission, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, emphasised, is something entirely new, they have no experience of this kind; they have no machinery for choosing tenants; they have no knowledge as to what kind of rent should be asked.

963
The noble Lord said that there was no reason why the Land Commission should be subjected to particular restriction under this Bill. But there is, of course, an extremely good reason. It is that the Commission are the creation of Parliament, while the local authorities are the elected representatives of the ratepayers of the district. Therefore, when we are setting up a body of this kind, and empowering it to deal with these matters, it is essential that the principles on which it is to work should be known.
Further, I do not understand why the noble Lord thinks that this body is going to be kept, in some way, in reserve. I can understand the wish of the Government to have a Commission for obtaining the land that is needed for house-building. I can understand, therefore, the compulsory powers which it is proposed to give to the Commission and the possibility of their then selling to the local authorities. Why it should be proposed that the Land Commission, apparently, should be entitled to by-pass the housing authorities by building houses themselves and letting them, and to do so on principles which are not laid down in this Bill, I do not follow at all. It seems to me that there is the very greatest danger that the Land Commission, in exercising these emergency powers, are going to cut right across the existing established and experienced administration of the local housing authorities.
LORD MITCHISON: Local authorities, lest they get unduly above themselves, are just as much creatures of Parliament as are the Land Commission. Had they not been constituted by Parliament, and had they not been given certain powers and duties, they would not be in their present form. As I understand this clause, the main object of it is to pass over land on concessionary terms to local authorities, housing associations and voluntary bodies of various kinds but of that general description. I do not know what is upsetting noble Lords opposite so much about this.
I cannot see in the Bill any suggestion whatever that when land is passed over in that way on concessionary terms to local authorities or housing associations the Land Commission should then step in and tell the local authorities how to select
964
their tenants. A great many things have been said in the course of the long discussions in another place about what the Land Commission would or would not do; but this I think is the first time it has ever been suggested that the effect of this clause is to enable, encourage or inspire the Land Commission to the unhappy task of having to select council tenants. It really is rather nonsense.
After all, the Land Commission are to be a large body; they are necessarily going to work in rather large units; they will have local offices—that is part of the intention; but it is a long step from that to deciding upon the selection of council tenants in the—I forget how many—hundreds of urban district councils in and about Lancashire. I have never seen this suggested anywhere. When one looks at the Amendment one sees it says that the Minister is to prescribe:
"…the manner of advertising the Commission's intention to make the disposition".
A Minister has to do a great many things. I should have thought that that was a comparatively small task and that it might have been left to the Land Commission which, I would remind the Committee, is not necessarily the Devil. Then the Minister is to prescribe
"the method of determining the consideration."
Why should this be settled by regulations by the Minister? This is going to put a lot on to the Minister. Is he to set up a new tribunal? How is he going to determine the considerations? Is he going to say what is the consideration? Is he going to say the method by which you arrive at it? If the latter, he seems to be founding a new court of his own; if the former, interfering with the tolerably clear principles in the Bill.
Then there are the housing lists. The Amendment goes on to say that the Minister shall prescribe:
"…the principles for the selection of the purchaser, the feuar, tenant or persons referred to…".
Why do you want this put into the Bill? Is it going to be the same way in which local authorities select their tenants at present? I should have thought it was, and the right people to do it were the local authorities, and that they would do it. Then when you come to a housing association what is to be done under this arrangement? I should have thought the

965
housing association was competent to select the persons who were to occupy the houses, but its warmest supporters now wish the Minister to tell the housing association how to run its own affairs. It is, saving your Lordships' presence, rather far-fetched is not it?
This was the Amendment which, as the noble Lord who moved it here indicated, was moved in the Standing Committee in another place. My noble friend the Minister said he wondered whether the noble Lords who moved and supported it realised the harm they had done themselves by moving it. And the harm that they did themselves was more or less on the lines of what some of your Lordships have been urging to-day. The Minister pointed out that this was tying red tape round the operations of the Land Commission, to a degree which, I should have thought, the warmest advocate of bureaucratic interference opposite would hardly wish to propose or to enforce. It is really rather a fantastic suggestion, is not it? There may be cases where you could make some sense out of it, but to make a general or universal application is neglecting the functions, duties and general performance both of local authorities and of housing associations and other bodies, and telling the Minister to stand over them and tell them what to do and all kinds of things which might be quite different in different cases.
I should have thought the substance of what we have here was partly the business of the Land Commission—such as methods of advertising and so on; advertising is clearly a matter for the responsible body doing it—and partly a question of the local authority and the housing association carrying on their usual practices. It is carrying the thing a stage further for no purpose that I can see. I find this Amendment so hard to follow. I hope I have been courteous to your Lordships as I should dislike to be anything else, because everybody is always very polite and kind to me, but I really do not see what the object of all this is and what is the intention.
Then it is said that there is a subsidy which we ought to have to account for. I cannot find a subsidy—does the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, wish to interrupt me?
VISCOUNT GAGE: No; I want to say something later.
LORD MITCHISON: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon.
It is said that there is a subsidy. The subsidy lies in the Land Commission getting land free of the levy. We have not yet come to the levy, but that is where the point is. As regards the concessionary crownhold, there is in a sense a subsidy in that they dispose on particularly favourable terms to housing authorities, housing associations and the like. But that is not a case of accounting for public money, at least, not so far as I can see.
I am sorry to say this, but I really do not understand what is the purpose behind this Amendment and I think that it had rather a short shrift in another place for much the same reason. I do not think that my right honourable friend the Minister quite understood it. Perhaps it is a deficiency of Socialists in understanding to which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, so eloquently alluded a few minutes ago. Perhaps we simply cannot understand these things, but I do assure your Lordships that we have tried.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think that we would all wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, on the continuing and energetic support which he has given to his own Front Bench. Perhaps it brings into relief the comparative absence of support that they have had from any other of their Back Benchers. I should be rather interested to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Leather land, and the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, both of whom are very experienced in local government, would have felt quite so happy about the vague relationships which are going to develop between the Commission and local authorities. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that one cannot expect to tie up the Commission absolutely in great detail, but when they are compared with local authorities, whose powers are defined in the greatest possible detail in Acts of Parliament, there is extraordinary vagueness in the Commission's responsibilities. I do not think it a very good analogy, and I hope we may have a little more information about the Commission and local authorities and other people before this debate is over, but I sometimes despair that we shall.
6.15 p.m.
LORD CLITHEROE: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, could relieve my anxiety about this question of building houses? I am bound to say that it came as a great surprise to me to hear that the Commission were going to build houses. There is nothing in the Title of the Bill to make one suspect that, nor so far as I recollect was there in the Second Reading speeches; but I have read Clause 12and I understand the fact that it is possible, as the clause is drafted, for houses to be built by the Land Commission. But can the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, tell me whether these houses are to be built for sale, or to let, or whether it is intended that they should be built on some rare occasion, for example, to house a member of the staff or for something of that sort? I cannot believe that the Government have the intention of making this Bill to authorise the Land Commission to build houses to let and to sell. There has been no previous discussion about this or suggestion that this was the intention of the Bill. Can the noble Lord reassure us and tell us that it is not the intention to build or to let houses except in such exceptional cases as I have suggested?
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord, Lord Molson, made the point that we should be prepared to bind the Land Commission with regulations in circumstances in which we should not be prepared to bind local authorities with regulations because the latter had a fund of local knowledge. It seems to me that if the Land Commission have insufficient local knowledge to be trusted to look after themselves, my right honourable friend the Minister has even less, and this is not the right grounds for insisting that he regulates the activities of the Land Commission in every smallest detail. As has already been pointed out, the Land Commission will have local offices, and in everything they do they will be co-operating most closely on a daily basis with local authorities in whichever area they operate. They must do so. It cannot be otherwise. The Commission must have planning permission. They will not know what are the needs, very largely, unless the local authority tell them, and in all these
968
respects they will build up a fund of local knowledge very quickly indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, insisted once again on the fact that the Commission were going to build houses, and he asked me why they were going to build houses, and whether they would be for rent or for sale. I think the Committee should beware of allowing itself to build up a picture of the Land Commission as a house-building organisation. They are not that. We have been discussing for many days what they are, and as I have already said, they have the right to build houses, but the idea is that this right should be used only if all else fails, and only by specific permission of the Minister. Noble Lords may ask what is meant by "if all else fails". I will answer, frankly, that I have not the least idea. I do not think that anybody has the least idea of what a situation in which all else had failed would look like. I simply cannot imagine. But one's inability to imagine the situation does not lay a duty upon one of legislating to prevent a body from taking a step to provide for an unimaginable situation if it does arise, and this is precisely what is being done.
The Land Commission will not be specifically precluded from building houses where it is envisaged that all else will fail to get them built; and in order that they should not misuse this ability it has been subjected to specific Ministerial consent in each case. Should the noble Lord ask me to describe a situation where it could arise, I would say, "No, let us do that as and when the Minister gives a specific consent in a specific case. Then we shall know what we are talking about". At the moment we do not.
6.21 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for answering at any rate some of the points that I put to him, and in particular for giving us a piece of information which he must know is entirely new—that the Land Commission do not intend to dispose of crownhold land to private builders. As he will know, his right honourable friend in another place (in column 459of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee Stage) indicated that it was still the intention of the Minister, and he obviously had the matter under further consideration. He said that it was

969
very difficult but he was still thinking over it. Also referred to in that context was the statement by Mr. Richard Crossman which indicated that certainly at that time Her Majesty's Government were intending just this.
LORD KENNET: May I clarify this point? We will look at Hansard in the morning, but I do not think that I could have said that the Land Commission did not intend to do so. Their intentions cannot be slated because the Commission do not yet exist. What I said was that it is not expected that they should do so.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I put it down immediately it was said, and what I put down was "no intention of disposing to private builders." I think that noble Lords have the impression that the noble Lord did tell this Committee that that was what the Land Commission were not going to do. However, we can look at Hansard in the morning. If the noble Lord now wishes to give us a different impression, this is something we must take note of. It rather justifiies what I originally thought, because the disposition to private builders is quite one of the most difficult aspects to safeguard. In a way I felt some relief when the noble Lord said that it was not the intention of the Government that the Commission should have these powers, but if he wishes to change that view now, no doubt he will let us know and we can think further about it.
The other point on which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, gave the Committee some help was in describing to us how a local authority, and also a housing association, would proceed where it had a crownhold disposition made to it. I find these answers clear and helpful. But the real point here about which noble Lords on this side are concerned is the difference between a local authority and the Land Commission. Certainly I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, however charmingly and however courteously he puts it, that they are constituted exactly the same—Parliament sets them both up and there is no difference between them. It astonished me to hear that.
LORD MITCHISON: It would have astonished me even more if I had said it.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: What the noble Lord said was that local authorities were just as much the creatures of Parliament as the Commission are.
LORD MITCHISON: With great respect, that is not to say that they must have the same functions and duties. Indeed, I said the opposite. We have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that the Land Commission is a creature of Statute. So are the local authorities. It is a small point.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: The noble Lord may be able to comfort himself by believing that he did not give that impression; but he did. He said that local authorities are just as much the creatures of Parliament as the Commission are. In my judgment, although certainly they are constituted by Parliament, and Parliament could abolish them all, once Parliament has instituted them, they are obliged to be elected, and that, to me, makes a very big difference. It alarms me that the noble Lord should feel that it makes no difference at all. The noble Lord will have plenty of opportunities to speak again—he has spoken before—so perhaps he will allow me to finish my remarks.
I am astonished that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, did not disown this view, because it is an extraordinary reflection on an elected body. The election of these bodies is surely a difference of enormous substance in their constitution and in their character. If the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, will contain himself for a moment, he will get his opportunity, after I have made my point. I see a complete difference between a body which is elected by the ratepayers and which can be thrown out if they are dissatisfied with it, and a body selected by the Minister.
LORD MITCHISON: I need hardly say that I did not say anything else. Not only are the local authorities creatures of Statute, but their duties and finances, and many other things about them, are from time to time regulated by Parliament. In effect, they represent a partnership between Parliament, on the one hand, and the local electors, on the other. There is clearly no dispute about this, and no difference between us. Neither the noble Lord nor I is quite half-witted.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: It is not for me to comment on who is

