Sitting of 19 May 1966

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

    Plastics (Duties)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that British plastics going into America pay a 40 per cent. duty, whereas American plastics coming to Great Britain only pay a 10 per cent. duty; and since America has a favourable trade balance with this country of about £250 million a year, if he will take steps to make these duties equal; and if he will make a statement.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): The Government are at present engaged on the Kennedy Round of tariff negotiations in the G.A.T.T., in which their object is to secure a general reduction of tariffs on a reciprocal basis. While these negotiations are in progress we cannot consider a unilateral increase in our duties on plastics.
    Sir C. Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a general reduction under the Kennedy Round will not help us at all? Will he tell the American Government that unless they reduce their tariffs to our levels we can never obtain the dollars with which to pay for the American goods that they want to sell us?
    Mr. Jay: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's objections, but experience shows that we make most progress by multilateral negotiations.

    Cotton Board (Future)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the
    1522
    fact that the Cotton Board was created during the depression, if he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to replace it by a textile board that will include wool, man-made fibres and the hosiery industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jay: A review of the future of the Cotton Board is now in progress; and I hope that this will result in the formation of a body whose scope and functions will be more adapted to present-day conditions. The wool and hosiery industries were invited to participate in this review, but they declined.
    Sir C. Osborne: In view of the fact that man-made fibres are generally taking the place of the old-fashioned cotton and wool, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the Board will include representatives of the man-made fibres industry, so as to be more effectively representative of the whole trade?
    Mr. Jay: Yes. I hope that it will be possible quite shortly to reach agreement on an authority with a good deal wider scope than the previous one.

    Film Distribution (Monopolies Commission's Report)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the report of the Monopolies Commission on Film Distribution.
    Mr. Jay: I expect to receive this report within the next two or three months.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend know that the British film industry is in a very bad way? Will he express the view to the Commission that the sooner it can get out its report the better?
    Mr. Jay: I await its report with interest.

    Garda Trust
    Mr. Whitakerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set up an inquiry under Section 165 of the Companies Act to investigate the fraudulent conduct arising from the operation of the Garda Trust.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): No, Sir. The facts in this case are sufficiently known and the scheme has, I understand, been terminated.
    Mr. Whitaker: In view of the fact that solicitors who engage in similar practices are disciplined and expelled from their profession, can my hon. Friend explain why this matter does not fall within Section 20 of the Larceny Act? What steps will he take to see that no other directors are enriching themselves at the expense of the shareholders in their companies without consulting those shareholders?
    Mr. Mason: As the House has been informed, my right hon. Friend is considering what provision may be included in the Companies Bill about schemes of this kind.

    Import Surcharge (Norway)
    Mr. Martenasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations the Government have received this year from Norway about the import surcharge; what replies have been sent; and what has been the effect of the surcharge on trade between Great Britain and Norway.
    Mr. Jay: The Norwegian Minister of Trade raised this question with me in the course of discussions held in February and April, when I reassured him about the temporary nature of the charge. Since then my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that it will lapse at the end of November. Our imports from Norway have continued to rise since the charge was imposed.
    Mr. Marten: Is not one of the side-effects of the imposition of a surcharge to stimulate intra-Scandinavian trade between Norway, Denmark and Sweden, at the expense of British trade with Scandinavia?
    Mr. Jay: I see no sign of that on the figures. Our trade with each Scandinavian country has continued to increase.
    Mr. Barber: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one consequence of the prior announcement of the ending of the surcharge to which he has referred will be artificially to reduce the level of imports for the period between now and the autumn, and in the period immediately thereafter to cause a flood of imports?
    Mr. Jay: That also applied to the reduction we made a year ago, but it turned out not to have a very substantial effect.

    Catalogues (Import Duty)
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the President of the Board of Trade why import duty and the temporary surchage on imports are not charged in respect of imported catalogues mailed direct from overseas by a foreign firm to individual addressees in the United Kingdom to the order of a United Kingdom firm.
    Mr. Mason: Import duties have never been charged on single copies of trade catalogues and similar publications sent by post to individual addressees, primarily because the cost and difficulty of collecting the negligible amounts of duty payable on each package would be prohibitive.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman look at this question again? Is he aware that the import of catalogues, gift coupons and such things is now reaching substation proportions, and that British printers have to pay duty on imported paper, and that this therefore represents increasingly unfair competition against the British printing industry?
    Mr. Mason: We are always prepared to consider representations from representative bodies on this matter, but it seems a lot to ask that every individual catalogue should be checked. It would be uneconomical.

    Manufacturers (Inducements to Retailers)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the practice of manufacturers whereby retailers are offered financial inducements to stock the manufacturers' products in preference to those of their competitors, to the detriment of the public's range of choice and the operation of competition and the forces of demand; and if he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to deal with this problem.
    Mr. Jay: I am aware that some manufacturers promote sales by offering various inducements to retailers, but I have no evidence to suggest that this practice operates against the public interest; and I do not think that Government intervention is called for.
    Mr. Iremonger: How can the right hon. Gentleman pretend that this does not

    1525
    operate against the public interest? It is surely obvious. Competition is not between retailers who can give the best value for money but between retailers and manufacturers who can devise the most cunning and crude methods of sales techniques.
    Mr. Jay: The Molony Committee considered this and took a different view. I should hestitate to disagree with that Committee.

    Packages (Labelling)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to compel traders to label packages with an indication of the price per pound or ounce, instead of indicating the price for an odd quantity, which makes it more difficult for the consumer to assess comparative value for money as between one product And another.
    Mr. Jay: I see no grounds for a general requirement of this kind.

    Company Law
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he now has for the introduction of legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Jenkins Committee on the reform of company law.
    Mr. Jay: A Companies Bill is being prepared for introduction in the present Session if time is available, and, if not, for introduction in the next Session.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: May we have an assurance that the Bill will be a considerable improvement on the miserable affair that the right hon. Gentleman introduced in the last Parliament and that it will take account of the Jenkins Committee's representations? Does not he agree that such a Bill would be far more urgent a contribution to industrial efficiency than such irrelevancies as the nationalisation of steel?
    Mr. Jay: As we now have a better Parliament, with a bigger Government majority, there is a logical case for a bigger and better Bill.
    Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my hon. Friend's Question. How does it come about that, before
    1526
    the election, the Government considered that company legislation was more urgent than steel nationalisation whereas now the latter is to have priority?
    Mr. Jay: For the reason I have given—that, in this better Parliament, there is a place for a better Bill and that it takes a little time to prepare.

    Research Buildings (Investment Grants)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will alter the proposed system of investment incentives to enable buildings used for research, such as high altitude test chambers, to qualify for investment grants.
    Mr. Jay: Buildings will not be eligible for grants under Part I of the Industrial Development Bill, but expenditure on buildings used for scientific research will continue to receive the special 100 per cent. tax write-off allowance. In addition, buildings in Development Areas will be eligible for grants at 25 per cent. or 35 per cent. where employment is provided. I am advised that high altitude test chambers normally include some element which would be regarded as plant or machinery, and this would qualify for investment grant.
    Mr. Campbell: Should not this kind of investment receive high priority in any incentive system? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making all parts of such investment in research eligible?
    Mr. Jay: It already receives 100 per cent. write-off and I think that that is very favourable treatment.

    Blackpool and the Fylde Coast
    Mr. Blakerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will designate Blackpool and the Fylde coast as a development area.
    Mr. Jay: The economic circumstances of this area do not justify adding it to the proposed development areas.
    Mr. Blaker: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unemployment rate in the area, even at this time of the year, is very much above the national average and that, in my constituency, a

    1527
    very large factory, with over 1 million square feet of space, has been empty for some time? Does not this give the area at least as good a claim to be a development area as many other places which are already so scheduled?
    Mr. Jay: I agree that the area has an unemployment rate rather above the national average, but it is not high enough to justify full development area concessions. It does, however, justify an easy I.D.C. policy for the area.