971
half-witted in this matter. I am glad to have given the noble Lord an opportunity of further comment.
LORD KENNET: If I may back-track for one moment, I feel that we may have produced a misunderstanding about crownhold and private developers. Might there not be confusion in the minds of noble Lords opposite between crownhold in general and concessionary crownhold in particular? If I may outline it again, it is certainly expected that the Land Commission will dispose of land to private developers on crownhold terms. It is not expected that the Land Commission will dispose of land on concessionary crown-hold terms—that is being reserved for housing associations and other bodies.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I should like to study the noble Lord's point in more detail before making a comment on it, but certainly he has given an impression to the Committee different from that given by his right honourable friend in another place. However, we can let this pass and give it some further thought.
I feel that the point I was making is germane to this. I am bound to say that I still feel the same anxiety about developments by the Commission themselves where the Commission decide, in special circumstances, to dispose of property, either by crownhold to private persons or to them as tenants by concessionary crownhold. I feel that the Commission will be in great difficulty in making their choice in a way that is fair and can be seen by the whole community to be fair. I feel strongly that these matters fall on a ground full of the strongest possible feelings. Where a man has waited for years for a house and sees somebody else getting a house from a public authority, he feels angry and suspicious, and nothing will satisfy him except the full publication of just how it was done.
I believe that the noble Lord is giving the Commission a job to do which will be most invidious for them. I do not feel satisfied by what he has told us to-day that enough thought has been given as to how this body will function and deal with this matter. It is a very difficult field. Do not let us imagine that the whole country will be smothered in concessionary crownholds. There will
972
be only a few here and there, and if those few are not allocated in a satisfactory manner, then there really will be trouble: there will be trouble for the Minister, for the Land Commission and for everybody. It is for this reason that I feel that further thought should be given to this matter—and thought which will eventually find its way on to the Statute Book in the form of a regulation.
I should wish to give some flexibility to the Minister. The Amendment, as drafted, "shall prescribe by regulation", is perhaps a little tight. For this reason, I am prepared, if the Committee are willing, to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment now, but with the firm intention of putting it down again on Report stage, with "may" instead of "shall", because I feel most strongly that, although the Minister has given us some answers and some satisfaction to-day, he has not met the substance of the case, and grave doubts remain. Nevertheless, on those terms, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.43 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I do not want to keep the Committee for more than a minute or two, but there is one point which I think can legitimately be put under this clause upon which I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, could give some clarification. In my view, when planning and encouraging the provision of housing it is equally important to plan and encourage the provision of open spaces for sport and recreation. I think this is a self-evident proposition, and it is one that has been put forward many times in debates in your Lordships' House on such subjects as sport and recreation, the countryside and increased leisure.
One thing that has recently inhibited this kind of development has been the enormous price of land. I was hoping, therefore, that possibly under this clause something in the way of concessionary crownhold could be considered for these sports bodies, most of them amateur bodies and without much in the way of financial resources, for the provision of these very needful recreational facilities. To give them their due, the Government

973
have shown an encouraging interest in this kind of development. They have established the Sports Council, and the Sports Council, in turn, have established regional sports councils, and they are at the moment surveying the entire provision of sport and recreation throughout the country. But it will be extremely difficult if high prices have to be paid for the land. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, could throw some light on the question of whether the Land Commission can make land available for recreational purposes, either through the concessionary crownhold method or in some other form.
LORD KENNET: Concessionary crownhold can be used only for land which is to be used for housing. So, unfortunately, one cannot look at it as a means for helping those who are providing playing fields and open spaces. At first blush, one might think that this matter should be left to the operation of the normal subsidies system. But I have looked further into it to see whether the Land Commission Bill can be used in any way for the advantage of those who are interested in this subject.
It would be possible for the Commission to dispose of land on a normal crownhold basis under Clause 17, and to restrict by means of crownhold covenants the use of the land to playing fields. If this happened, the market value of the land would be very substantially reduced. But it must be recognised that such a disposal would, in effect, be a subsidy to such clubs, because the Land Commission would be forgoing the opportunity of betterment at a later date. The Commission, when it comes into existence, may well feel that a subsidy should come direct to the clubs through the Department of Education and Science, who may make available a 50 per cent. grant on the acquisitions of land for these purposes, and that it would be wrong to provide an additional subsidy, in effect, from public funds by means of the Land Commission Act. However, it is clear that if clubs find that they could be helped, and it would be convenient that they should be helped, in this manner, the Bill before the Committee provides a means whereby it can be done. I cannot, of course, commit the Commission to pursuing any such
974
course of action until they have investigated the matter for themselves.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Enforcement of crownhold covenants]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (4), to leave out words from the beginning down to and including "Sasines, the" and to insert "As respects land in Scotland each". The noble Lord said: This Amendment will make subsection (4) read as follows:
"As respects land in Scotland each crown-hold covenant shall be binding upon every successor of the covenant or",
and so on to the end of subsection. The effect of the Amendment is to make all Scottish crownhold covenants binding on successors, and that such covenants must be repeated or validly referred to in any disposition conveying an interest to a successor. The Bill as it stands at present secures this result only in those cases where the disposition has been recorded in the Register of Sasines: and I should say that it is normal practice for such a disposition to be registered it is the safeguard of the purchaser to his title. But it is not right that the Land Commission's security should depend on the recording of a disposition, and it is desirable, therefore, to make it clear in the Bill that the covenant binds successors and must be repeated or validly referred to in all cases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("crownhold") in line 11 and insert ("As respects land in Scotland each").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Notice of breach of crown-hold covenant]:
6.39 p.m.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved to add to subsection (4):
"Provided that a local authority as defined in subsection (6) of section 11 of this Act serving such counter-notice shall, subject to payment to the Commission of compensation equal to the increase in the value of the

975
interest the subject of the said counter-notice which is attributable to the extinguishment of crown-hold covenants to which that interest is subject, be relieved".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is concerned with the new form of crownhold tenure which is introduced by the Bill and about which a good deal has been said this afternoon. It is only concerned with that subject in the relatively restricted field of its application to land acquired by local authorities. Much has been said about local authorities, and I will endeavour not to say any of it again. Your Lordships will recollect that the crownhold tenure is subject to certain covenants which the Bill calls "crownhold covenants", and which are intended to enable the Land Commission to ensure that land is used, generally speaking, for the purpose which was agreed when the crownhold was granted.
The Bill provides that if there should occur a breach of one of these covenants the Commission can repossess the land and remove the crownholder by a relatively simple procedure, which consists of the service of notices, counter notices and ultimately the decision of the county court judge. No doubt the crownhold procedure will enable the Land Commission to ensure that lands granted by the Commission are in fact used for the purpose for which the grant was intended. It provides a very simple and expeditious procedure to ensure that that is so. That may be necessary, and I dare say it is, where the Land Commission are dealing with private individuals. But where you are dealing with a public authority who acquire land for some public purpose, then the position seems to me to be altogether different. The local authority are, after all, a public authority, and they acquire the land for the purpose of carrying out their public duties and responsibilities. I am sure that the Land Commission will not wish to interfere with the discharge of the functions of the local authority and, indeed, so far as the discharge of functions is concerned there are other means of ensuring that they are properly and adequately discharged.
The application of the crownhold covenant to land of that sort seems to me to be entirely out of place. One
976
takes an example. Supposing the local authority acquires land from the Commission for the purpose of constructing a swimming bath. Later, for reasons which are good reasons to the local authority, they decide that a public library would be more useful and acceptable on that particular site. That, I am sure, is the sort of question with which the Land Commission will not desire to interfere. They will not wish to prevent the local authority from making a change of that sort by use of these restrictive covenants.
Accordingly I hope that my Amendment puts the situation of the Land Commission in the right place. In the case of lands acquired from the Commission by a local authority, it provides that these crownhold covenants should not apply. There is really no need for them, as I have pointed out. I hope your Lordships will feel that a restriction of this nature on the exercise of public functions of a public authority is not a desirable thing, and that you will agree that, in the case of crownhold land which may be acquired by a local authority, these crownhold covenants should have no application. Of course, there will be a considerable difference in the value of land when it is subject to the crownhold covenants and the value when the crown-hold covenants have been released. We recognise that, and the Amendment provides for that. It provides that the local authority, in claiming to be free of the obligation under the covenant, must pay compensation amounting to the difference between the value of the land with the crownhold covenant and the value of the land without it. I think that puts the matter fairly and in the interests of both these public bodies, and I hope your Lordships will see your way to agreeing to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 36, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Ilford.)
6.45 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: I feel some difficulty about this Amendment. It does not merely exempt local authorities from penalties for breach of the crownhold covenant. That is what it amounts to where there has been a breach. But if I understood him aright, the noble Lord

977
was claiming that they should never be bound by these covenants. What he wants to do is to give them the choice: they either get the better terms that are conditional on the covenant and keep the covenant or, if they choose, later on they exercise their right and give up the difference between the special terms and ordinary terms and may then break the covenant.
I cannot believe that that is quite the right way of doing it. It gives them a sort of free option but, be that as it may, I wonder whether it is really sound to do this? This benefit is to operate mainly for the benefit of local authorities, for housing associations and for other bodies. For this purpose the housing associations and other bodies are performing a similar function to local authorities, though in a different way and, of course, with differences of structure and the rest of it. But I find it a little rough to allow it in one case and not in the other; and I should have thought that those two cases together comprised the vast majority of cases with which one would have to deal under this Bill.
I have another objection. We are all subject to the law, even local authorities, and it seems to me to be quite reasonable to provide that the question of what should be done on a breach of covenant should be determined by a court. It always has been, so far as I know, and courts do not find it very strange. County courts may find it stranger than the High Court, but I should have thought that it was essentially a judicial function. That is what the Bill provides. What it comes to is this. A local authority can break its covenants with impunity, and no county court can touch it. A housing association, if it breaks its covenants, has to be brought before the county court for adjudication. That does not seem quite right somehow.
LORD ILFORD: I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment in order to try to help him. Of course, a housing authority has only a single function, and the land would be required only for that function.
LORD MITCHISON: I am not so sure about that. There is possibly a
978
difference between the use of land. We were told about swimming baths and libraries, or something of that sort. You may say that that is the same function as building houses, but I am not sure that it is. Be that as it may, I leave it like that. The essential point is that what is sought to be done here is to let the local authorities decide whether or not they will have the benefit of the better terms, with the obligation that that benefit involves, or whether, having taken the benefit, they will pay back the difference and then discharge themselves from the obligations. I cannot think that you should give an option like that. I cannot think it is right in one case to leave a matter of this sort to the courts, and in another case to the local authority itself.
I would say that while of course one realises that local authorities are elected bodies—I think we all realise that; we have all had practical experience of it—housing associations have a certain personal character, too, and one must treat them fairly in a case of this kind. Quite frankly, I prefer the terms of the Bill which leave the whole question to the county court judges and the Ministers who were dealing with this matter in another place, who were able to assure the Committee or the House, as the case may be, that it can be managed from the county court point of view. And why not? We do not want local authorities to be above the law on this point. If I may say so, I think they are a little unwise to suggest it.
LORD KENNET: I am not sure that we have been discussing this Amendment as if it had the effect which it does. The effect of it is that where a local authority had broken a crownhold covenant and the Commission had served on it a notice of breach of covenant, and only then, the Amendment would relieve the local authority of its duties under the crown-hold covenant on payment of compensation.
This seems to me to be a long way round to reach a position which I think was the position the noble Lord intended to aim at, and it was certainly the position discussed at some length in Committee in the House of Commons. The Amendment, which was to Clause 19, would have reached the position there that local authorities would have been