    Pitch Fibre Pipes Limited, West Hartlepool
    Mr. Ted Leadbitterasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he is aware that a number of investors in Pitch Fibre Pipes Limited, West Hartlepool, responded to statements by the chairman of the company and that those statements were based on the fact of Board of Trade grants and loans; and in view of the rapid deterioration of the company's financial position and of the fact that shares were bought on the basis of 20s. per share, giving a return of 5s. per share, and information supplied to him by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools suggesting that some shares changed hands at £3 and more each, he will set up an inquiry into the affairs of the company under section 165(b) of the Companies Act 1948, inasmuch as the company has acted in a manner oppressive of its members;
    (2) Why the fullest investigation was not made by the Board of Trade Advisory Committee into the application of Pitch Fibre Pipes Limited, West Hartlepool, for a grant and loan totalling £235,000; and, in view of losses suffered by investors and the early deterioration of the firm's financial position in West Hartlepool, whether he is now satisfied that the Board of Trade Advisory Committee had all the facts before it before the grant and loan were made.
    Mr. Jay: On present information I am satisfied that the Board of Trade would not be justified in appointing an inspector under Section 165(b) of the Companies Act, 1948, to investigate the affairs of Pitch Fibre Pipes Limited. I am also satisfied that, before the Board of Trade Advisory Committee recommended a loan under Section 4 of the Local Employment Act, it carried out a full investigation into the relevant facts.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there is concern and suspicion in my constituency about this matter? Does not he agree that it is regrettable that so many investors have lost large sums of money and that the Board of Trade refused to take steps to avoid this? Is not he further aware that the company had very limited experience in the manufacture of these products and that, when the public loan was made, it only had £200 nominal capital while the chairman had only one 5s. share? Will my hon. Friend consider an inquiry into the Board of Trade Advisory Committee?
    Mr. Jay: I see no grounds for suspicion in this case. The Board of Trade Advisory Committee is always being urged to act more quickly and to take risks. If it does take risks, it must occasionally be prepared to accept them. No public money has been lost.
    Mr. Leadbitter: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Shipowners (Credit Facilities)
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek to arrange credit facilities for British shipowners building at home equal to those for foreign shipowners building in British yards; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mason: Credit facilities in respect of building by United Kingdom shipowners in United Kingdom yards is one of the subjects dealt with by the Geddes Committee. I have at present no statement to make.
    Mr. Mills: Does not the Minister of State agree that the present arrangements are placing British shipowners at a disadvantage and encouraging them to build abroad?
    Mr. Mason: No, Sir.
    Mr. Mills: Why not?
    Mr. Mason: Because the British shipowners must fight in competitive markets. If they are to match international freight rates, they must buy in the cheapest

    1529
    market and must take into account price, delivery date, speed of building and design, which are almost as important as credit facilities.

    Development Areas (Publicly-owned Industries)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made with his plans for the creation of new publicly-owned industries in development areas, especially in mining areas likely to suffer from pit closures.
    Mr. Jay: A large number of publicly-owned factories, advance and otherwise, are now being built in development districts; and new publicly-owned industrial estates are being developed and existing estates extended.
    Mr. Hamilton: Why does my right hon. Friend continually refuse to answer the Question, which relates to publicly-owned industries and not to factories? Does he recall that the Prime Minister, before the 1964 election, made a speech in Liverpool committing the Labour Party to publicly-owned industries in the development areas? When will my right hon. Friend be able to come to the House and say that such industries are to be established?
    Mr. Jay: If my hon. Friend wants literally new publicly-owned industries, much wider legislation will be required. If he is thinking of projects in which the public may participate, the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation shortly to come into existence will help.
    Sir C. Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)? [HON. MEMBERS:"Why?"] Because publicly-owned businesses so far have lost money and paid no taxes from profits to help maintain the Welfare State.
    Mr. Jay: More than £100 million worth of factory space is now owned by the Board of Trade in these areas. Practically all of it is occupied, and that should satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), if not the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne).
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not the point raised by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) one reason why my right hon. Friend might give this further consideration?
    Mr. Barber: Can the right hon. Gentleman say clearly and unequivocally that it is not his intention to create new publicly-owned industries?
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir.

    Greenhill Industrial Estate, Coatbridge (Slag Heap)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will exercise his powers under the Local Employment Act to clear the slag heap at Greenhill Industrial Estate, Coatbridge, for the purpose of further industrial development.
    Mr. Jay: There is land in or near Coatbridge available for substantial industrial development. There is no necessity for me to acquire this particular site.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the area has more than twice the national average of unemployment and that, in addition, it is expected that in the next few years several hundred men will be out of work because of closure of obsolescent industries? Will he therefore go ahead and develop the site?
    Mr. Jay: From the point of view of employment it is not additional sites that are needed but more firms to occupy existing sites. The local authority has power to clear sites for other reasons.

    Watch and Clock Industry
    Mr. Turtonasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to protect the British watch and clock industry from the recent increase in subsidised imports of watches and clocks from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Mr. Jay: Imports of these items from the Soviet Union are limited by quota; and despite the increase in the quota for watches in 1966, represent a very small fraction of the total imports of clocks and watches.
    Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this, bearing in mind that the British watch and clock

    1531
    industry has always been regarded as of strategic importance? In the last two years, these imports from Russia have increased by 50 per cent. and our adverse trade balance with Russia has got much worse.
    Mr. Jay: I am not inclined to increase this quota while our trade balance with Russia remains as it is. But these imports are a very small fraction of the total imports and an even smaller fraction of total consumption, so they have very little effect on prices.

    Development Area Projects (Grants)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the President of the Board of Trade whether projects started after 17th January, 1966, in the proposed development areas, not previously development districts, will qualify for grants under the legislation to replace the Local Employment Acts only if they are not completed by the coming into force of that legislation.
    Mr. Jay: Yes. Projects in these places which are completed before the legislation comes into force will not qualify for building grants and grants under Section 4 of the 1960 Act.
    Mr. Campbell: Since no one can be certain when this legislation will be passed, has not the effect of this been to delay development rather than to encourage it in these areas?
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir. These areas were not development districts before and I have no power to make grants under the old Act to areas which were not develop-districts under that Act. That would have been so in any case.

    Trade Fair, Oslo (Minister's Visit)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his visit to the trade fair in Oslo with special reference to the prospects of increasing trade, industry and cultural intercourse between Scotland and Scandinavia.
    Mr. Jay: I have every hope that the British Fair and Fortnight in Oslo, which was most successful both in attendance and initial orders, will lead to a further increase in our trade with Norway and indeed with the other Scandinavian
    1532
    countries. Scotland with its traditional links with Scandinavia should be well placed to share in any such increase.
    Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Minister for that answer, may I ask him to specify the particular industries which are common to both countries and which may benefit north-east Scotland in general, and Aberdeen in particular, as a result of increasing trade?
    Mr. Jay: Forestry is one of those industries common to both countries, but I think that one of the Scottish exports which will certainly benefit is woollen goods.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Having regard to the import surcharge, was not the right hon. Gentleman extremely tactless to accuse the Norwegians of being in breach of the spirit of the E.F.T.A. agreement?
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he is always defending every country except his own.

    Guarantees and Contracts (Exclusion Clauses)
    Mr. Carter-Jonesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to prevent exclusion clauses in guarantees and contracts for the sales of goods.
    Mr. Mason: I am in sympathy with my hon. Friend's general aim, but restraint on exclusion clauses is a complex matter which is to be studied in a wider context by a working party which the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission are setting up. I would prefer not to prejudge this study by piecemeal legislation.

    Import Quotas
    Mr. Biffenasked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for import quotas when the surcharge is revoked.
    Mr. Jay: None, Sir.
    Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable disquiet about the intentions of the British Government regarding import quotas, as evidenced by the latest international economic review of the First National Bank of Chicago? Can he allay these fears by asserting that it would

    1533
    be an index of the Government's failure if they were obliged to introduce import quotas this year?
    Mr. Jay: The best way to allay these fears would be to continue the increase in exports which we have seen this year.
    Mr. Barber: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that when the surcharge is discontinued it will not be followed by import quotas?
    Mr. Jay: That is an excellent example of a hypothetical question.
    Mr. Sheldon: Does my right hon. Friend rot agree that at present imports are much too high and that when the surcharge is finally removed they may be higher than the economy can readily withstand? Would he not further agree that it is time that we introduced into the balance of payments situation some measure of certainty?
    Mr. Jay: The best way to restore the balance is by expanding exports rather than by restricting imports.

    Trade with Latin America
    Mr. Buchananasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent Her Majesty's Government participate in the furthering of trade with Latin America.
    Mr. Mason: All the Government's usual services to exporters are available for trade with Latin America, and exporters to that area receive the same assistance from my Department as exporters trading to any other part of the world.
    Mr. Buchanan: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that some manufacturers' associations complain that exports to that particular area are being hampered by a lack of sympathy and credit facilities on the part of the Government? Would my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will give every help and assistance to exporters?
    Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, we have already set up a Committee for Exports to Latin America. This is stimulating interest among people in this country in the possibilities of trade with Latin America. At this moment
    1534
    50 per cent. of the trade with Latin America is covered by E.C.G.D. credit facilities.
    Mr. Bessell: In view of the considerable expansion of trade from Japan and West Germany with Latin America, is this matter receiving priority? If not, will it receive urgent attention, because I think that it is true that we are losing a considerable amount of potential trade with that part of the world?
    Mr. Mason: It is very much in the forefront of our minds.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister co-operating with the arms salesman, in order to export arms to South America, and if so, is he co-operating with the United States of America, and what do they think of this?
    Mr. Mason: That is an entirely different question from that on the Order Paper.

    Consumer Protection
    Mr. Goodhartasked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for protecting consumers by introducing legislation during the present Session.
    Mr. Jay: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) on 2nd May.
    Mr. Goodhart: Is the President aware that that means that the Labour Government will not have introduced any important consumer legislation in the first three years of their life? Why has consumer legislation been downgraded and why has the Consumer Bill been dropped?
    Mr. Jay: We intend to introduce this legislation as soon as possible.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government spokesman in the other place yesterday gave an assurance that this legislation would be brought forward this Session?
    Mr. Jay: If that was said it was perfectly valid.

    Crystal Palace (Industrial Exhibition Centre)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the President of the Board of Trade when work will begin on the proposed National Industrial Exhibition centre at Crystal Palace.
    Mr. Jay: I am considering this project with the Greater London Council and others concerned as a matter of urgency. A decision whether to proceed with it will be taken as soon as possible.
    Mr. Goodhart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the consultations between Greater London Council and the Confederation of British Industry have been moving very well? Can he assure the House that a decision will be announced before the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Jay: I am very anxious to do so. The only obstacle is the cost. If we can get the cost within a reasonable limit I hope that it will be possible to proceed.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that one of the finest forms of a national industrial exhibitions centre is one which floats? Is he aware that one of the reasons why the Japanese have been so successful in capturing trade in South America, to which he was refering earlier, is because they have used this technique? Will he consider this?
    Mr. Jay: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but there are two views on this subject.

    New Industries, Galloway
    Mr. Brewisasked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for local employment grants he has received in the last year from new industries wishing to start manufacturing establishments in Galloway.
    Mr. Jay: None, Sir, for new projects in the financial year 1965–66. But 17 applications were received in that year from firms already in the area: and offers of assistance were made to 10 projects, two of them new.
    Mr. Brewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Galloway has probably the lowest proportion of manufacturing industry in the country—only 14 per cent.? Would he redouble his efforts to
    1536
    bring manufacturing industry there in view of depopulation and unemployment?
    Mr. Jay: I fully agree that there is a great need in this area.

    Export Officers (Recruitment)
    Mr. Moonmanasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will specify the main sources of recruitment of export officers.
    Mr. Jay: These officers are established civil servants who have entered the Service through the Civil Service Commission.
    Mr. Moonman: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the recruitment of these officers, and that they include people with a sufficient range of experience of market research and other sales techniques? From what he has said this would not appear to be the case.
    Mr. Jay: On the whole, experience suggests that this is the best method of recruiting. I would not argue that it should never be reviewed.
    Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that recruitment is satisfactory, in the sense that the officers concerned compare favourably with their counterparts in other countries?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. I think that is so, but it would no doubt require a very detailed review to prove it absolutely. From the information I have, I would certainly say that this is so.

    Mines, Scotland (Manpower)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been made to him concerning the difficulties of the National Coal Board in recruiting sufficient manpower in Scotland to man developing mines; and what reply he gave.
    Mr. Jay: None, Sir.
    Mr. Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports in the Scottish Press to the effect that the National Coal Board has made representations to the appropriate Government Departments on this matter? Can he give an assurance that the Board of Trade and other Government Departments will not cease in their

    1537
    efforts to diversify industrial opportunities in Fife and other mining areas?
    Mr. Jay: The representations I am conscious of having received from the Coal Board are to the effect that new employment is needed in these areas.

    Advance Factory, Blaenau Ffestiniog
    Mr. William Edwardsasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress made in building the advance factory allocated to Blaenau Ffestiniog in November, 1964.
    Mr. Jay: Purchase of the site for this factory, and the substantial extension required by the company to which it has been allocated, was not completed until March this year. If the company signs the agreement to lease in the near future, construction can begin within about 10 days of signature. The factory will then take about seven months to complete.
    Mr. Edwards: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no further delay in building this factory, bearing in mind the increase in the number of advance factories now being built in Wales?
    Mr. Jay: Yes. So far as we are concerned, we are now awaiting a reply from the firm.

    Bottled and Canned Beers
    Mr. Rhodesasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will introduce regulations so that bottled and canned beers are sold in future only in pints and half pints; and whether he will make a statement;
    (2) whether he will introduce regulations to ensure that in future the quantity of beer sold in cans is indicated on the label of the container.
    Mr. Mason: The Weights and Measures Act already requires closed containers of beer to be marked with an indication of quantity unless they contain less than three fluid ounces or more than one gallon. I have no evidence at present to suggest that it would be desirable to provide also that they should contain only pints and half pints.
    Mr. Rhodes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the trade in general is selling this
    1538
    liquid in containers of 19 1/3rd and 9 2/3rd. fluid ozs. which is different from the standardised pint and half-pint of 20 and 10 fluid ozs. respectively? Is it not time that consumers were protected by having this liquid sold in quantities popularly understood in order to stop this diminishing pint?
    Mr. Mason: If evidence were forthcoming of a wide variation in the quantities in which prepacked beer is packed, or of a significant variation from the present quantities, consideration would have to be given to presenting an Order in the House.

    Ships, Aberdeen Harbour (Collision)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if be will make a statement about the collision in Aberdeen Harbour on 1st May between the tanker "Pass of Kildrummy" and the seine-netter "Boy David", indicating how it occurred, the damage done, and the compensation involved.
    Mr. Mason: At 5.45 p.m. on 2nd May, the tanker "Pass of Kildrummy" while manoeuvring out of Aberdeen Harbour scraped against the jetty and came into contact with the fishing vessel "Boy David" which as a result sustained damage to her mast and part of her guard rail. I understand the damage caused to the tanker and the jetty was very slight. The question of compensation is a matter for the parties involved.
    Mr. Hughes: Can my hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to avoid similar unhappy incidents of this kind?
    Mr. Mason: I cannot see that my body mass is sufficient to prevent collisions of this kind.

    Scottish Shipyards (Orders)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the loss of potential shipping orders to Scottish yards through the shortage of skilled labour.
    Mr. Mason: Scottish yards with full order books have not been willing to compete for some business on offer, but I cannot estimate how many further orders would have been taken if skilled labour were not scarce.

    Close Companies (Liquidation)
    Mr. Weatherillasked the President of the Board of Trade how many close companies have gone into liquidation since 1st January, 1966; and how these figures compare with the first quarter of 1965.
    Mr. Jay: Separate statistics of the liquidation of close companies are not available.
    Mr. Weatherill: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there have been a very large number of liquidations and that these result directly from the provisions of the last Finance Act? Would not he also agree that the only crime which these companies appear to have committed is to have risked their own capital rather than that of a rather anonymous number of shareholders, that this is not a crime, and that they should be encouraged rather than put out of business?
    Mr. Jay: Without statistics, I cannot judge whether that is true or not.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Could the right hon. Gentleman say why there are no statistics available?
    Mr. Jay: Not without notice. But I gather that they have never yet been collected.
    Mr. Barnett: Is it not a fact that the majority of such liquidations are in property and investment companies and not in normal trading companies?

    Privately-owned Limited Liability Companies
    Mr. Weatherillasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the reduction of the number of privately-owned limited liability companies and their replacement by partnerships of unlimited status.
    Mr. Jay: Her Majesty's Government consider that incorporation with limited liability is a privilege which carries obligations to the public, and intend to provide in the Companies Bill that all limited companies should file their accounts with the Registrar of Companies, and thus make them available for public inspection. It would be open
    1540
    to companies valuing privacy above limited liability to reregister as unlimited or to wind up and carry on as partnerships.
    Mr. Weatherill: Does not the President of the Board of Trade recognise that the status of limited liability has been a very great benefit to British industry over the past 100 years and that very many of these companies are now having to go into unlimited liability, which is very difficult for them? Should not they be encouraged to retain their limited liability status?
    Mr. Jay: There is a strong case for saying that a company should choose between limited liability, on the one hand, and privacy, on the other.

    Overseas Trade Accounts
    Mr Biffenasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the average number of working days after the end of the month before the publication of the Overseas Trade Accounts for the period January-April for 1963, 1964, and 1965, respectively.
    Mr. Jay: Eighteen and a half, 18¼ and 21.
    Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figure of 21 refers to a period when these statistics were produced by a computer? Is it not extraordinary, not only that less information is available since these statistics were computerised, but that it takes longer to produce them? Incidentally, the trade figures are usually pretty indifferent, anyway.
    Mr. Jay: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. The provisional trade figures, which are usually popularly known as the trade figures, are now being published three days earlier than before and in much greater detail as a result of the installation of the computer.

    Employment, South Wales
    Mr. Abseasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the programme of advance factories announced to be built in South Wales and the present employment opportunities known to become available do not meet the need for employment caused by

    1541
    changes in the mining and steel industries and what further action he intends taking to stimulate creation of the 65,000 new jobs required within the next five years.
    Mr. Jay: The programme of seven advance factories of 130,000 sq. ft. which I announced on 9th May is only one of the measures being taken to create alternative employment opportunities in South Wales. I shall continue to use my powers under the Local Employment Acts to assist the provision of new employment in the area.
    Mr. Abse: Is my right hon. Friend aware that well-informed opinion in South Wales believes that there is a yawning gap between the expected jobs as at this time, including those provided by the advance factories, and those coming into existence as a result of the drift from mining and the fact that we have a high-cost mining area threatened by low-cost fuel? Would my right hon. Friend give a clear pronouncement on what could be done?
    Mr. Jay: I have gone into these facts and figures very closely on the spot, as my hon. Friend knows. I think that his anxieties are exaggerated, but if he should prove correct we shall take further action.
    Mr. Bob Brown: In view of the fact that there are publicly-owned factories awaiting tenants, would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that publicly-owned industries filled them?
    Mr. Jay: There are, I am happy to say, very few factories awaiting tenants in South Wales or elsewhere.