979
entitled to relief from crownhold covenants as of right before they had decided to break them. This Amendment was withdrawn after the Minister had resisted it on the grounds that it was unnecessary. He maintained that it was unnecessary because the Land Commission would always behave responsibly and reasonably where a local authority wanted relief from a covenant in order to carry out development in the public interest.
Moreover, the Commons' Amendment would have involved an elaborate code to settle the compensation payable in this event, possibly with reference to the Lands Tribunal, and so on. So the Opposition Amendment was withdrawn when the Minister promised to consult the local authority associations. This he has done. The only association which showed any interest in reaching this state of affairs was the County Councils Association who, although on balance they would just have preferred something like the Commons' Amendment, nevertheless were content to rest on the assurance given by the Minister in the House of Commons. That is where we stood until the noble Lord put down his Amendment, which has the much more complicated effect of postponing this until the local authority has actually broken the crownhold covenant. In view of that, I do not know whether the noble Lord would feel it appropriate to withdraw the Amendment and possibly look at it again with a view to a simpler one, if he so desires.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think the noble Lord was speaking of the Association of Municipal Corporations and he mentioned that the County Councils Association is still not entirely happy. I have not put down an Amendment on their behalf, but I will consider the matter again, as he suggested.
LORD ILFORD: I am obliged to the noble Lord for having met me thus far, although perhaps it is not very far. However, I have no desire to press this Amendment on the noble Lord or on the Committee, and therefore I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Owner's right to require Commission to elect]:
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"( ) Where a counter-notice under this section states that the Commission propose to acquire the specified land any person entitled to an interest in that land or in part of that land, whether that interest is a material interest or not, may within three months after the date of service of such counter-notice serve on the Commission a notice in the prescribed form requiring the Commission to acquire his interest and unless before the end of the period of twelve months from the date of service of the counter-notice the Commission have entered into a binding contract to purchase such interest the Commission shall before the end of that period prepare in draft a compulsory purchase order for the acquisition of the specified land under this Part of this Act."
The noble Earl said: The Committee will be aware that Clause 22 deals with the right of the owner of property who applies for, and obtains, planning consent for the development of his land to serve on the Commission a notice requiring them to decide whether or not they wish to acquire the land. The owner is given three months from the date of the planning consent in which to serve notice, and in turn the Commission are given three months to reply. If the Commission decide not to acquire the land at once, they are unable to change their minds for the next five years, as I understand the clause. If, on the other hand, they elect to purchase, they must do so either by compulsory purchase order or by entering into a binding contract.
The purpose of this clause is to safeguard the rights of those with a lesser interest in a property than what is defined under this clause as a "material interest". If the Commission enter into a binding contract there appears to be no obligation on them under this Bill to acquire the interest of those with what is known as a lesser interest—say a leaseholder with nineteen years to run. My Amendment would allow all such persons with these interests to require the Commission to acquire their interest at the same time as the major interest. As I understand the Bill, if the Commission use their compulsory purchase powers to acquire the property, these lesser interests are, in fact, safeguarded. It is where they enter into a binding contract on the property that this anomaly occurs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After subsection (3), insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
LORD KENNET: The Amendment proposed for the protection of the holders of minor interests in property purchased by the Commission seems to me to be unnecessary, in that their interests do not need protecting. The clause as it stands is inserted in the Bill in order to enable the owner of land who wishes to develop it, and, of course, has obtained planning permission, to find out what the Commission intend to do before he incurs expenditure on drawing up detailed plans. Only the owner of a material interest can serve the notice because only he can sell the land to the Commission and only he is likely to want to develop it. If the Commission decide to buy by agreement, there is no reason why the owner of any minor interest should have his interest purchased. If the Commission wish to develop the land they will have to buy him out anyway, while if they do not he may remain undisturbed in his enjoyment of his tenancy, or wait for his reversion to fall in, until such time as the Commission do wish to develop. Moreover, if a tenant has an interest greater than twenty years he can serve the notice himself.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. It is perhaps the first time this afternoon that I completely disagree with his argument. However, I will look at his reply and, if need be, put down a further Amendment at the next stage. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27:
General provisions as to betterment levy
27.—(1) A levy, to be called "betterment levy" (in this Act referred to as "levy"), shall, subject to and in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Act, be charged where the development value, or part of the development value, of land is realised on or after the first appointed day.
(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act the development value of any land, or part of that value, shall be taken to be so realised in the cases distinguished as Cases A to F respectively in the following table, and
982
so referred to in the following provisions of this Part of this Act.

TABLE

Case

Description of Case

A.

Where the land is disposed of by way of any such disposition as is mentioned in section 29(1) of this Act which is made on or after the first appointed day.

B.

Where the land is disposed of by way of any such disposition as is mentioned in section 30(1) of this Act which is made on or after the first appointed day.

C.

Where the carrying out of a project of material development of the land is begun on or after the first appointed day.

D.

Where such a right to compensation as is mentioned in section 33(1) of this Act accrues in respect of the land on or after the first appointed day.

E.

Where the land is the subject of any such disposition as is mentioned in section 34(1) of this Act which is made on or after the first appointed day.

F.

On the occurrence on or after the first appointed day of such other acts or events relating to the land as are designated for the purposes of this Case by or under section 35 of this Act.

6.58 p.m.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved to add to the clause:
"( ) No levy shall be chargeable where—

(a) in Cases A, B and E the amount of the consideration for the relevant disposition. in Case C the market value of the relevant interest, or in Case D the amount of the compensation, does not exceed £4.000; and

(b) in Cases A, B and E the grantor, in Case C the owner of the relevant interest, or in Case D the person to whom the right to compensation accrues, is not a body corporate; and

(c) the relevant land or relevant interest, as the case may be, is the principal or only land or interest in land to which such person is entitled."

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to which my noble friends and I attach considerable importance. Nevertheless, I do not think I need take very long in moving it, because the purpose of the Amendment is a simple one. It is to exempt small transactions from the levy. It is to be presumed—or at any rate I presume—that those who take part in small transactions are likely to be mostly small people. I think for that reason alone it is desirable to exempt these small transactions, and also I think, perhaps wrongly, that that would not be offensive even to so unrepentent a

983
Socialist as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. But perhaps he will tell us in due course.
We are not wedded to the figure of £4,000. The reason we have chosen it is that it seems to be a reasonable level, but more particularly it is the level below which estates are, at present at any rate, exempt from estate duty. An Amendment with a similar objective was debated in another place, and the Minister, it seems to me having read his words, was not unsympathetic to the principle, but he made the criticism that that particular Amendment as drafted could lead to abuse by the fragmentation of fairly large properties; in other words, it would be possible for an owner, corporate or otherwise, to sell off plots of land so that in each case the consideration for the individual transaction was under the figure, which was then in that Amendment £5,000. In drafting this Amendment we have attempted to avoid that criticism. It may not be absolutely watertight, but it seems to me that if Her Majesty's Government were to accept the principle of this Amendment it would certainly not be beyond the wit of learned draftsmen to tighten the thing up so that there would not be any risk at all of abuse, or at any rate only a very small one.
Another advantage, to our way of thinking, of having a principle such as this incorporated in the Bill is that presumably small transactions would not bring in a very great deal of levy. On the other hand, they would very likely involve the Land Commission and their staff in a very considerable amount of work which they would not have to face if this Amendment were accepted. I am sure whatever view any of us takes of the merits of the Land Commission we do not want them to be overburdened with work so that they will have difficulty in doing their job properly. So I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government in this Committee will be as sympathetic to the principle of the Amendment as I believe the Minister was in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved,—
Page 32, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Newton.)
LORD MITCHISON: I should like to assist the noble Lord, Lord Newton, as
984
far as I possibly can. I am glad to hear the noble Lord is not wedded to £4,000, because all his friends were wedded to £5,000 in another place, and I am all against political bigamy. Otherwise the language is different, but it was the same Amendment in substance, and the major point put by the Minister was that it left the door wide open to what he called fragmentation; that is to say, splitting up a transaction into a series of transactions each of which would be under £4,000. We can all express our views about how far it is feasible or likely to happen, but I suggest that in a matter of this sort the opinion of the Minister, a responsible Minister who has to operate the Act, is really rather weighty. I should have expected the noble Lord to tell us how fragmentation was going to be avoided, and why this clause was not wide open to fragmentation, but this valuable piece of information he did not vouchsafe to us, and I just wonder what has been happening.
It is politically rather attractive; it looks all right at first sight. You say, "This is in defence of the small man". Sure enough, the noble Lord said it. But there are some naughty men about in land, and it attracts a great many wheezes and devices. While I certainly would not say that all owners of plots of land under a value of £4,000 were rogues, it is possible to have land worth £40,000 and to split it up into ten parts and have the benefit of this clause. Those who, having heard this criticism from the responsible Minister in another place but wish to put this proposal forward as an acceptable proposition here, might at least tell us—and perhaps the noble Lord will—whether they think the Minister was wrong in saying that this leaves the door wide open to evasion or fragmentation, as the case may be, or whether they have any device for preventing it. There is nothing in the language of the Amendment that would save this particular Amendment from the criticism that was made in the other place.
I mention only one other thing. I think one has to be a little chary about fixing on a given point. One is constantly getting it, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is well aware, in financial legislation. If you draw the line at £4,000 you may be very hard on the man who has got a property worth £4,100. That is

985
inevitable. If you are going to do anything about it you usually want some kind of escalation. The noble Lord is fully entitled to say that that is not his business; that ought to be done by the Government draftsman; and I would not differ from him on that matter. I just indicate the point. The major issue is, as the Minister said, that the Amendment opens the door wide to evasion. Noble Lords opposite are dead against evasion—and I mean that; they really are; we are public spirited people trying to do our best for the country. We do not want to encourage that kind of thing. Where a responsible Minister says it opens the door to evasion he must be answered or we cannot accept the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: In spite of what the noble Lord has said, I feel there is more that should be said about this Amendment, and I submit strongly that it provides an opportunity to the Government to improve the Bill. At Second Reading the emphasis was on urban and semi-urban transactions of substantial sums and the prevention of vast profits on sales for development. If there is an insistence upon the levy for small transactions it gives the impression that the intention is different and is much wider. This Amendment will help in several different ways and on both sides. The Land Commission will be saved much costly work and correspondence and investigation in small cases, and it will help those who would otherwise be affected.
Even if the Commission collected the levy on small transactions which are below £4,000, maybe much below it, the expenses on their side may remove any profit or even show a loss. Apart from that, there is the work involved and the cost upon the owners, who may be farmers or occupying owners, or small landowners or bigger landowners; all of those will have extra work of an unproductive nature which will be taking up their time and will take them away from attention to work of a more beneficial nature. The smaller the landowner the less help he will have to deal with this correspondence with the Land Commission, but the bigger the landowner the more forms he already will have to deal with. I think the views of the professional bodies and their criticisms about the extent to which the levy is taken
986
have been made clear. The time of professional managers of land and active landowners and farmers is already fully employed, and better employed, upon all the work which bears continuously upon such people—their own work and, quite likely, local, national and public work; and they already have to give a great deal of time to other forms to do with their business and with employment. I feel that some acknowledgement of this side of the question is due from the Government.
It is difficult to anticipate the operations and the effects of the Bill, but this levy on smaller transactions will, so far as I can see and as my noble friend has just said, fall mainly or largely upon people in the countryside. The application of the levy to small transactions seems to indicate too little effort to understand or to consider the countryside and its economy. There are many aspects of land use and development which are raised by this and other legislation, and the tendency is so much now, both in new legislation and in taxation, to remove the financial resources from the land where this is most needed, with perhaps a deliberate policy of weakening and preventing the countrymen from carrying out their job.
It is said that advisers at high level, with more knowledge of how owners have treated the land and the people on it in central Europe, have a big say in these matters, but are less aware of the care for the land in this country. It should be well known that all the proceeds from sales of farm and forestry land are most urgently needed to be put back into the land, for productivity, equipment, buildings, housing and forestry; and that a common difficulty now is for enough ever to be raised for the necessary expenditure. Sales of farmland will have to pay a levy because of the higher value of the farms, whether the increased value is due to the public or to the proprietor; but no attention is paid to the increased costs on the land in farm buildings, equipment and other things, which are equivalent to the increase in the value of the land.
I should like to remind your Lordships that the best planners and developers in a purely landward area are often the men living on the spot, and I urge that they be encouraged to carry out their local responsibilities as owners of the land and

987
not impeded from doing so. I think that some acknowledgment of these problems is due and I submit that it would be found on both sides that it is desirable to omit small transactions up to whatever sum is chosen, thus simplifying the Bill and avoiding the imposition upon people in the country of much additional paperwork for no evident result.
7.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, puzzled me a little in respect of this Amendment when he said that he did not think my noble friend Lord Newton had dealt with the fragmentation argument. The noble Lord has been most assiduous in reading the Reports of the Committee and subsequent stages in another place, and I am sure that he has been equally assiduous in reading the Amendment that we are in fact debating. I should be grateful, if he saw fit to speak again, if he would give his views upon paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Amendment which seem to me to be designed to meet precisely that point.
As I understood the argument about fragmentation, one form, for instance, which it could take would be that the developer would split up the large project and sell it through individual companies, each of which would own one plot and would thereby, if only paragraph (a) was in the Amendment, escape the levy. But that could not be done, because in paragraph (b) the exemption does not apply where there is a body corporate selling the land or is otherwise involved. Then again, paragraph (c) makes it quite clear that, so far as the transaction is concerned, it must relate to the person concerned and it must be his only piece of land, or his principal piece of land—I suppose that if he had an allotment or something it would not matter.
I am quite sure that these matters were designed in order to avoid fragmentation. But the noble Lord ignored them and did not comment on them at all. In this respect this Amendment is quite different from that moved in another place, for the good reason that, as the noble Lord pointed out, the difficulty was explained about this, and my noble friends have, I think, sought to meet it. Perhaps either the noble Lord, or the noble and learned
988
Lord the Lord Chancellor, who I think is perhaps to reply to this Amendment, would give their views on this.
But then I am also worried about what my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry has said, if it is indeed the case that farm buildings and suchlike are not going to be reflected in the matters which may be taken into account in assessing the base value in Cases A and others like it, because I should have thought that under Part V of Schedule 4, paragraph 42(a), it was precisely matters of this kind which would have been taken into account as improvements and ancillary rights and would therefore have been reflected and added to the base value before the difference between that and the market value was assessed. So again, I think that the Committee might like some clarification of this matter—a very important one indeed.
Perhaps I could just ask, arising out of that—if there is any possibility of getting an answer to-day—why it is, if I am right that improvements on farms and buildings and fixed equipment may be taken into account in assessing what is the base value of the land, that only those which were carried out before the first appointed day are allowed to be brought into account in this respect? It may be that this is dealt with in some other provision of the Bill, but I should have thought that this ought to be a continuing process and one which should rightly be taken into account in the whole process of assessing the levy. I would therefore hope that some further comment upon this, other than a mere reliance on what the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has said, would be given to the Committee before we go any further in this matter.
LORD MITCHISON: I will not take long. What I was talking about was, and is, what the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said when he introduced the Amendment. I do not remember his saying that the two paragraphs, which I have read again, at the end of the Amendment, really made matters much better, and there I agree with him. It just depends on how ingenious you are.
I am perfectly certain that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, if he were morally a much worse person than he actually is and were asked to avoid the levy by the use of this Amendment,