    Industrial Development Certificates, South Wales
    Mr. Abseasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of present and projected decline in South Wales of employment in the mining and steel industries, he will now review the present practice of using industrial development certificates in order to ensure that their issue reflects the growing need in the area for job opportunities.
    Mr. Jay: The needs of the areas affected by changes in the steel and coalmining industries are and will be taken
    1542
    fully into account in administering the i.d.c control.
    Mr. Abse: Will my right hon. Friend seek to use tougher measures in view of the apprehensions caused by the well-known over-manning of the steel industry and the fact that 14 per cent. of the employment in mining was lost in one year—last year?
    Mr. Jay: The facts which my hon. Friend adduces are among the reasons why we have both extended the development areas in South Wales and announced a further advance factory programme.
    Mr. E. Rowlands: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the present boundaries of the development area in South Wales and include possibly Cardiff and other potential growth points?
    Mr. Jay: No. I think that the present boundaries are right—that is, the widened boundaries which we propose under the powers in the Industrial Development Bill.

    South African Products (Preference)
    Mr. Whitakerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will seek to withdraw Imperial preference benefits from the products of South Africa as soon as possible.
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir.
    Mr. Whitaker: Does not the Board of Trade think it disgraceful that a country which is continually violating our sanctions against Rhodesia continues to receive preference benefit whereas other countries which are observing them do not?
    Mr. Jay: I do not think that it is for us to declare unilateral sanctions against South Africa.
    Mr. Barber: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to increase trade between this country and South Africa as much as possible?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, apart from the trade in armaments.
    Mr. Rankin: Since South Africa is outside the Commonwealth, why should she enjoy Commonwealth preferences?
    Mr. Jay: So are Burma and Ireland, and they enjoy them, too.
    Dr. Gray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House think that the time has come to apply stronger pressures to South Africa in view of her support for the illegal Smith régime in Rhodesia?
    Mr. Jay: That is a wider question than the question of preferences.
    Mr. J. H. Osborn: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that South Africa is our fourth largest customer? Does he see our trade being such that South Africa will continue to be our fourth largest customer?
    Mr. Jay: Certainly it is a large customer.
    Mr. Henig: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to have a thorough investigation made of the logic of Commonwealth preference in view of what he has just said about countries which are no longer members of the Commonwealth benefiting from that preference?
    Mr. Jay: I have made such an investigation since I saw my hon. Friend's Question, but I am not satisfied that there is any need for change.

    Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames (Offices)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now reconsider his refusal to allow the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames to achieve economies in administration by concentrating their offices at the Guildhall, Kingston-upon-Thames.
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir. The need to limit office development in the London area is as great as ever.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the offices of a London borough must be in London? Is it fair to ratepayers to force a local authority to incur the extra expenditure involved both in dispersal and the renting of expensive accommodation merely because it suits Government policy?
    Mr. Jay: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have done my best to help him with several of his office cases. I am not convinced that a case has been made out here.

    British Motor Corporation (Russian Trade Delegation)
    Mr. Hattersleyasked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with the British Motor Corporation in preparation for their meeting with the Russian trade delegation which visited the company to discuss the possibility of the British Motor Corporation participating in the development of the Soviet motor industry.
    Mr. Mason: None, Sir.
    Mr. Hattersley: Is not that an extraordinary state of affairs? Can the Minister of State say whether the omission is now being remedied in discussions between himself and B.M.C. in preparation for that firm's attempt to secure the next factory in the Russian car industry?
    Mr. Mason: No industry is bound to consult my Department before receiving a delegation from any country, including the U.S.S.R. In this case the company acted, as it was entitled to do, entirely on its own initiative, although no doubt my hon. Friend noticed that I tried to help B.M.C. by raising this matter with the Soviet Prime Minister when I was in the U.S.S.R.

  WALES

    Derelict Land (Study)
    Mr. Clifford Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Wales if the Welsh Economic Council has completed its study of reclamation of derelict land in Wales; and when he will make the report available.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ifor Davies): This study has not yet been completed, and until I have seen a report, I cannot say whether or when it should be published.
    Mr. Williams: I cannot be entirely satisfied with that reply by my hon. Friend. When the report is published will he take urgent action to implement its findings immediately?
    Mr. Davies: I can assure my hon. Friend that when the report is received it will be given the fullest consideration.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Pre-School Playgroups
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he is aware of the demand for places in the pre-school playgroups now operating; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to provide facilities and control of pre-school playgroups in England and Wales;
    (2) how many local education authorities in England and Wales are now supporting pre-school playgroups; whether they are registered with the local authority or local education authority; and if he will seek power to bring them directly under the authority of the local education authority.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Edward Redhead): I am aware of the useful work which pre-school playgroups are doing for children below school age. Groups may need to be registered by the local health authority but do not come within the ambit of the local education authority. My right hon. Friend cannot reach any conclusion on the desirability of changing the law until he has received and studied the reports of the Central Advisory Councils for England and Wales.
    Mr. Spriggs: May I ask my hon. Friend what other efforts are being made to get the information the Department requires before taking further action?
    Mr. Redhead: This is being pursued by the advisory councils, whose reports we are awaiting.

    Arts Council (Grant)
    Mr. Straussasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in view of the effect of the selective employment tax on the theatre, opera, ballet, orchestral and other organisations supported by the Arts Council, he will increase the Treasury grant to that Council so that those organisations will continue to receive the subsidies previously considered necessary.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): This is a matter which I am considering urgently.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Blackburn, to ask Question No. 67.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Are no supplementary questions at all allowed on Question No. 64?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not usually call hon. Members to ask supplementary questions unless the hon. Member who asked the Question has asked a supplementary.

    School Building Programme
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the next school building programme will be announced.
    Mr. Redhead: My right hon. Friend plans to announce the second part of the programme for 1967–68 before the end of June.
    Mr. Blackburn: May I ask my hon. Friend to ask his right hon. Friend to inform all hon. Members of the projects which affect their constituencies, in order to prevent other hon. Members having to ask separate Questions?
    Mr. Redhead: I will convey my hon. Friend's request to the Secretary of State.

    Medical Schools
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many university medical schools were built in the past 10 years; and how many were built north of the Trent.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): None, Sir.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is a great demand for these medical schools up in the North? Will he give consideration to this?
    Mr. Roberts: I shall take note of what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students applied for a place in British medical schools in each of the past four years.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: This information is not available.
    Mr. Wainwright: Will my hon. Friend seek to obtain this information and take into account the shortage of places for medical students, especially women? Are we not short of doctors in this country? Something should be done.
    Mr. Roberts: During the period to which this Question relates not all medical schools belonged to the University Central Council on Admissions scheme. Therefore, it was not possible to compile full information about the numbers concerned. This year all medical schools which do not belong to the U.C.C.A. scheme have applications being made this autumn for admission in 1967.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: In view of the fact that this is very important information, could not the Secretary of State be persuaded to ask the medical schools to supply it?
    Mr. Roberts: As I said, all medical schools which do not belong to the U.C.C.A. scheme have applications being made this autumn for admission in 1966–67.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: In view of the large number of doctors leaving Britain every year, surely the Minister ought to have a stab at collating all these figures to ensure that the intake is sufficient, and that it is sufficiently attractive?
    Mr. Roberts: That is the intention. That is why all medical schools will from this year on join the U.C.C.A. arrangements.

  NASSAU AGREEMENT
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to the renegotiation of the Nassau Agreement.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 12th May to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens).
  Mr. Marten: Could the Prime Minister he quite frank with the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and say whether he really is still determined to push ahead with the policy of renegotiating the
  1548
  Nassau Agreement and creating an Atlantic Nuclear Force, or are both these about to be thrown into the boiling pot? What advantage is there in renegotiating the Nassau Agreement except appeasing General de Gaulle or easing his way into the Common Market?
  The Prime Minister: That is at least a new point for once. I will respond to the hon. Member and be frank, though, of course, if we get this Question once a week it is no wonder we do not reach other Questions; he keeps asking this, and I answered it the other day, and I have answered it several times. Of course we intend to renegotiate the Nassau Agreement as soon as we have reached agreement with our allies on the basis of settling the nuclear problem within N.A.T.O.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it a fact that the possibility of sending the British Polaris to the Indian Ocean is now being considered? Would not that mean committing British arms—and, indeed, nuclear arms—east of Suez in the 'seventies, which many of us are very eager to prevent?
  The Prime Minister: No. There is no such arrangement before us at the present time. We have a problem to solve, as I am sure the whole House realises, and as I have said many times, of how we can give some collectivised nuclear guarantee to nations such as India against the new threat which they are facing, but it does not come under this, and we are not considering it in this way.
  Lord Balniel: Does not the Prime Minister recollect that as recently as March this year he said that it was the Nassau Agreement which slammed the door on British entry into the Common Market? Does he consider this an impediment to Britain's entering the European Community and, if so, is he intending to renegotiate it?
  The Prime Minister: I have never looked at this at all in connection with the Common Market.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—We have never looked at our approach to nuclear sharing in relation to the Common Market. We regard them as two separate issues. We are committed—and it is right—to seeing whether we can get a collectivised nuclear deterrent within N.A.T.O. Then, of course, the relevant parts of the Nassau Agreement

  1549
  will have to be renegotiated. This we shall do.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: Would the Prime Minister say on what basis he proposes to renegotiate the Nassau Agreement, in view of the fact that the Polaris programme itself is half-way completed? What other aspects have to be renegotiated?
  The Prime Minister: There are two relevant parts of the Nassau Agreement. One of them was the clause which gave Britain the right, allegedly, to withdraw the deterrent when British interests were considered to be involved. This, we have always made clear, will require renegotiation when we have a collectivised deterrent. That is what we shall do.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. Ian Lloydasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations with Mr. Ian Smith.
  The Prime Minister: The informal talks between officials are still in progress, and I have no statement to make at present.
  Mr. Lloyd: While the House will respect the Prime Minister's taciturnity on this occasion, may I ask him to appreciate that his ability to escape his largely self-imposed dilemma in which he finds himself will largely depend on his giving a much fuller and franker disclosure of the real facts involved in this matter? In particular, will he tell the House, what he must know, of the extent of the material and financial aid to Rhodesia?
  The Prime Minister: There is no question of a self-imposed dilemma here, although some hon. Members opposite—unlike other hon. Members—have failed entirely to see the real issues involved here. They are burying their heads in the sand. There is a widespread understanding in the House that this matter is of the utmost world importance. We want to deal with the issue and to get an honourable settlement, otherwise our whole position in the world will be prejudiced. The hon. Member might not see this. We believe that we can do it better by not making a series of statements while the talks are going on.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Prime Minister indicate whether in these talks it has been possible to raise the question, strongly pressed at the last two Commonwealth Conferences, of the urgent need to release from imprisonment and detention people who are imprisoned without trial? Does he not think that the time is rapidly approaching when representatives of the majority of the people of Southern Rhodesia should be associated with these talks?
  The Prime Minister: I think that it is too early to widen the basis of these talks. I am sorry that I cannot go beyond what I have said as to the content of the discussions. Before there can be any settlement, some very wide issues will be involved including, for example, everything involved in the fifth principle that the ultimate settlement must be one which is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
  Mr. Sandys: While fully supporting the view that it would be undesirable to make any statement at this stage, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he realises that the entire country devoutly hopes that these talks will be successful?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said in the opening to his question. I am sure that the entire country hopes that they will be successful on a basis which is acceptable to the whole House, namely, the five principles on which successive Governments have insisted.
  Mr. Thorpe: In view of the fact that this Question refers to negotiations being currently carried on with Mr. Ian Smith, will the Prime Minister confirm that all that is taking place in fact is talks between officials to see whether there is a basis upon which talks might subsequently be held and in order to find out whether Mr. Smith is prepared to be more reasonable than he was before 11th November?
  The Prime Minister: I noticed the prejudicial nature of the wording used in the Question, but I did not want to waste the time of the House by quarrelling with it. I dealt with the matter by saying that they were informal talks between officials, and their purpose is to see whether there is a basis for negotiations and with whom.

  LOWESTOFT HOSPITAL ACTION COMMITTEE (LETTER)
  Mr. Priorasked the Prime Minister when he received a letter from the Lowestoft Hospital Action Committee on the inadequacies of local maternity services; and what reply he proposes to send.
  The Prime Minister: On 2nd May. I have sent the hon. Member a copy of the reply.
  Mr. Prior: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for sending me a copy. In view of the very great local concern on this issue, will he ask the regional hospital board whether, if local people contribute 50 per cent. of the cost, the hospital board will contribute the other 50 per cent. to enable us to get on?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I know how concerned the hon. Member is about this. It is a matter for the Minister of Health and the regional board. I know that the big argument has been whether it should be in Yarmouth or Lowestoft, but when the hon. Member was sitting on this side of the House he said, reluctantly perhaps, that he was satisfied that the right place to build this hospital was in Yarmouth and not in Lowestoft.

  BRITISH ARMY OF THE RHINE
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Johnson about negotiations with the Federal German Government and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regarding the terms on which the British Army of the Rhine remains in Germany; and whether he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
  Mr. Dalyell: Have the negotiations on the foreign exchange costs of B.A.O.R. actually started—the negotiations which were promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add at this stage to the statement in the Defence White Paper and the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. So far there have not been any negotiations.
  1552
  Answering the main Question, President Johnson has not been involved in any way.
  Sir C. Osborne: Since N.A.T.O. came into being to safeguard Western Europe against a Stalinist expansionist policy, and since that policy has been dropped, ought not N.A.T.O. to be reconsidered entirely.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is raising some very wide issues which have been debated many times and which have required full debate. There is a very serious situation going on in N.A.T.O. Of course we have said that we must take advantage of the fact which the hon. Member mentioned to modernise those aspects of N.A.T.O. which need modernisation and on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made a number of proposals over the past year.

  THE QUEEN'S AWARD TO INDUSTRY
  Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the criteria used for making awards to industry in respect of increased exports.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to my statement of 3rd August last.
  Mr. Barnett: Does not the Prime Minister agree that it is vital that the criteria are seen to be fair? Would he publicise them widely so that we do not jeopardise this vital scheme, which is proving so successful?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very important scheme. The criteria and all the details of the scheme were very widely publicised last summer when the Committee, presided over by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, reported. If it is necessary to give any more details to the Press and the public we shall be ready to consider doing so.
  Mr. Bessell: Does the Prime Minister agree that, however valuable this scheme may be, it is vitally important to educate British exporters to the need to increase their export trade? What steps are the Government taking to this end?
  The Prime Minister: Very full statements have been made about this. If the

  1553
  hon. Member would like me to do so, I should be glad to send him a whole sheaf of copies of the Board of Trade Journal showing all the help which has been given in this direction. I refer him, in particular, to the speech of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in the Budget debate.
  Mr. Maudling: Does this scheme apply to those export merchant houses which are affected by the new Selective Employment Tax?
  The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman will revive his memory on this—I am sure that he studied the scheme when it came out—he will realise that it refers to the manufacturing firms and not to the merchant houses.
  Mr. Peter Millsasked the Prime Minister how many firms in the South-West have received the Queen's Award to Industry; and how this compares with other areas.
  The Prime Minister: Eight Award-winners are either based, or have their main factories in the South-West, while others have subsidiary factories there. It is not possible to make a true comparison between the regions because so many Award-winners operate in more than one region.
  Mr. Mills: Does not this show what can be done in the South-West? Does not the Prime Minister agree that with better communications and roads we could even improve on this figure and so help our balance of payments? Will he have a word with the Minister of Transport to see that we are put higher on the list of priorities?
  The Prime Minster: There is no doubt about what can be done in the South-West. I think that it is about 18 years since I opened an exhibition called "The Falmouth and West Cornwall can make it and can sell it exhibition"—so called for the sake of brevity. Many times since then I have seen great evidence, as have we all, of what can be done in that area. We are pressing on as fast as we can with the road building programme but communications are in no sense an impediment, still less should they be an alibi for failure on anyone's part not to make the maximum contribution to exports.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that in any negotiations concerning British entry into the European Economic Community a proposal for the association of the United Kingdom with a supranational Government in Europe and a European Parliament to which the Parliament in Westminster would be subordinated will be resisted.
  The Prime Minister: There is no question of Her Majesty's Government in such negotiations entering into any arrangements which would involve a supranational Government or a Parliamentary assembly to which this House would be subordinated.
  Mr. Shinwell: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to convey that Answer to some of my right hon. Friends in the Government who are making speeches, some of which frighten me?
  The Prime Minister: While not questioning the capacity of my right hon. Friend for fright, I would make it absolutely plain to him that it is not necessary to circulate this to my right hon. Friends as none of them has made a speech even remotely suggesting that this was a possibility or that they had even thought that it was.
  Mr. Strauss: Does not the Prime Minister agree that Parliament in fact limits its right to take unilateral action every time it joins an international organisation, as we did when we joined G.A.T.T. or when we became a member of the United Nations?
  The Prime Minister: There is always a limitation on the right of the Government and to that extent of Parliament to act in certain directions unilaterally whenever they sign an international treaty. It is inevitable. I remember this being debated year after year when we were discussing the Common Market. But my right hon Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was concerned with the suggestion sometimes heard in Europe that joining the Economy Community, which is an economic organisation, automatically means a single foreign