989
would find no difficulty whatever in the process of fragmentation, in spite of the language of the Amendment: a few nominees, trustees and the rest of it, and the thing would be far simpler than many of the really dirty deals that go on in land in London and elsewhere.
May I take the opportunity of saying to the noble Duke that I earnestly hope that this Bill will not only have effect in the countryside but also have effect in the areas around the towns where the sharp rise in land prices has been at its worst and most rapid during recent years. Perhaps he would allow me to say that he has been such a good landlord in relation to the borough that I once represented—he is a neighbour of it—that I would be sorry indeed if he got hit too hard by this. I do not think he will.
7.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): We now have a change of bowling, or perhaps it is batting—I am not sure. This being the first Amendment to Part III of the Bill, perhaps I ought to remind your Lordships that if this Part containing these Schedules had been a separate Bill, the procedure of another place would have required that it should be introduced on a Ways and Means Resolution, so that it would have been a Supply Bill; and if your Lordships were to amend this Part of the Bill and send it to another place, that course would appear to be an infringement of the privileges of the Commons. The only thing I want to add on that point is to stress that this has nothing to do with Party politics, nothing to do with there being a Labour Government. What I have said relates to the relations between the two Houses in circumstances in which one of them has or asserts a privilege. I thought that that consideration ought to be in your Lordships' minds when considering an Amendment to this Part of the Bill.
The Government have considerable sympathy with the views which have been expressed on this Amendment. Nobody really wants the Land Commission to mess about dealing with a large number of very small matters, taking up a lot of administrative work and time and not producing, perhaps, anything which, in the end, is really worthwhile. Of course,
990
there are already to some extent de minimis provisions in the Bill itself. In the first place there is the 10 per cent., which in itself could have a substantial effect; levy is taken only when the amount of development value is more than a tenth of the current use value. This in itself should rule out many very small cases. Then, secondly, so far as the definition of "material development" is concerned, this is, as your Lordships know, wider than that in the 1947 Act and should exempt a wide range of minor development and ensure that levy will be taken only where a substantial amount of development value is realised.
The difficulties about the Amendment are those which have been already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mitchison. It will, I am afraid, enable fragmentation. One must realise that those who are concerned in property (shall I say?) investment, or speculation as one may regard it, are men of intelligence who are not going to pay a levy if they can help it; and if we provide by a clause like this a simple state of affairs when all a man has to do is to sell to his son, or to some man of straw, for an amount which will ensure that he falls within this exception—an amount less than its value—and then he simply resells to another nominee, each of them in turn making sure that they come within the exception, nobody will have to pay the levy at all. We have not at the moment been able to see any way of getting round this. If noble Lords opposite could suggest a clause which was watertight I have no doubt that we should be happy to consider it. But in our view this Amendment, as drafted, would open the door wide to fragmentation and would enable people to limit the consideration and sell for less than a thing is worth to a nominee, then to another nominee—not necessarily a limited company but to an individual—and in this way the thing would be left wide open.
In answer to the question in regard to improvements to farms, such improvements are included in current use value and therefore do not have to be allowed for otherwise. That, I am afraid, is the answer to that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will not press this Amendment, because, for the reasons I have ventured to give, it is not one that I can advise my noble friends to accept.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: We are all obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for intervening to give us the benefit of his wisdom on this Amendment. I think all noble Lords appreciate that this Bill has not been certified as a Money Bill; in fact we have already amended it in certain respects. The fact that this Part, Part III, of the Bill is concerned with a levy which Ministers of another place took great care to assert was not a tax, does not prevent us from examining it and, if we think fit, amending it. It will then go back to another place, and there it is for them to consider what view they take.
LORD MITCHISON: If the noble Lord will allow me, does he agree that if this Part of the Bill stood by itself it would need a Ways and Means Resolution?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: The Lord Chancellor has just said that. I did not think it was necessary for me to repeat it; I thought the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, would have been listening. We are now dealing with an Amendment of an interesting character, because Government spokesmen, both here and in another place, have said that they have much sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment. The purpose, of course, is twofold and I hope the sympathy is extended in both directions.
First, I hope for sympathy with the Land Commission, who could be relieved of a good deal of what I might call unprofitable work, if small transactions could be successfully excluded without fear of evasion. When I say "unprofitable", I do not mean to say that it would not be useful work, but that the net revenue from the levy might well be outweighed by the cost of administration. I presume that that is the reason why, in the case of death duties, whereas when I was first elected to Parliament one paid death duties on any estate over £300, that limit has now been raised to £4,000 or £5,000.I do not suppose that that is due to Treasury generosity. I presume that it was found to be not worth while collecting duty on the small estates, bearing in mind the substantial administrative costs. So far as I am aware, the Government have no particular desire to impose on the Land Commission a great deal of petty work where the product of
992
the levy would, in fact, be completely offset by the administrative task. So up to that point we are at one. I hope that the Government also have sympathy with the genuine small owner. I am not talking about the fragmented owner; I do not think we have any sympathy with him. But in general it is the practice of Parliament to see whether one can temper the cold wind of taxation to people who have no great means and who are not engaged in any very substantial activities.
The task, therefore, is to try to find a plan which would work. I have read the proceedings in Committee in another place, and the principal objection raised by the Minister there, Mr. Willey, was that the Amendment which the Committee in another place were considering was wide open to fragmentation. I rather agree. I have no reproach for Mr. Willey in having taken that point. But the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Newton has moved is not open to the charge of a risk of fragmentation in the same manner; that is to say, the would-be avoider of levy would have to be a great deal more skilful to avoid the provisions of this Amendment than he would have been had another place accepted the Amendment which was there put forward.
I hope that my noble friends will back the idea behind this Amendment, even if it may need in due course certain improvements. There is no sanctity about the figure of £4,000; I should be perfectly prepared to see a lower figure than that written into the Bill. But there must come at some level a point where not only would it not be worth while to try to collect the levy, but it would not even he worth while to try to do the astute fragmentation; the administrative cost which the fragmenter would get into, and the trouble it would involve, would outweigh any advantage from avoiding the levy. I appreciate also that there would need to be some escalator arrangements to shade off the full liability to levy which would arise above £x, while if you were just under £x you would pay no levy. I think the noble and learned Lord will appreciate that this is not something which an Opposition can plan and put into draftsmen's language. That is why the point is not covered here. But we were well aware that something of that kind would be required.

993
I make a strong appeal to the noble and learned Lord and to the Government. We are not just engaged in some kind of obstructive clash. As I say, the spokesmen for the Government in both Houses have now said that they have a good deal of sympathy with what the Opposition are trying to do here. Now can we not make a further effort? Can we not work out a plan? If the noble and learned Lord would say that he accepted in principle, on behalf of the Government, that there should be an exemption for the really small transactions, and that he would be prepared to work out with his right honourable friends, and consulting us if he thought fit, between now and Report stage, something which could be done I should willingly advise my noble friend to withdraw this Amendment. But if we can get no favourable reaction at all, if we simply get a statement that this proposal would leave the Bill too wide open to the abuse of fragmentation, even though the Government have a great deal of sympathy with the purpose which we are trying to achieve, then I think we must, as it were, "cash in" on that sympathy. We must press what we are seeking to do and ask that it is more seriously considered.
But I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord will be prepared to reply that this is so important a matter, and so inherently non-controversial a matter so far as the main purpose of the Bill is concerned, that it would be worth while to make a further effort to see whether the idea behind the Amendment could be so shaped and moulded as to cut out the liability to levy falling on the genuinely small man. That would also relieve the Land Commission of a tremendous amount of work, which I am quite sure the Commission itself, when it is set up, will have no desire to have to perform.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the Government have said throughout that they have sympathy with this. Noble Lords opposite are much cleverer than we are. In another place the Opposition produced an Amendment which they themselves now concede would have left the procedure wide open to abuse. They have now produced one which, while open to abuse, is not so widely open to abuse as the one they produced before. I would
994
encourage them very much to improve on this Amendment, and we can all see whether or not it is possible to find a method which is really practicable, bearing in mind that we have to realise that people do not like paying levies, that they have all got good lawyers, and that if a transaction can be done in such a way, or by such a series of transactions, as will, in fact, relieve of levy somebody who otherwise would have to pay a large amount, they will do it. But I am in no way averse to our all putting our heads together and seeing whether or not a viable way can be found.
LORD NEWTON: Like my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I also should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for giving us the benefit of his wisdom. He said that it represented a change of batting. He has been defending his wicket with just as much determination as his noble friends have heretofore. I do not think there is much point in anyone on this side of the Committee trying to argue any longer the merits of the principle which is enshrined in this Amendment. It is perfectly obvious to me, as I imagine it is to all of your Lordships, that there is considerable sympathy with the principle in the minds of the Government. But they say that, even though my Amendment is not so open to abuse as was the one moved by my honourable friends in another place, it still is open to abuse.
My noble friends and I have no wish at all to make it possible for there to be abuse by fragmentation, and certainly it is no object of this Amendment to help the potential fragmenter. The noble and learned Lord was good enough to encourage us to keep on trying to find a watertight Amendment. I suppose we should be grateful for that compliment. But I take the view that it is really a duty of the Government, with all their resources behind them, to do this. Unless they are prepared to say, as a matter of principle, that they do not think that small transactions should be exempted, then it is up to them to find a way.
LORD MITCHISON: It may be impossible.
LORD NEWTON: That is sometimes said by Ministers or by Governments, when they are not really convinced that

995
they want to go to the trouble to do something. I am sure it would be possible to find a method of achieving this object, or something like it, without there being any risk of abuse. It seems to me that the best way of encouraging the Government to keep on trying about this is not to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: I have listened with considerable interest to this very interesting discussion, and perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words from what might be called a neutral corner. It seems to me that the Opposition have the better end of the battle. I think we all agree that these small transactions should be excluded; first of all, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has said, because otherwise there may be hardship to a large number of small people, and, secondly, because of the administrative burden which will fall upon the Government and those administering the levy. I think that what really broke down in the 1909 Act—the original Land Values Act—was when every property, whatever it might be, had to have a land certificate. Possibly the same argument applied to the Act of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in 1947. If every property, or a large number of properties, will be affected, then the whole system may break down.
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, is right when he talks about fragmentation. If a man had to have a whole series of assignments or conveyances to large numbers of brothers and uncles and so on, the complexities of the scheme would be so great that it would become quite nonsensical. The danger of fragmentation is covered, I think, by the restriction on limited companies in this proposed subsection. That is quite sufficient. Anyway, what is the purpose of legislation? Surely the purpose of legislation is to cover the maximum number of cases; to cover the honest people. If you were never able to put forward any contention, however worthy, because some people, some crooks—not crooks, but smart practitioners—may avoid it, then it seems to me that a large amount of our legislation would never get through at all.
I would remind the Committee that in the case of all transactions affecting the
996
transfer of property, whether freehold or leasehold, there is a Finance Act provision under which a person has to provide a certificate, or give a covenant, saying that it does not form part of a larger transaction or a series of transactions for an amount other than that stated for Stamp Duty. If that has been evolved for Stamp Duty, I do not see why the same sort of clause should not be introduced where the Land Commission provisions obtain. I would suggest that those who are dealing with this matter might look at the provisions concerning the normal conveyance of land, when they will see the clause about the Finance Act certificate.
There is just one other point that I should like to make. Although I am entirely in sympathy with the official Opposition in this—I think they have made an extremely good case, a very sound case—I am rather worried by the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he said that there might be a constitutional issue here. Normally, I do not worry very much about issues with the Commons. I never worry about differing from the House of Commons; and we Liberals have on several occasions recently, as your Lordships know, challenged the House of Commons when the official Opposition have refused to do so. But here is a question about which the House of Commons are particularly sensitive—that is, the question of financial control—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has advised the Committee that this might raise a constitutional issue. He has said that a very difficult circumstance may arise, and that the House of Commons might be right in raising it. On the other occasions to which I have referred, when we forced a vote, I do not think they would have been right in raising a constitutional question; but in this case, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor being of the opinion and advising the Committee that this might raise an important constitutional issue, I think the Committee ought to take that into account very seriously.
LORD CHAMPION: I wonder whether this might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until ten minutes past eight. I am sorry to be squeezing things so much, but we rather hope that when we come back we shall