  1555
  policy, a single supranational Government in foreign affairs and defence matters and ultimately the disappearance of this Parliament in those matters. That is not, in my view or the view of any one of us, in question in any such negotiations.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does not the Prime Minister agree that if the Treaty of Rome is signed in its existing form, Article 189 automatically involves a subordination of Parliament here to the regulations and directives of the Council or Commission over the whole wide range of economic and social matters which are within the ambit of the Community.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman had a Question down on that very point today and I was hoping to deal with it when we reached it. That point is very much in our minds. The right hon. and learned Gentleman now having reached it, I will say that we are studying very carefully what would be the implications both for Parliamentary procedure and of course for all questions of British lawmaking and judicial machinery arising from that Article. It requires close study. I believe that the previous Government had a working party on this subject under the then Lord Chancellor. I do not think that it finalised its inquiries. This is a very important question which needs working out before we get involved in any negotiations.
  Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Europe regard the supranational institutions of the Treaty of Rome as being the things which make the E.E.C. so important a departure in international affairs? Does he not think that it would be most unfortunate if the entry of this country into the E.E.C. were to damage these institutions, which are of so great and imaginative a conception?
  The Prime Minister: Again, my hon. Friend has a Question on the Order Paper today, which may now not be reached. But, anticipating that Question, in my Answer I was dealing with supra-nationality or supranationalism in relation to foreign affairs, defence and the rights of this Parliament. Whatever some people in Europe may think, I am
  1556
  sure that no hon. Member wants to see this House subordinated to an outside body or to see this country deprived of its independent foreign and defence policy. Within the Treaty of Rome—within the economic side with which it deals—there are certain commissions and other authorities. There is a big argument going on about this within the Community, and I have always taken the view that we should not, in Her Majesty's Government or in this House, take sides in that argument between the Six, who have not yet settled the argument.
  Mr. Jennings: Do we take it that the Prime Minister's statement means that in the lifetime of this present Parliament we shall not, while negotiating on economic matters for union, now or then even negotiate for political union?
  The Prime Minister: Political unity, and various proposals for greater political unity in Europe, is something which all of us would want to support. What we have always said is this. I remember that is used to be said in moving terms by the late Hugh Gaitskell that, in his view, this country is not ready, and would not be ready for at least 20 years, to consider any political arrangements, as opposed to economic arrangements—[Interruption.]—which would involve foreign policy and defence matters being settled over our heads by some supranational organisation, and I believe that this is still the case.
  Mr. Bellenger: So that the House may understand on what basis negotiations are now going on by Her Majesty's Government, are we to understand from my right hon. Friend's reply which he has just given that all considerations of politics as embodied in the Treaty of Rome are out from the point of view of Her Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: In the first place, no negotiations are currently going on. I have announced exactly what is the position of our probings and discussions with individual countries, our hopes with E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C., but there are no such negotiations going on. In the Treaty of Rome, apart from the institutional arrangements needed to make effective the economic arrangements set out in that, there is, apart from a very short reference in the Preamble, no

  1557
  political organisation affecting foreign policy or defence at all. It is an economic instrument with certain machiner for dealing with economic problems.
  Mr. Pardoe: Is the Prime Minister aware that the best case for political unity in Europe was put forward in the pamphlet "Keep Left" written by hon Gentlemen opposite in 1947? Will the right hon. Gentleman bring that firmly to the attention of his hon. Friends and pledge his Government to build a United States of Europe governed by a directly elected supranational Parliament?
  Hon. Members: No.
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that any of my hon. Friends who are concerned with the preparation of that particular literary masterpiece or any of those who have been concerned with its successors, such as "One Way Only" and the rest, have ever felt that it was right to set up a directly elected assembly in the foreseeable future, within the next 20 or so years at any rate, to which this Parliament and this country would be subordinate. The economic negotiations are an entirely different matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Maudling: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 23RD MAY—Second Reading of the Docks and Harbours Bill.
Motions on the Ploughing Grants Schemes and the Fertilisers Scheme.
TUESDAY, 24TH MAY—Second Reading of the Ministry of Social Security Bill.
Remaining stages of the Post Office (Subway) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 25TH MAY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY, 26TH MAY—Second Read-of the Local Government Bill.
Motions on the Cereals (Amendment) Orders, and the Eggs (Amendment) Order.
1558
It will be proposed that on Friday, 27th May, the House should rise for the Whitsun Adjournment until Monday, 13th June.
Mr. Maudling: I have four points to raise with the right hon. Gentleman. First, can he assure the House that, in case of need, the House could be recalled urgently during the Recess, should that be necessary?
Secondly, when will the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary make a statement on the negotiations or discussions with Spain about Gibraltar?
Thirdly, as we are having the Second Reading of the Finance Bill next week, when will the Ministry of Labour Bill be published and will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take responsibility for it as it is his policy?
Fourthly, in connection with South Arabia, as we regret that the Prime Minister has not made a statement on his recent Answer to Questions, will he take note that we will have to consider what further Parliamentary action we must take in this matter?
Mr. Bowden: The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, realise that Standing Orders exist for the recall of Parliament if that should be necessary during the Whitsun Recess. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the possibility of a Proclamation under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, there is a requirement within that Act that regulations should be approved by both Houses of Parliament within seven days, which might have an effect on the Recess.
To answer his question about Spain, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary opened his discussions yesterday and I understand that certain documents have been laid in the Library. I cannot go beyond that.
The Ministry of Labour Bill will be available immediately after the Whitsun Recess and will be handled by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
The Motion in the name of a number of Opposition back-bench Members on South Arabia—
[That this House regrets that, in his answers to Questions on 10th May, the Prime Minister failed to reveal that the Government of the Federation of South

1559
Arabia had strongly protested against the British Government's decision to withdraw all protection in 1968, thus leaving the Federation virtually defenceless, and that they had accused Britain of dishonouring her word; and calls upon him to give an assurance that, if so requested by the Federal Government after the proposed new elections, Britain will be prepared to give to South Arabia the same assistance in its defence as she gives to several Arab states in the Persian Gulf.]
and the similar back-bench Motion in the names of a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends—
[That this House welcomes the statement of the South Arabian Government on Friday, 13th May, and the positive response of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; regrets the fact that on the eve of important talks on the future of South Arabia the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham should have sought to intervene in ways not conducive to a constructive settlement, and draws his attention to the fact that he is now not a Minister but a backbencher.]
have been signed by a large number of hon. Members, but being back-bench Motions, I cannot provide time for them.
The House may be interested to know that the Foreign Secretary dealt with this very fully on Monday of this week and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister intends to take the opportunity of Questions next Tuesday to make the the whole position clcear.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to provide some time for a debate to discuss Motion No. 62 which is concerned with rising prices and the seamen's dispute, as this is undoubtedly a matter of great urgency and concern to the people of the country?
[That this House, noting the sharp rise in certain retail prices since the inception of the seamen's strike, urges the Government to give evidence of its determination to operate a fair and just Prices and Incomes Policy by freezing all foodstuff prices for the duration of the present dispute.]
Mr. Bowden: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and
1560
Food has already answered some Questions on this matter. I cannot go beyond that at this stage and promise time for a discussion before the Whitsun Recess.
Dame Irene Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for time to be provided as soon as he can for a debate on Motion No. 59, in view of the importance of the Motion and the principle embodied in it?
[That, in the opinion of this House, the leader in The Journal, Newcastle-on-Tyne, on 9th March, 1966, headed "Split Personality", and which contained the following: "It is surely indiscreet of Mr. T. D. Smith to let his publicity firm accept paid employment from the Labour Party in this election campaign. As chairman of the Northern Economic Planning Coned he ought to keep himself above partisan politics apart from exercising his right to vote on polling day. Any national or regional body which is set up to serve the general public demands absolute impartiality from its office-holders. Mr. Smith may argue that he is strictly neutral when chairing the regional planning council but this is not enough in itself. If regional government is going to be effective it must be able to operate whichever party is in power at Westminster. In this it is on a par with such institutions as the National Coal Board and the Prices and Incomes Board", is an acceptable and essential basis for the establishment of any national or regional body; and this House therefore calls on Her Majesty's Government to state its agreement with this principle and to take action to ensure now and for the future its adoption.]
If we cannot have a debate, could the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made so that we may know exactly where we stand in regard to payments by the Labour Party to people having public positions in the Economic Planning Council in the north of England?
Mr. Bowden: I have seen the hon. Lady's Motion. Economic planning councils are advisory bodies, not executive bodies. The members of these councils are drawn from all walks of life, from trade unionists and members of all political parties. The public-spirited people who are asked to do this work would not readily undertake to do it if for this unpaid work they had to sacrifice