997
perhaps be able to resume the House for purposes of which the noble Lord will be aware. If we are not able to resume the House, we can take any further speeches on this particular Amendment and, if necessary, a Division. I beg to move that the Committee do now adjourn.
Moved, That the Committee do now adjourn until ten minutes past eight.—(Lord Champion.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: If I am permitted to speak, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Champion, to reconsider his Motion? I would judge that in one way or another our discussions on this Amendment would be completed within five or six minutes. That being so, it seems a pity not to dispose of it. I think it will be rather awkward to come back, after a break, for the Statement and then to return to this Amendment. Ought we not to complete our consideration of it now?
LORD SHEPHERD: We would concede the point that the noble Lord has made on condition that the Committee raises no objection to reassembling at ten minutes past eight.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Why is the Committee going to reassemble at ten minutes past eight, if I may ask the noble Lord? Is it proposed to go on with this Bill then?
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Viscount may be aware that noble Lords on all sides of the House are interested in, are concerned with and are awaiting, a Statement.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: But the noble Lord referred to the Committee.
LORD SHEPHERD: We are now in Committee, are we not? I can therefore address your Lordships only as the Committee. The House itself, of course, is interested, but we are now in Committee. I did not intend to suggest to my noble friend Lord Champion that we should resume the House at this stage, because I did not know whether we should be in a position to make the Statement close to eight o'clock. Therefore, what I suggested to my noble friend was that we should adjourn this Committee stage until about ten minutes past eight so that we could continue Business, if necessary, until such time as we could resume the House
998
to hear the Statement. But if the noble Lord would like this particular point to be dealt with and finished, then, on condition that the Committee reconvenes at ten minutes past eight, I would certainly raise no objection.
LORD CONESFORD: I wonder if I may put one point to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor arising directly out of the point that was put by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I appreciate, I think, that, quite apart from whether or not a Bill is a Money Bill, a particular Amendment may he ignored or resisted by the Commons on the grounds that it affects their privilege. That is quite independent of whether it is a Money Bill. I think I am right in saying that. But does that affect in any way the propriety, if this House so wishes, of our expressing our view on any part of a measure without prejudice at all to what the Commons may think fit to do, in the light of their privileges? I do not know if the noble and learned Lord follows the question I am putting to him, but it is what I should like him to bear in mind in answering the point of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.
The other point on this Amendment that I should like to put to the noble and learned Lord is this. He said in his last speech dealing with this Amendment that, having regard to the sympathy expressed on both sides for the object of this Amendment, he was all in favour of both sides getting together. I think that was something like his own words. What I should like to know is whether that could be understood as meaning that this side of the Committee would have the advantage, perhaps, of the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen; because, if it did mean that, it might make quite a big difference.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am quite willing, of course, to take any course the Committee likes. It looks as though, if anybody wants any dinner at all, we should adjourn—we shall even now have only about twenty minutes—but if the Committee prefers to continue in spite of that fact (and, apart from anything else, there is a constitutional question of some importance here) I am, of course, entirely at the disposal of the Committee. The House, as the Committee knows, may have to resume, as I understand it, at any time after eight.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am reluctant to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I should like to know whether we are to continue to address our remarks to the Motion to adjourn or to the Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: There is a little difficulty about this. Had I known that we were going on to discuss my Motion to this extent, I would long since have withdrawn it, but one does not care to interrupt too much. However, I think that perhaps I ought at this stage to withdraw it in order to get back to the Amendment, so that we might take our Division, and so that we might get some dinner. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know that I can add very much. I have already said, let us all consider this together. I do not know whether I can offer the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen on the constitutional point, which is, of course, of importance. I must make it clear that so far as I am concerned, I am not going to be a party to any amendment of Part III of the Bill because, for the reasons I have explained, if it were sent down to another place it would be an infringement of the privileges of the Commons; and I am not taking part in that. Noble Lords opposite will, of course, do whatever they think fit. There is nothing to prevent this House from not passing a Supply Bill or from taking out part of a Supply Bill. That, as I understand it, would be no infringement of the privileges of the Commons; but amending it would be. That is the position as I see it. It is for that reason that I cannot properly advise the Committee to amend any part of Part III.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble and learned Lord has made a very profound statement, because it appears to me from what he said that even if we have the smallest technical amendment in the wording of this Bill, whether it is considered highly desirable by the Government or not, it is quite impossible to do anything about it if it is in Part III. I do not believe that to be the case. I have looked at the precedent of Lord Silkin's Town and Country Planning Bill of 1947. I find in Part VI, which was the equivalent part
1000
in that Bill of Part III in this one, that this House made no fewer than ten Amendments to the text of the Bill. By what means it was done I do not know. There may be some peculiarly cunning method by which the matter can be amended or by which Amendments can be said to be acceptable by the Government and they are subsequently incorporated in the Bill as returned to another place in some form different from the way in which we normally do it. But I believe it is possible. If it was done in the case of the 1947 Bill, I do not see why it should not be done in the case of this Bill. Moreover, if it cannot be done, it seems that the Government would be at a grave disadvantage if they find some technical amendments that they would like to make. I hope that this constitutional issue is not going to be considered to be overriding in respect of the whole of Part III of the Bill and the relevant Schedules.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is precisely why it did not seem to me a very good point to decide under extreme pressure of time. If the Committee want to decide it under extreme pressure of time we will do that. I should be less than honest if I did not make it quite plain that there are on the Marshalled List Amendments to Part III which I should say, but for this point, I should be prepared to accept. They are mostly Amendments which I do not think anybody can say will make much difference one way or another and about which, in the ordinary way, I should say, "It does not seem to me that this makes much odds and I am prepared to accept them". But I am not prepared to be a party to that which, in my view, would constitute an infringement of the privileges of the Commons if it were sent down to them.
There is some precedent in this matter in that some 35years ago there was a somewhat similar Bill and the House took this course after Amendments. They then at Report stage removed the whole of the Supply part and sent it down to the Commons without that part. That is not an infringement of the privileges of the Commons, as I understand it. But if that course is taken, I do not think there is any reason to suppose that the Commons are likely to

1001
pay any attention to something which officially they cannot see. I really think that this is an issue which all sides of the Committee ought to consider seriously. But if noble Lords opposite would like an immediate Division on it without further discussion, I am prepared to agree to that.
LORD OGMORE: I hope that the noble Lords on the Opposition Benches will not have an immediate Division; because if, after consideration, it were found that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, was wrong—although I think he is right—the Amendment could be put down at a later stage. I think that what the noble and learned Lord has said corresponds with all that I have heard on this practice. I have always understood that you could entirely reject a Bill regarded as a Money Bill but you could not amend it; or, if you did, nothing happened. That is how I have understood the situation. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving us the benefit of his opinion. I think that in this House we should give the Lord Chancellor's opinion on a matter of law such as this the greatest weight; because he is the chief lawyer not only of this House but of the Kingdom.
At the risk of Members getting indigestion, I should like to say that I think it would he ill-advised of us as a Committee to go against the opinion of the Lord Chancellor in a matter of this kind and thus run the risk of very serious conflict with another place who, at the moment, are not too keen on us, anyway. I feel we should not go out of our way as it were, to risk a conflict with them. I beg the Opposition, therefore, not to press this to a Division. I think they have certainly got the best of the argument and I have said so. To do so will put us, who believe in what they said in the merits of the case, in an awkward position. What are we to do on these Benches? I think they are right; but I also think the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, is right in the serious warning he has given the Committee. What are we to do? He said he would not vote. Does that mean that the Lord Chancellor would not vote at all? Does he advise the rest of us not to vote so that there will be a 50–0 vote for the Amendment?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In that case there would be no Division.
LORD OGMORE: There might be a Division. Probably the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, would not agree to its being carried without a Division. If a Division is called for—and that is what we are discussing—does the Lord Chancellor advise those of us who feel as he does on the constitutional issue not to go into the Lobby? Or should we go into the Lobby against the Amendment although we agree with its merits?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should advise noble Lords to vote against the Amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I do not think I can presume to advise the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, how his conscience should lead him in the Division Lobbies this time. I am conscious of being one of the most junior Members of this House, so I feel it presumptuous of myself that I am called to speak on this occasion. But, as it appears to me, the offer that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, made to the Committee some minutes ago, to enter into discussion about this matter, was really stillborn; because if it is inconceivable that this House should amend the Bill, there is really very little purpose in having any discussion about how it should be amended. Indeed, I was very seriously concerned when the noble and learned Lord said that there were some Amendments on the Marshalled List which he would have liked to advise the Committee to accept—presumably because he thinks they will improve the Bill. Yet he felt debarred from so advising the Committee lest that should be an infringement of the privileges of the Commons.
The only way in which I can see that we can now make progress is to bear in mind that this is not the last stage of the Bill in this House. Whatever we do in Committee we are not sending the Bill straight away to another place without considering it on Report and without considering it on Third Reading; and there is opportunity, in the practice of your Lordships' House, to move Amendments even after the Third Reading of the Bill. As an independent judge the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said that the weight of the

1003
argument is on the side of the Opposition, and it seems to me that the right thing is for my noble friend, Lord Newton, not to withdraw his Amendment, but for the Committee to come to a decision on the matter and then, at a later stage of the Bill, to try to thresh out these important constitutional questions.
But let us at this stage, at any rate, do the sensible thing to improve the Bill as we see it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be willing, when the Committee comes to the other Amendments which he thinks will improve the Bill, to allow this Committee to incorporate them in the Bill. It seems to me that this is a practical and common-sense way of proceeding. I said in an earlier stage that I did not think that the Amendment itself contained the seeds of great controversy. I thought the Amendment was to seek to achieve a purpose about which almost everybody was agreed. What we disagreed about was that some noble Lords felt a wholly satisfactory way of achieving this purpose had not yet been discovered. This does not seem to be the normal approach to a major clash between the two Houses of Parliament. That is why I should like modestly to suggest to the Committee that we should, according to our own consciences, record our views on this Amendment, bearing in mind that there are further stages of the Bill before anything has to be reported to another place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I may add this further comment. The position seems to me to be this: either this House sends down Part III of this Bill with Amendments or it does not. If it is going to send it down with Amendments, then—and this view has not, I think, been seriously challenged—this would be an infringement of the privileges of the Commons. If, on the other hand, it is not going to send the Bill down with Amendments, what is the use of taking days in Committee on Amendments which are not going to be sent to the Commons?
I feel, as Lord Chancellor, not exactly, perhaps, as distinct from the Government, but as Speaker of this House, that it is not advantageous to Parliament in any way if there are unnecessary frictions
1004
between the two Houses. We are, after all, a Parliament in which there are two Chambers, and the system will work best if we keep to a minimum the causes of friction between the two Houses. While noble Lords opposite will, of course, at each stage of the Bill take exactly what course they think right, the difficulty I feel is that if we are going to spend days on Amendments which the Commons are not going to see, that seems rather a profitless exercise. On the other hand, if as I understand it, noble Lords opposite do agree that an Amendment to Part III of the Bill sent down to the Commons would constitute an infringement of the privileges of the Commons, is not this a decision of considerable importance?
8.3 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: May I put one point to the Lord Chancellor? I must say that I was under the impression—but I may be quite wrong about the precedents—that quite apart from whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill, the House of Commons might take a view of one of our Amendments that it was an Amendment which they would ignore because they would regard it as a breach of their privilege. But suppose they liked the Amendment. In that case they would not be bound to take that view, would they?
The point I should like to put to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor (I may be absolutely wrong about this) is that I thought there were cases where, though the matter was one where the Commons might say that any insistence on the Amendment would be an infringement of their privilege, they would yet say that they would consider it on the merits. They might even like an Amendment we made. I thought there were precedents where, Amendments having gone to the Commons, no objection was taken to them, even though they were Amendments to which the Commons might have taken objection on the ground of privilege. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor cannot answer that question straight away, I would ask whether he would look into such precedents, because it seems a matter of some importance.
LORD PARGITER: Before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replies, may I put a further point to him?