1561
their normal commercial interests. I regret this Motion and the slur on the gentlemen who have performed a very useful public service.
Sir B. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision on Motion No. 30—
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to amend the Race Relations Act 1965 to ensure that adequate powers are available to the law officers of the Crown to enable prosecutions to be instituted against organisations or persons inciting racial hatred.]
and the amendment of the Race Relations Act, 1965? Will he give an early opportunity for discussion of this Motion, particularly in view of the extremely serious consequences which flow from the indoctrination of Nazi ideas into the head, for example, of the murderer Brady, and the fact that this kind of indoctrination is spreading rapidly through the country and the Nazis are seeking every opportunity of spreading it? Will he give us a chance of discussing this matter with a view to amending the Act?
Mr. Bowden: As I promised, I have had talks from time to time with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on this matter. There is no doubt about the law under the Race Relations Act, but other legislation is available which can be readily used to deal with arson or incitement to arson, which carries a penalty of up to life imprisonment. There are aspects of the Race Relations Act at which my right hon. and learned Friend is still looking.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to Motion No. 41, standing in my name and the names of 224 of my hon. and right hon. Friends?
[That this House desires that charities should be relieved from paying the proposed Selective Employment Tax in respect of their employees.]
When will time be found for the House to discuss the very important matter of relieving charities from the effect of the Selective Employment Tax?
Mr. Bowden: This, of course, will be in order on the Finance Bill and on the Ministry of Labour Bill.
Mr. W. Baxter: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to Motion No. 56?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to reconsider the appointment of an arms salesman.]
Can time be allocated to discuss it, because there seems to be a grave departure from the precedents of the House? It may be a breach of international agreement, especially G.A.T.T., to make such an arrangement as this.
Mr. Bowden: The Government appointment in connection with an arms salesman has been made absolutely clear, but if my hon. Friend or any hon. Member has specific points to raise on the question of armaments or the sale of armaments to a specific country, they should put down questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Maudling: May I come back to the Finance Bill and the Ministry of Labour Bill because the position now revealed is profoundly unsatisfactory? We are to discuss the Finance Bill next week, but its merits will be bound up with the merits of the Ministry of Labour Bill. How can we discuss this matter without having the necessary material?
Mr. Bowden: We had exchanges on this question last week. While I was not able to promise that the Bills would be available at the same time for Second Readings, at least the Second Reading of the Ministry of Labour Bill and the Bill itself would be available to the House before the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
Sir G. de Freitas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nearly every one of the 18 Parliaments in the Council of Europe has regular debates on the work of the Council of Europe? Is it possible before the Summer Recess for us to have such a debate?
Mr. Bowden: Yes, Sir. I should have thought that could be on a general foreign affairs debate before the end of July. If it is necessary to find extra time for it, I will do so.
Mr. Barber: As the question of exempting charities from the Selective Employment Tax arises on the Ministry of Labour Bill, are we to take it that this

1563
will not be handled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer but that he has washed his hands of it altogether?
Mr. Bowden: The Bill is being presented to the House by the Minister of Labour, but no doubt my right hon. Friends from the Treasury will be available during its passage.
Mr. van Straubenzee: In view of the fact that the Ministry of Labour Bill will not be available until after Whitsun and disabled persons have a problem in connection with the Selective Employment Tax, will the right hon. Gentleman not arrange for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement next week so that the gnawing anxiety hanging over disabled people may be removed?
Mr. Bowden: I shall see that the attention of my right hon. Friend is drawn to the point made by the hon. Member.
Mr. O'Malley: Will my right hon. Friend provide an early opportunity for discussing the general implications of the police amalgamation schemes announced by the Home Secretary yesterday?
Secondly, in view of the replies given yesterday by the Postmaster-General about pirate radio which many hon. Members found unsatisfactory, will the Leader of the House look again at the possibility of an early debate on broadcasting?
Mr. Bowden: A debate on the White Paper on broadcasting will follow, of course, after publication of the White Paper, but the White Paper is not yet ready.
On the question of the statement made yesterday by the Home Secretary about amalgamation of police forces, there is nothing I can say at the moment about a debate, but I shall certainly look at it.
Sir Frederic Bennett: Reverting to the question of Spain and Gibraltar, does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in answer to a Question by me pressing for a debate on this matter he said:
"I will take note of that view and have a word with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about this subject. I cannot promise a debate at the moment, but there is something to be looked at here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May. 1966; Vol. 728, c. 600.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that his answer today that there is something
1564
in the Library is a fair result of that undertaking, in view of the concern felt throughout the whole House, which is growing rather than diminishing on this subject?
Mr. Bowden: Perhaps the hon. Member would prefer to look at what is in the Library, the statement by the Spanish Government and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's comments, before pressing for a debate.
Mr. Abse: Since it has been reported that all the necessary drafts have been ready for some time to amend the coercive Merchant Shipping Act, would that not be a wide step now, so as to demonstrate the concern of the Government with the injustice to seamen, that the Bill should be laid without any delay before the House?
Mr. Bowden: It is advisable to get agreement between both sides of industry before we proceed with legislation.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Can the right hon. Gentleman prevail on the Prime Minister to make his statement today instead of waiting until Tuesday, because the early-day Motions to some extent cast a shadow over his good faith and it is not a good thing that his high office should be left under that shadow in suspense for five days?
Mr. Bowden: I am not quite sure that that is the general opinion of hon. Members, but my right hon. Friend will make a statement on Tuesday.
Mr. William Hamilton: In view of what happened last night, will my right hon. Friend provide an early opportunity for debating the procedures of this House, particularly an amendment of Standing Order No. 31 which, if it had not been as it is, the events of last night could not have happened?
Mr. Bowden: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) was, of course, well within his right in endeavouring to talk out a Bill, and he did it successfully. On the question of whether or not the Chairman of Ways and Means should be able to accept a Closure Motion, we might look at that in the Select Committee on Procedure.
Mr. Turton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if the Finance

1565
Bill receives a Second Reading next Thursday the Second Reading of the Selective Employment Tax Bill will be taken before the Committee stage of the Finance Bill is taken?
Mr. Bowden: I should like to check that point. I am not absolutely sure, but I think that that is the position.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is the Lord President of the Council aware that in many quarters of the House what he has said about the Race Relations Bill will be warmly welcomed and that we are looking forward to the time after Whitsun? Will he reserve days for amending legislation?
Mr. Bowden: I think that we had better first see what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General finds in his investigation of the existing Race Relations Act, but the earlier points made about it have been cleared up and, as I said, there is some doubt about one part which he is looking at. If necessary, we shall discuss this again.
Mr. Kershaw: Referring to the events of last night, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that he will not allow his understandable chagrin to let him steamroller the rights of the Opposition or make unfair the rules of the House to cover his own incompetence?
Mr. Bowden: I have already said that the procedure last night was quite in order. The hon. Member for Ormskirk was quite in order in doing what he did. If the House wishes to look at the question of the Chairman of Ways and Means accepting a Closure Motion, we can do so.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: Can my right hon. Friend say whether time can be allocated for a discussion of Welsh affairs, as there are a number of matters, particularly the question of transport and employment, which should be discussed at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Bowden: There are the usual opportunities in the Welsh Grand Committee and the usual occasion on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Ridley: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that, if any member of the Government is personally
1566
criticised in a debate in the House, that Minister will come to the House to answer the debate?
Mr. Bowden: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is getting at, but I will have a look at it and see what can be done.
Mr. Bessell: In view of the complexities of the Finance Bill, which has now been published, the considerable unrest which there is, which may or may not be justified, regarding the Selective Employment Tax, and the large legislative programme of the Government this Session, is it reasonable that there should be a 15-day Recess for Whitsun? Is this in keeping with modern, dynamic and progressive government?
Mr. Bowden: Without going beyond what I have already said, I do not think that it should be assumed for certain that it will be a 15-day Whitsun Recess.
Mr. Ioan L. Evans: Will the Leader of the House say when we can expect the Consumer Protection Bill? If the delay is due to the heavy legislative programme, is consideration to be given to meeting on Wednesday mornings?
Mr. Bowden: We shall have the Bill. I cannot firmly promise it for this Session. If there is time, we shall certainly have it. As I have said on many occasions, the question of morning sittings is now being considered by the Select Committee on Procedure.
Sir C. Osborne: In view of the very grave warning given last night by the Governor of the Bank of England—who knows the position better than anyone else in the country—about the perils of our present economic position, will the Leader of the House try to find time for a discussion of those issues, which it will not be possible to raise in the debate on the Finance Bill?
Mr. Bowden: The debate on the Budget Resolutions was also an economic debate. It took place over four days, as is usual. Such a discussion would not be out of order on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Mr. Mayhew: Since we have not had the usual Service Estimates debates this year, what alternative arrangements will there be for surveying the work of the Armed Forces?
Mr. Bowden: The Services debate took place before the dissolution of Parliament, on a Defence Vote on Account. This was quite in accordance with our procedures. There will be further opportunities within the current Session of Parliament to discuss defence matters.
Mr. Worsley: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on E.L.D.O. to take place shortly after the Whitsun Recess so that the Government can make their position on this project clear, in view of its importance to our European policy?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise it at this stage, but no doubt we shall have to see how we get on between Whitsun and the end of July.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the appetising legislative morsel called the Finance Bill to be digested on the Floor of the House, or upstairs? Are we to have a repetition of what happened last year—long, interminable proceedings where groups of experts explain to each other small points while the rest of the Members are trying to sleep outside?
Mr. Bowden: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend, but there will be no change in procedure this year.
Mr. John Wells: Will the Leader of the House seek to find time for the half day on canals that he promised he would look into last week?
Mr. Bowden: Yes, Sir. I have this very much in mind and will do my best to find time for this before the Summer Recess.
Mr. English: Now that the House of Commons Services Committee has been appointed, would my right hon. Friend consider referring to it the Motion standing upon the Order Paper in the names of several of my hon. Friends and myself referring to the responsibility of Officers of the House to that Committee or, during a dissolution, to my right hon. Friend?
[That this House considers that its officers ought at all times to be responsible to it through its Services Committee and in particular that, when the House
1568
is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned, the Leader of the House, being a Minister in office and ex officio Chairman of that Committee, should be consulted by the officers of the House on matters of policy concerning its internal affairs.]
Mr. Bowden: Yes, this point will be before the Services Committee at its first meeting.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I was not quite sure that the Leader of the House appreciated the importance of the request for a debate on E.L.D.O. All sorts of rumours are going about that this very important European initiative might be dissolved. Would the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Aviation if he could make an early statement, so that we can judge whether a debate may be necessary?
Mr. Bowden: I will certainly draw that to the attention of my right hon. Friend. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, these discussions are proceeding.
Mr. Berry: Will the Leader of the House arrange to find time for the Prime Minister to make a statement next week giving his views on this Saturday's sporting events in the House rather than on B.B.C. television?
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the latest increase in mortgage rates resulting from the Government's policy, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that he will endeavour to bring forward the Government's option mortgage Bill as a matter of priority, particularly as the Chancellor told us that this scheme was to be paid for by the betting tax?
Mr. Bowden: While not accepting the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, may I say that it would be in order to discuss part of this in today's debate.
Mr. Jennings: Will the Leader of the House try to find time for a separate debate before the Summer Recess on the whole question of disabled persons?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise time, but there are seven Supply days available between now and the end of July, one of which could be used.