1005
If an Amendment concerns a matter that is especially within their province, will they consider such an Amendment—never mind the merits of the case—if it comes to them from here? The problems of another place, except on certain matters, are specifically reserved to them, and I should think they would not want to open the door in any way, notwithstanding the merits of what might be put to them. With due respect to the Committee, I do not think it can be done in this way.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I intervene, with great diffidence, only to say this. In point of fact it is for the Commons to decide whether a matter is privileged, not for us. We can send back anything we like. They decide, under the Rulings which are given, and we, of course, have to accept their decision. But I do not think there is anything to prevent us from sending back an Amendment, even if it is going to be ruled as a question of privilege when it gets back to the Commons. There may be advantages in it, because there may be some point which your Lordships' House might think it very important to be made. Even if they know that it is a privilege Amendment, they may want to register a protest or make some point which they regard as vitally important. I myself should have been very reluctant to accept the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that we rule that a subject is privileged to the Commons. It is for them to do that, I think, and not us.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I start with Erskine May, at page 841? It says:
"The right of the Lords to reject a Bill for granting aid and supplies to the Crown has been held to include a right to omit provisions creating charges upon the people when such provisions form a separate subject in a Bill which the Lords are otherwise entitled to amend. The claim of privilege cannot therefore be raised by the Commons regarding amendments to such Bills whereby a whole Clause, or series of Clauses, has been omitted by the Lords which, though relating to a charge and not admitting of amendment, yet concerned a subject separable from the general objects of the Bill. On 30th July 1867 it was very clearly put by Earl Grey and Viscount Ever sleigh that the right of the Lords to omit a Clause which they were unable to amend"—
unable to amend, your Lordships will note—
"relating to a separate subject was equivalent to their right to reject a Bill which they
1006
could not amend without an infraction of the privileges of the Commons."
That is what has been done in the past, and particularly, I think, in a Bill of 1931 which was the last occasion on which it was done: that, having made Amendments, the whole of the offending part of the Bill was then omitted at Report stage; and that is then not an infringement of the privileges of the Commons. The Amendments then do not, as I understand it, get to the Commons. But, of course, Members of the House of Commons can read Hansard, and if the Government like some Amendment which has been moved here there is nothing to prevent them from including it. But I am rather apprehensive that, in the existing state of relations between the two Houses, if we do that which we know constitutes an infringement of the Commons privilege it would not seem to me likely that they would take that course.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I have familiarised myself with the 1931 precedent, and the relevant point arising from that precedent seems to me to be that your Lordships' House did amend the Bill. They did pass a number of Amendments to that Bill, and then at a final stage they moved out the whole of one Part of the Bill in order not to infringe Commons privilege. But the essential point is that they did agree to a number of Amendments to that Bill in Committee, or on Report, and finally they moved out the whole Part.
We are not even at the Report stage of this Bill yet; we are certainly not at the Third Reading; and the 1931 precedent shows that there are direct precedents for amending a Bill of this character, or part of a Bill of this character, on the Committee stage. I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said when he apprehended that we might be wasting our time by considering all these Amendments to Part III of the Bill, as we could not effect changes in that Part directly without infringing Commons privilege. But, while he was speaking, it crossed my mind that the Government themselves had allotted Monday, Tuesday and Thursday of this week, and possibly part of Wednesday too, to further consideration of the Land Commission Bill in Committee.

1007
It seems to me a curious action for the Government to take, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that this would be a complete waste of your Lordships' time. If your Lordships will examine the remainder of the Marshalled List which we have not yet reached, your Lordships will see that practically every Amendment from now on concerns Part III of the Bill. Therefore, I cannot see that we are doing wrong or wasting time if we are occupying days which the Government themselves have allocated to further consideration of the Bill in Committee, and I hope that we
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
[The sitting was suspended at twenty-one minutes past eight and resumed at a quarter to nine.]
On Question, Whether Clause 27, as amended, shall be agreed to?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to take this opportunity to discuss the Amendment which I did not move because it was embraced by the previous Amendment. Perhaps it would be for the benefit of the Committee if I read shortly what the Amendment was in-
shall be able to continue. But having said once again that this is not the final stage of the Bill, and having reminded your Lordships that certainly Bills of this character have been amended in your Lordships' House in Committee on previous occasions, I still have a good deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Newton in not withdrawing his Amendment.
8.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 26) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Daventry, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Dundee, E.

Mowbray & Stourton, L.

Alport, L.

Dundonald, E.

Newton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Auckland, L.

Falkland, V.

Oakshott, L.

Barnby, L.

Fortescue, E.

Redmayne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gage, V.

St. Helens, L.

Brecon, L.

Glendevon, L.

Salisbury, M.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Sandford, L. [Teller.]

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Selkirk, E.

Buccleuch and Queensbury, D.

Harlech, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Carrington, L.

Hastings, L.

Swinton, E.

Coleraine, L.

Holford, L.

Thurlow, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Inglewood, L.

Vivian, L.

Conesford, L.

Killearn, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Congleton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Wolverton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Milverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Kennet, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Burden, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stamp, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Lindgren, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Longford, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strabolgi, L.

Champion, L.

Mitchison, L.

Strang, L.

Crook, L.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Faringdon, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wade, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Phillips, Bs.

Williamson, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Popplewell, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

tended to do. It was to ensure that no levy shall be chargeable in Case E where the amount of consideration for the relevant disposition does not exceed £500. The point at issue is that, as the clause stood, farmers would have found that such dispositions as easements would have attracted the levy. I suggest to the Committee that if Part III of the Bill was returned to the Commons it would be an unworkable situation if the levy should be chargeable on all easements such as electricity pylons, water pipelines, oil pipe-lines, and Post Office telegraph poles. The reason why the levy

1009
should fall on these way leaves is that the amount of levy would not exceed 10 per cent. of the development value.
A further point in favour of the exemption of such small dispositions is that at the present time the statutory bodies have enough trouble with farmers to contend with when they wish to establish a pipeline over the farm, and if the farmers find that such easements, which they do not wish for anyway, are subject to a levy, I would suggest that the risk of shotguns to settle arguments will be vastly increased.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My noble friend Lord Kinnoull has raised a very important point, and it is a great deal more complicated than might appear at first sight. My noble friend was dealing with the position under Case E in Clause 27. Then one looks at what is dealt with in Clauses 34 and 35 and in some of the Schedules which also relate to this matter.
My noble friend has dealt with the case of a pipe-line or a way leave for an electricity line, or something of that nature, being taken across the land. I expect it is the experience of the Committee that this sometimes happens. A pole for the electricity supply may be placed upon your land, and you then have a rent payable by the Electricity Board which is something in the region of less. a year. That, as I understand it, is either the granting of an easement under Clause 34, or, if it is not that, it is one of these rather nondescript dispositions which will attract levy in certain circumstances under Case F, which is Clause 35. There is a sort of "catch all" provision in Clause 35(3) which deals with precisely the sort of words my noble friend was dealing with.
First of all, I think it would be extremely interesting, although it may not strictly arise on this clause, to know what the difference will be in the type of easement about which my noble friend was talking where it occurs under Clause 34, and equally the sort which will occur under Clause 35. Clause 35 was put in as an Amendment in another place in order to replace a general provision which previously appeared in the Bill.
The matter is taken really to a degree of absurdity when we get to the effect of
1010
notification of this sort of easement, because this is really the point. I do not imagine that there is going to be a great deal of development value realised by the grant of an easement of a pole at a rent of 1s. 0d. per year. Nevertheless, the whole calculation has to be gone through, and if it should turn out that there should be a penny development value realised then this has a subsequent effect, because again it is in Part V of Schedule 4, and it will be seen there, under paragraph 42(c) that where there is a payment of any consideration for a disposition which constituted a "chargeable act or event" falling within Case E, that is going to be one of the matters to be taken into account towards the reduction of the gap between the two values upon which levy will subsequently be assessed. One shilling may be a ridiculous figure to take, but the difference that would be involved may nevertheless be there. I have no doubt that this particular part of Schedule 4, dealing with expenditure on improvements and ancillary rights, does not deal with anything that now occurs in the Case F provisions, because I expect they will be dealt with under the regulations made under the clause itself.
I have no doubt that similar set-offs will occur upon a subsequent disposition, taking account of the sort of matter with which my noble friend was dealing. This is all very complicated, and I rather think that there may, on some occasions, be still more complications. If there is some small matter of this sort it seems to me that the Government may well consider—and perhaps we will leave out the constitutional issue at this moment—whether here again under Cases E and F there ought not to be a minimum below which neither notification nor levy is dealt with at all under the Bill.
If that were the case, surely it would relieve the Land Commission of an enormous amount of administrative expense. I believe it will do no harm whatever to the grantee, who is the person, I believe, who notifies in the event of a Case E disposition taking place. I cannot believe it will seriously affect his position under the ancillary rights provisions in Schedule 4 which are brought back, of course, into the main provisions of the Bill itself. If we are able to accept this point on the main provisions which

1011
have been decided already, then here again I think my noble friend has raised a most useful point which ought to be considered as a corollary to the matter we have just been talking about. Therefore I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be equally sympathetic to this point. Of course it is not an Amendment, but I hope he will endeavour to see whether he can include this matter in his kind offer of assistance (if it be necessary) to try to draft a suitable Amendment for the next stage of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is in substance the subject matter of the manuscript Amendment which the noble Earl put down. The offer which I made was to consider something together with noble Lords opposite. This was rejected and the matter was put to a Division. I do not think noble Lords opposite, after I made that offer and they had rejected and spurned it and insisted on going to a Division, can expect me to take the same attitude on what is really exactly the same point. As I understand it, the object of the Amendment would be to prevent the Commission from taking levy when development value is raised by the grant or release of an easement or the release of a restrictive covenant when the consideration was less than £500. These particular transactions constitute chargeable acts or events only when they are notified by the person who pays the consideration—and he will notify only when he wants to claim the amount of the consideration he is paid on a later chargeable act or event—let us say when he is paid for development value.
There are two difficulties, I would suggest, in this context. First, if someone has realised development value there seems no reason why he should not pay the levy, particularly if it is as substantial an amount as £500; and, secondly, one is in the same difficulty on the question of avoidance, because a developer could pay £500 each for a series of easements on neighbouring property with a suitable friendly arrangement with the owner of that property so that when he came to develop he did not have to pay any levy, as the whole of the development value he would otherwise be liable to pay would have been paid away in return for the easements.
1012
So far as way leaves are concerned, they may or may not be easements; the great majority of them probably will not involve any development value and would not in fact be notified. The laying of a cable or overhead line can sterilise land for development and the payment then made can be the whole of the development value in a plot of land; and in those cases, though they may be few, there would seem to be no reason why substantial development value should escape merely because it is paid in those circumstances.
My general answer would have been the same as before if we had all agreed that we would think about this and see whether we could find a practical answer. But noble Lords opposite rejected that offer and insisted on dividing. What they do in relation to further Amendments is, of course, entirely a matter for them.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble and learned Lord has been very good in explaining this particular matter, which is by no means simple. But would he not agree that, quite regardless of whatever view the House or anywhere else may take about Amendments we may make, if, as he said, it is up to the person, I think the grantee, to decide whether or not he wishes to notify in all the cases which fall under E—and I suspect, when it comes to the point, under F as well, because they are very similar in son-le respects—there can be very little harm done if on the occasions when the consideration is very small there is neither notification nor any substantial set-off thereafter in the subsequent disposition; otherwise the matter would he taken into consideration for his benefit. He has to choose; either he notifies and then takes the result of the notification for his own benefit, or he does not. Where the matter is a very small sum indeed, it is perfectly true he can notify. It may turn out to be £25, and later on he can take the benefit of the £25 if he subsequently sells the land or disposes of the easement. But why burden the Land Commission with dealing with these interminable affairs for £25? Surely the time and the work of the civil servants is going to be a great deal better used if they are dealing with substantial matters rather than these very small matters.

1013
Will the noble and learned Lord not agree that if it is, in fact, a matter of choice whether or not you notify, then presumably everybody, to be safe, will notify, and the whole rigmarole will have to be gone through? The Land Commission will have to deal with it upon the full basis of valuation as set out in the clause and the Schedule, and also keep a record of that against the day when the matter comes up again and has to be resurrected and dealt with all over again. I would suggest this matter ought to be considered again.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are two observations I would make about that. The first is that noble Lords opposite, who conduct themselves properly, probably do not realise how many people there are who, without being criminals, will use every device they can to avoid paying tax if they can evade it. They do not break the law. It may be said that therefore they cannot be criticised. A section of the Bar consists of tax counsel who do nothing but tax matters, and who, most of the time, are devising some means by which somebody may quite lawfully and properly so arrange things that he does not have to pay some tax which otherwise he would have to pay.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think this is a matter of some importance. That would be avoidance, not evasion, would it not?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That would be avoidance, and of course perfectly lawful, if you can find a way round. Such citizens cannot be criticised, although whatever Government is in power has to raise a certain amount of revenue; and if "A" avoids paying what, in common with other citizens, he was intended to pay, then it means that the other citizens have to pay more. Some people regard that as not being highly moral, knowing that the other citizens will have to pay more. On the other hand, some say, and are entitled to say, "If I pay a lawyer a lot of money which other citizens do not take the trouble to do, and as a result my lawyer has found a way of getting round the obvious intention of the Act which imposes this tax, I am quite entitled to do so".
But noble Lords opposite are, if I may say so, so highly principled that
1014
perhaps they do not always realise that, in imposing a levy of this kind, one has to see that there are not a lot of loopholes which gentlemen of the kind to whom I have referred can find a way through. Our difficulty about this proposed Amendment, as it was about the last one, is that it is, in our view, open to considerable abuse.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, agreed to.
House resumed.

RHODESIA
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, perhaps I should make an apology to the House, if some apology is needed, but I have not received a copy of the Prime Minister's Statement. I have been in touch with the Prime Minister during the evening. I apologise to the House, but I am afraid I must ask the House to continue with existing business until the Statement arrives.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, in that case I think that, instead of going back into Committee and starting on a fresh Amendment, it would be better if the House adjourned during pleasure.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, my only difficulty in this matter is that of getting the Members back when the Statement arrives. I hope there will not be any difficulty about this. I will, of course, do the best I can to see that everybody is informed. I therefore beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed at a quarter past nine.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is making in another place. I should like to offer an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and to the noble Lord, Lord

1015
Ogmore, acting Leader of the Liberals, for not being able to supply them, according to our usual custom, with an advance copy. I think the House will understand the circumstances, and will perhaps forgive me if at times I read it with less than complete assurance.
The Prime Minister said:
"Since my announcement of April 27 that informal talks were to be held the House has been extremely patient and has recognised my inability to give information on the progress of the talks which it had agreed would be confidential. The time has now come when the House must be put in full possession of the facts as they now stand, more than seven months after Mr. Smith indicated to the Governor his desire to engage in informal talks.
"Altogether three series of talks were held in London and Salisbury at official level before the first visit of my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary to Salisbury with my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General in September. These talks were mainly directed to two main issues.
"First, the method and conditions of a return to legal and Constitutional rule in Rhodesia, and the determination of the question with whom official negotiations could subsequently take place. Second, an informal exploration in detail of Constitutional problems to see what amendments would be needed to the 1961 Constitution to give effect to the Principles which had been the basis of discussions with the legal Rhodesian Government up to November 11, 1965.
"Practically the whole of the discussion during this period was on the problem of an ultimate constitutional settlement, though the representatives of Her Majesty's Government made it plain at the outset and repeatedly warned that a settlement would have to be reached on the problem of a return to legality and that before independence could be granted a fair and free test of Rhodesian public opinion would have to be carried out under a constitutional government. Mr. Smith through his officials insisted on discussing the constitutional proposals first,
1016
indicating that he needed to be satisfied about the ultimate constitutional settlement before being ready to discuss what he regarded as a purely procedural matter of the return to constitutional rule. We insisted that before any settlement could be reached both issues would need to be dealt with.
"By the time of the visit of my right honourable friends in September no progress had been made in the constitutional talks. Nor indeed, though my right honourable friends' visit was extremely useful in informing a wide section of Rhodesian political opinion of our requirements and proposals for a settlement, was there any advance whatsoever on either the constitutional settlement or on the conditions for a return to legality.
"Mr. Smith and his colleagues were left in no doubt of our intention to act within the terms of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers'Communiqué, or about the fact that while adequate time remained for a settlement if the will was there, the programme envisaged in the Communiqué did not admit of unlimited time or of wasted time.
"It was not in fact until my right honourable friend again took the initiative in visiting Salisbury on November 25 to November 27, just as we were getting very near the operation of the timetable of which Mr. Smith had been informed, that any signs of movement were detected.
"My right honourable friend returned with a report indicating for the first time a real possibility that a satisfactory agreement might be reached on the Constitutional issues which would give full guaranteed effect to the Six Principles on which we insisted. The report also indicated, very much for the first time, some sign of movement on the question of return to legality. Mr. Smith had, in fact, indicated that he was prepared to consider returning to the legal 1961 Constitution if a satisfactory Constitutional settlement could be agreed. Mr. Smith said in fact to my right honourable friend that, given a satisfactory solution, he would be prepared to consider surrendering what he called his independence by returning to the legal 1961 Constitution—provided that a

1017
satisfactory Constitutional settlement I could be agreed.
"Despite all disappointments—and I can put it no higher—of every round of discussions, which we, and indeed our predecessors, have had with Mr. Smith and his colleagues, the Government decided that before we finally had to report to the House, with all the consequences that would ensue, that there was no prospect of an agreement, one last effort should be made.
"Accordingly, last Tuesday, Mr. Smith was informed that my friends and I would be prepared to meet him on the clear understanding that the purpose of such a meeting would be to reach a final settlement, if it proved possible to reach agreement both on the terms of a Constitutional settlement and on satisfactory arrangements for the return to legality. He was informed that I"—
that is, the Prime Minister—
"should have full powers for this purpose, and that it was essential that Mr. Smith should have similar powers, and should be authorised to reach a final agreement, if the basis for a settlement were seen to exist.
"As the House knows, we met him, and the Governor of Rhodesia, who was accompanied by the Chief Justice, for two days of intensive talks in H.M.S. 'Tiger' at the end of last week.
"I will not weary the House with the successive twists and turns of these discussions, but their outcome was that we both signed at midnight on Saturday a working document setting out in detail all the essentials for a settlement. On the amendments necessary to the 1961 Constitution which would be required to give effect to the Six Principles, we reached complete agreement. As honourable Members will see when the White Paper is available later this evening, the requirements of the Six Principles have been met in full with effective Constitutional and external guarantees.
"On the return to Constitutional rule, again, the document set out in detail what is required. A programme envisages that an Order in Council would be made immediately to give
1018
the Governor the constitutional powers required for setting up an interim Government. He would then have appointed a broad-based interim Government, to be headed by Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith and I indeed agreed, subject to a condition which he laid down which I will come to later, possible names for the five non-Rhodesian Front Ministers, European and African, to be included in this interim Administration. The existing Legislature would have been dissolved and the Governor would have exercised full legislative authority. During this period the test of acceptability under the fifth principle would then have been carried out and, provided it had been completed, fresh elections would have been held not later than four months from the date of restoration of Constitutional rule.
"Agreement was also reached, again in detail, about the procedure, as distinct from the timing, of testing the acceptability of the proposals for an independence Constitution to the Rhodesian people as a whole. This was to be done by Royal Commission to be appointed by the British Government, after consultation with the new Rhodesian Government. Censorship would have been lifted and freedom of political association and activity on democratic lines would have been permitted. We agreed also on a procedure to give effect to the requirement laid down in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers'Communiqué for the release of political detainees. A judicial tribunal was to have been appointed by the legal Rhodesian Government, but including a British representative nominated by the Lord Chancellor, to consider the detention and restriction of persons on security grounds. Such detention and restriction would only have been authorised if the tribunal were satisfied that the persons concerned had committed, or had incited the committing of, acts of violence or intimidation.
"It was agreed that if as a result of the Report of the Royal Commission the British Government were satisfied that the proposed Constitutional settlement was acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole immediate effect would be given to it

1019
by legislation we undertook to introduce in this House, the Agreement to he further underwritten by a Treaty binding both of us to maintain the Constitution. This Treaty, as I explained to Mr. Smith, would be registered, as we are required to register it, with the United Nations. And any breach of this Treaty, such as a coup d'état, either by European or by African extremists, would entitle, indeed require, us to seek from the United Nations mandatory sanctions, under Chapter 7, not necessarily confined to economic sanctions.
"If as a result of the Report of the Royal Commission the British Government decided that the proposed Constitution was not acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, there would still have been a legal Government with whom we could have explored alternative new proposals for an Independence Constitution.
"After all that has happened, the House will understand my anxiety that in these circumstances Mr. Smith would once again illegally declare independence. Nor did Mr. Smith's reply to my expression of anxiety do anything to dispel my suspicions. This would mean that while we had ended the sanctions—as we were ready to do this week if Rhodesia returned to Constitutional rule—he might once again return to illegality, an easier operation, he might think, than the reimposition of sanctions. I thought it right in these circumstances to leave him in no doubt that if this were to happen we would go immediately and without any preliminaries to the United Nations for effective mandatory sanctions. Equally I thought it right to warn him that in conditions of a second U.D.I. he could no longer in all circumstances count on, still less abuse, the assurance I had given before the first declaration that we would in any circumstances not use force, for example to reinforce economic sanctions. And in the condition envisaged in the breach of the Treaty to which I have just referred, including a possible coup d'état, equally we would not have considered ourselves bound by our earlier pledge that force would never be used.
1020
"Mr. Speaker"—
said the Prime Minister—
"by 5 p.m. last Saturday it was open to Mr.Smith to sign an Agreement covering all the issues, providing for an immediate return to Constitutional rule, the immediate unwinding of our sanctions provisions, and the urgent initiation of all the procedures leading to Independence on terms which would have no hesitation in recommending to this House as fully implementing all the Six Principles, and that of the guarantees, internal and external, that this House has the right to demand and as equally implementing the terms of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Communiqué.
Mr. Smith, who had throughout indicated his willingness, within the authority he had been given, to reach agreement on the terms of an appropriate Independence Constitution, continued, as he had every right to do, to reserve his position on two points related to the return to Constitutional rule.
"First, while he was prepared to discuss the procedures for an immediate return to legality—which he had told my right honourable friend a week earlier he was prepared to consider—he had yet to make up his mind whether he could accept a situation in which he gave up his independence with only the hope and not the certainty that the Independence Constitution we had agreed would be shown by the Royal Commission to be acceptable to the Rhodesian people as a whole.
"While he was confident that it was acceptable there was, he felt, the possibility that the final verdict might go against him. He continued to insist that the illegal Government should continue, sanctions being lifted, until he knew where he stood as a result of the Royal Commission report.
"I told him that a fair and convincing test of acceptability would be quite impossible in circumstances where an illegal régime was possessed of emergency powers and executive control including broadcasting and television, and that we were not prepared to grant even interim recognition which he demanded particularly since it was clear that, if the verdict went against him,

1021
he would insist on maintaining his present illegal powers indefinitely. No British Government and few, if any, honourable Gentlemen, could have agreed to such a proposal.
"Equally, though we discussed in great detail the composition of the broad-based Government, including the outgoing as well as the incoming personalities, he said that he had not yet accepted the principle that a broad-based Government should be created.
"It was understood that, having the document as a whole now before him, he would inform me whether it was acceptable in its entirety or not.
"However, after a delay of some hours Mr. Smith informed me that he had no authority whatsoever from his colleagues to give his agreement on either of these two proposals, or even to commend our agreed working document to his colleagues. Knowing his difficulties—and I did not under-rate them—I agreed that instead of reaching a final settlement, which I had authority to do—and understood that he had come on the same basis—he should return to Salisbury without any commitment on his part either to sign the document as a whole, or even to agree to recommend it to his colleagues. It was therefore agreed that the documents should be considered both by the British Government and by Mr. Smith and his colleagues, on the clear understanding that it must be accepted or rejected as a whole, and a straight answer given, 'Yes' or 'No' by this morning. It was therefore understood and agreed that there could be no question of further amendment of the document which expressed clearly a decision on the Principles and issues of policy which have been discussed time and time and time again between the British Government and the Rhodesians for many months—indeed many of them for years—and which could not, as we both agreed, be 'fluffed' by any form of words which sought to evade that decision.
"Before he returned to Salisbury, Mr. Smith in the presence of the Governor was left in no doubt about the consequences of any refusal or failure to accept the document. He was told that the consequences set out
1022
in paragraphs 10A and 10B of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Communiqué—on the conditions laid down in those paragraphs—would be set in motion. He was told what this would mean for Rhodesia, and of the immense dangers for Africa and even more widely, if he and his régime whose claim to legality has not been recognised by a single country in the world, insisted in continuing on a course which has earned the condemnation of practically the whole of mankind. He was left in no doubt about the action which we would take, and which would be taken internationally. Equally he was left in no doubt about our resolve—however long it might take—to bring to an end a situation which when he created it he said would be a nine-days' wonder.
"The House knows Her Majesty's Government announced yesterday their acceptance in its entirety of the document Mr. Smith and I worked out. This evening the House will have heard with sadness that it has been rejected by Mr.Smith and his colleagues. They have confirmed that they insist on maintaining their illegality until, in conditions in which no free expression of Rhodesian opinion would be possible, a Royal Commission has reported and Independence has been granted.
"They have announced that they have accepted the principal changes in the 1961 Constitution set out in the document as a basis for Independence. Their refusal to accept the settlement as a whole stems from their insistence on their refusal to return to legality unless they themselves can remain in power while the agreed Constitutional settlement is being tested by Rhodesian opinion. The implications of this are obvious. And no one in this House would be ready to accept these implications. If reports from Rhodesia are correct, they have also rejected any concept of sharing power with representatives even of a wider section of Rhodesian European opinion, and have rejected the proposal that two respected Africans should become part of the interim broad-based Government that we have proposed.
"At least the House—and Mr Speaker the world—have been left in no doubt about the issues which are at

1023
stake, after all that has happened since last Thursday. It is clear that power for its own sake and the insistence on retaining that power in the hands of a small unrepresentative minority have dictated the outcome.
"I believe it was right to try to reach a settlement which we could defend consistently with the principles we have proclaimed and with our honourboth in this House and before the bar of world opinion. No one—including many in Rhodesia who have previously put their trust in that group of men—could condone their refusal to accept the settlement which would have provided for them an honourable way out of the situation the illegal régime created. For us to have accepted what they were demanding would have been a betrayal of the principles on which our own democracy is based. It would have been unacceptable not only to the British Government and to this House but also to the multiracial Commonwealth as a whole and to the United Nations.
"When my right honourable friends and I decided to hold this parley, we knew that some might say we were mistaken. I believe that we were justified in what we did. The fact that the hand we proffered has been rejected does not alter my conviction. From that rejection certain inevitable consequences must now follow in accordance with the programme that we agreed with our Commonwealth colleagues in September. Mr. Smith was clearly warned of this in terms he clearly understood. He knew that we, the British Government, and this House, were not prepared to suffer the destruction of our principles—or of the Commonwealth—for the sake of safeguarding from world opinion the actions of a small and irresponsible minority.
"My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be flying to New York to-morrow to take personal charge, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, of the actions which must follow in the United Nations. My noble friend Lord Caradon has been instructed to ask for an early meeting of the Security Council.
1024
"I regret to have had to present this report to the House. I believe we could have done no more."
My Lords, that concludes the Prime Minister's Statement.
9.34 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think there will be the greatest disappointment in all quarters of the House at the news that the noble Earl the Leader of the House has read out to us. It appeared at one time that it might be possible to reach an agreement, and it seems tragic that it has been impossible to do so even at this late hour. I think it is impossible for anybody who has listened to the very complicated and detailed Statement that the noble Earl has read out to grasp it all, and I do not suppose it would be any use asking questions of the Leader of the House, since he must be in nearly the same position as we are, at any rate as regards the Statement.
But I would say two things: first, that though we have read only what has appeared on the tape outside your Lordships' House, there are a number of questions which arise as a result of what Mr. Smith is reported on the tape to have said which do not seem to be entirely in agreement with the Statement which the noble Earl has given the House this evening, and we shall have to ask later on about that. Secondly, I think I must say now, and say quite categorically, that certainly we on this side of the House do not accept as either inevitable or desirable the next steps which the noble Earl the Leader of the House has outlined that the Government are going to take.
We shall obviously want an early debate on this subject. I understand that it was originally suggested that we should have this debate on Wednesday. I imagine that there will be a White Paper which your Lordships will be able to study—I do not know whether I am right in assuming that—but presumably it would be a White Paper of some length and of some complexity. I do not know whether I speak for my noble friends behind me, but I have a feeling that it would be better if we did not have our debate on Wednesday, but that we postponed it for a day. After all, this is quite late on Monday night, and we could have two days in which to reflect upon what has happened, and start the

1025
debate on Thursday. I therefore ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he would be prepared to agree to that.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for reading out this long Statement to us. It is with very heavy hearts that we on these Benches have heard this Statement of the breakdown of the negotiations and there being no agreement. I entirely agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that this is not the right time to ask a number of questions, and I do not propose to do so. I will restrain myself until we come to the debate. I also agree with the noble Lord that Wednesday would give far too short a time for us to be properly prepared. We have to consult our colleagues, and we have to study the whole question; not only what has happened in the past, but the proposed action by the Government in the future. For these reasons, I should like to ask that the debate be postponed until Thursday.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for the reserve they have shown. I hope that when we debate these matters I shall be able to clear away some of the difficulties, if not perhaps all of them. After consultation with my colleagues, I entirely agree that Thursday would be a better day than Wednesday, so I would suggest that, subject to arrangements through the usual channels, we make our plans in terms of a debate about Rhodesia on Thursday.
9.38 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure this is a very sad moment for all of us, whatever views we have formerly expressed on this subject, for I cannot but think that there are innumerable people in this country who will regard it, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said, as a great disaster if the Prime Minister takes the step which is now envisaged of submitting this problem to the United Nations. I have the impression from the Statement which the noble Earl read out that the Prime Minister believes his attitude to have been a generous one. I am afraid it gave me the impression of the terms which would be properly imposed upon a beaten
1026
enemy. That is the impression it made on me and which I think it will make on many other people. It is one of the things which I think will embitter the situation and make a settlement now even more difficult. It is a very melancholy outlook, and on that we are all agreed.
I do not propose to say anything more about it to-day, because we are to have another opportunity. I concur most heartily in what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said about having a debate on Thursday if possible, instead of Wednesday, so as to give us time to assimilate what we have heard.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of what has been said, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he is aware that many of us take the view that the Prime Minister has leaned over backwards to reach an agreement with Mr. Smith, and we should be disappointed if, after the rejection of these very reasonable terms, the Government were not to take this issue to the United Nations, in view of the categorical promise which the Government made to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. We recognise the seriousness of this position, but we shall lose the confidence not only of Africa but of the world if we do not maintain the principles which are included in the Statement which has been read.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether it was his understanding that when we last discussed this matter in the House the Government undertook that Parliament should debate any recourse to the United Nations before the Government made a decision to submit the matter to the United Nations? Is it not possible, before the action which is proposed in the Statement is taken, which is in fact to-morrow, for a full Parliamentary debate to take place? Secondly, does the noble Earl realise that one of the problems of the last few days has been an attempt to produce against time an answer to what I regard as an almost insoluble problem, and in view of the fact that we are going to be with this problem for many months to come, for better or for worse, would it not be wise to give the Government and the Opposition, and I the country in general, a breathing space

1027
before the final decision and actions are taken?
Finally, may I ask the Minister whether he realises that once recourse has been had to the United Nations any chance of any reaction against the Smith régime within Rhodesia is at an end, and the only hope that remains, some of us will think, of averting a catastrophe there will have gone?
9.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if I may say so, each of the noble Lords who has spoken is, of course, specially well qualified to address your Lordships on this subject. The noble Marquess, if I may say so, leans rather far to one side in this argument and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, leans in the other direction. I feel that we have tried to pursue a middle course. I do not think anybody could deny that the Prime Minister has laboured with phenomenal spirit to bring about a settlement. I think the noble Marquess could not deny the energy and initiative that the Prime Minister has shown in this matter. Then we are told that these terms were not the terms that could be offered to a country which had illegally declared its independence. Frankly, I feel that that is something we must discuss when we come to the debate, but not this evening. However, I should like to assure the noble Marquess that, with his championship of the rule of law over many years, I should have been surprised if he had felt inclined to treat an illegal régime in a different way.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, has shown a great independence of mind, apart from his long background of knowledge, and one must pay special attention to his views. I feel rather that the House as a whole would regard a careful consideration of the issues, including any White Paper, as more important than an attempt to organise a debate, as it were, to-morrow, and the balance of advantage, as I think the noble Marquess recognised, seems to lie in favour of a debate on Thursday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, could not action be held for just two days, until after the debate?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, perhaps I could pick up a point
1028
mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. He asked whether some promise had been given that there would be a full Parliamentary discussion before this matter was taken to the United Nations. I am afraid that I have not the precise date or reference when the Prime Minister indicated in the House of Commons that he would certainly do all in his power to make certain no irrevocable decision was taken at the United Nations, but certain steps had to be taken if the machinery was to be set in motion, and in that sense it must go forward to the United Nations now.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, if the Foreign Secretary is sent off, and if a meeting of the Security Council is summoned, would not the matter then pass out of the hands and the control of the Government—because it will not rest with the Government to decide what action the United Nations and Security Council will take'? Is it not only common sense, and as this Parliament in this country is responsible, is it not the bounden duty of the Government, to delay any action with the United Nations—it is only, after all, Thursday—until Parliament has had a chance of expressing an opinion?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said just now and refer the House, including the noble Earl, to the statement of the Prime Minister about irrevocable decisions. With great respect to the noble Earl and others who feel like him, I would point out that we are approaching a deadline. We have in fact delayed action beyond the point when many of our supporters might have wished action to be taken. These things have to be borne in mind.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not wish to press the noble Earl, but he said there was a pledge that Parliament would be allowed to debate it before "irrevocable" steps are taken. What is an irrevocable step in this case? Is it not irrevocable that the Foreign Secretary should bring this matter before the Security Council?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, as I say, I had better refer the noble Lord to the Prime Minister's Statement in another place. Perhaps I might add that the White Paper, Proposals for Settlement, is now available, and I think it right to draw the attention of the House to that.
LORD CARRINGTON: With great respect to the noble Earl, he is not answering my question. What is an "irrevocable" step? If, as the Chief Whip says, sitting in his seat, it is moving a motion, is not the Foreign Secretary going to do precisely that to-morrow?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I do not know about references to the Chief Whip—he seems to be lying in his seat, rather than sitting. I think he was speaking informally. I do not know whether one can define an "irrevocable" step, but the noble Lord is well aware of the proceedings in the United Nations, and we cannot do more than return to the Statement of the Prime Minister about that.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, is it not a fact that all that appeared in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Cornmuniqué was that action would be taken in the Security Council before the end of the year and is it not a fact that the Security Council can be summoned into session at any time and is not dependent on the Assembly?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, is particularly well informed about the proceedings in the Security Council. But if action is to be taken before the end of the year one cannot delay very much longer.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, are we really being told that a delay of two or three days is going to make all that difference, in face of a step which might prove utterly disastrous in the long run: that we cannot, particularly after what the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has said, delay the matter three or four days? Are we being told that?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble Lord must be a little more generous to the realities of the situation. It was generally understood, and I think Mr. Smith was informed (though I do not know that a public pledge was given), that we would proceed to the United Nations on November 30 if agreement had not been reached. In fact we have delayed for the best part of a week since then, so I hope that the House will recognise that we have been quite long-suffering.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, we have been very gentle with the noble Earl
1030
the Leader of the House, and I absolutely recognise his difficulties. But the Prime Minister, as I understand it, gave a pledge that no irrevocable steps would be taken before Parliament had had an opportunity of discussing the matter. Surely one could not say that after the Foreign Secretary has been to the United Nations and, as I understand, moved a resolution, that is not an irrevocable step. How could it be withdrawn if the Foreign Secretary has moved a resolution? Surely this is really a sham.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think we had better see what steps the Foreign Secretary takes when he arrives in the United Nations. But so far as the House is concerned, we are here prepared to debate these matters at any time. Do not let anybody suggest that we are delaying. If noble Lords insist on a debate to-morrow they can have it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the difficulty of having it tomorrow is that we shall not have all the facts of the White Paper. We are asking for the minimum period after that. Surely it is not long to consider an issue of this importance. One gets a distinct impression that the Government do not really care whether Parliament discusses it or not.
LORD SORENSEN: Shame!
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Marquess's observations have been greeted, at any rate from my side, with cries of "Shame!" If those observations had not flowed from the noble Marquess, I would have joined in that form of tribute. As it is, I hope that we shall listen to him, as I know we shall, with great interest when the debate arrives.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does the noble Earl recollect that during the war, when matters were very urgent indeed, our Prime Minister found it possible to pay the greatest respect to Parliament? Does he really think that respect is being paid to Parliament if, on what I admit freely to the noble Earl is a most difficult issue, the Prime Minister takes a step that is quite irrevocable before Parliament has had time to express its opinion upon it?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I always salute the noble Lord's reminiscences of the war-time Government, because he is the only member who resigned from it, and that I think does him great credit. But as regards a debate, we can have one to-morrow if the noble Lord wishes it.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not wish to be unreasonable about this, and I hope that the noble Earl will not be unreasonable. It would be totally unreasonable. After all, there have been seven months of negotiations in regard to which the House has been kept absolutely in the dark. None of us knows what was done in these seven months. I think it would really he most unreasonable to ask Parliament to discuss this matter at a moment's notice. I think the noble Earl would agree about that. But he will also agree that we on this side of the House feel quite strongly that a pledge was made. I hope that he will be good enough to convey to the Prime Minister that we feel rather strongly about this, and that there is a way in which our wishes can be met.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, that is an entirely reasonable request, and I will make sure that the
1032
strong feelings, of which there has been evidence on the other side of the House, are conveyed to the Prime Minister to-morrow morning.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, for the sake of the record, did the noble Earl say that the Foreign Secretary was leaving to-morrow morning? In that case, we should have to debate the matter to-night.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not quite follow the logic of that, because, after all, however fast he moves, he cannot take irrevocable steps in New York if he leaves to-morrow morning.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl was offering a debate to-morrow. It would be quite useless from the point of meeting us over our having a debate before the Foreign Secretary leaves.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think I have made my point and I am sure that the House would not benefit from its being made again.
House adjourned at one minute before ten o'clock.