WESTMINSTER ABBEY (900th ANNIVERSARY SERVICE)
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert Bowden): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey have suggested that during the 900th anniversary year of the Abbey there should be a service attended by Members, officers and staff of the two Houses of Parliament.
The Government are anxious to meet their wishes in this respect, and it is, therefore, proposed that the House of Commons should go as a House to Westminster Abbey at 12 noon on Wednesday, 29th June, to attend such a service. It is understood that the House of Lords will also be present at the Service.
It is proposed that the House should meet for Prayers at 11 a.m. and that the sitting should then be suspended to enable Members to take their places in the North Transept of the Abbey. Shortly before 12 noon, Mr. Speaker's Procession will leave the Chamber for the Abbey, followed by right hon. and hon. Members from the two Front Benches.
After the service, the House will return and the sitting will be resumed at 2.30 p.m.

G.L.C. (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order of which I have already given you prior notice, Mr. Speaker.
Have you now considered the position arising out of the undertaking given to me by the Parliamentary Agents on behalf of the promoters of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill with respect to Clause 24 of that Measure, the papers in respect of which I submitted to you?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for giving me notice that he wanted to raise what appeared
1570
to him to be an unauthorised departure from the practice of the House.
The House will recall that the Second Reading of the Bill was agreed to without a Division on 2nd May last. I understand that a few days before that debate the Agents for the promoters of the Bill gave the right hon. Gentleman an assurance which led him and other Members not to press their opposition to the Bill on Second Reading. Later, it appeared that the assurance might not be carried out.
Such a withdrawal of an assurance which has been accepted and acted upon by hon. Members would not be consistent with the practice of the House in matters affecting Private Bills. The progress of private legislation in this House is the direct concern of the Chairman of Ways and Means and I have learned from him that he is taking steps to ensure that the practice of the House is observed and that the assurance given by Parliamentary Agents to the right hon. Member will be honoured.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Mr. Speaker, may I thank you for the consideration you have given to this matter and for the Ruling itself, which seems to me, if I may respectfully say so, to be of general importance.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a personal statement.
Last night I ought to have been in my place to take the vote on the Second Reading of the Transport Finances Bill. During the evening I was entertaining on behalf of the House a delegation of French Parliamentarians. This function went on a quarter of an hour longer than was planned. If I had left it punctually, it would have involved me in leaving during the speech of thanks of a distinguished French guest. Because of this, I arrived in the Chair after the Closure had been sought unsuccessfully.
The responsibility for the present situation is entirely mine, and I wish to express my deep and sincere regret to both sides of the House for my late return last night.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I wrote asking your permission to put a Private Notice Question to the President of the Board of Trade concerning shipping matters and the seamen's strike, notice of which I also gave to the President of the Board of Trade. He was aware that I intended to put that Question today, but you have not called me to put the Question and, with respect, I would like to know why.
Mr. Speaker: I am not quite sure what point the hon. and learned Gentleman is on. He asked leave to put a Private Notice Question today. I refused him leave. That refusal of Mr. Speaker cannot be challenged at all. Is there some other point?
I hope that that is clear. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to hesitate, and I want to help him.
Mr. Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of your refusal. I received no refusal from you. May I suggest respectfully that it is the inherent right of an hon. Member of the House to put a Private Notice Question, with your permission, to a Minister of the Crown, particularly one relating to so urgent and important a matter as the shipping strike.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot mention the subject of the Private Notice Question. I understand now the point that he is on. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was not told that his Private Notice Question was disallowed, I want to apologise for my Department. He should have been informed. But the right of Mr. Speaker either to permit or not permit a Private
1572
Notice Question is a right which the House has given to Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Hughes: Mr. Speaker, having regard to what you have just said, may I, with the greatest respect, ask if you will allow me to put that Private Notice Question some day next week? I respectfully request that you allow me to put the Question.
Mr. Speaker: All that I can say to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that he can make application to put a Private Notice Question at any time, but no Speaker will promise, ahead of time, that he is prepared to allow an hon. Member to put a Private Notice Question. If the hon. and learned Gentleman puts one in, I will consider it.

BILL PRESENTED
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)
  Bill to make further provision, in relation to Scotland with respect to the payment of grants to local authorities, valuation and rating, local authority expenditure and the classification and lighting of highways; to repeal or amend certain enactments relating to local licences and registrations; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid; presented by Mr. William Ross; supported by Dr. J. Dickson Mabon and Mr. Niall MacDermot; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 23.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Harper.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [1ST ALLOTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES 1966–67

    VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £34,977,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1967, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government; grants and expenses in connection with water supply, sewerage, coast protection, abating the pollution of the air, planning and redevelopment, new towns, areas of outstanding natural beauty, rating relief, rate rebates and sundry other services; a subscription to an international organisaticn and grants in aid.—[£8,834,000 has been voted on account.]
    Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Harper],—put and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  HOUSING AND BUILDING POLICIES
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government's housing and building policies.
  I ought, first, to declare an indirect interest in the subject under discussion as I am a director of a building company. I suppose that I might be said to have another and perhaps conflicting interest in the Government's policies, legislation and administration, since they offer the prospect of almost infinite employment to the legal profession. Above all, I have a fundamental interest, which I think is shared by the House, in seeking to prevent the steady deterioration and destruction by the Government of the
  1574
  progressive policies and programmes which they inherited from their Conservative predecessors.
  The pre-election promises and pledges of the party opposite on housing and on interest rates were a classic example of the exercise of "Anything you can do, we can do better". Local authority tenants and owner-occupiers were going to benefit from controls on so-called inessential building. More houses were to be built for sale and to let. Interest rates were to be cut. Land was to be cheaper, and mortgages provided on more favourable terms.
  In that connection and on one particular point which is perhaps topical today, it may be that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will be able to tell us whether he intends to refer the Greater London Council's policy of an interest rate on new loans of 7⅛ per cent. to the Prices and Incomes Board.
  In speech after speech, the Prime Minister has spoken of going into battle on the housing front. In his election address in October, 1964, he wrote:
  "We have pledged ourselves to tackle the housing problem like a war-time operation."
  In that characteristic, blunt, straightforward way that is peculiarly his own, he added on another occasion that it was a problem
  "…which brooks no escape or evasion."
  That was good, purposive, gritty stuff! Since then, all that we have had is a "phoney" war, and, if I may say so, the Prime Minister and his colleagues seem to do all their shooting from the lip.
  So far from getting more houses, there has been a steady deterioration where there should have been a steady improvement. There were 434,000 houses under construction when the Labour Government came into office. It required generalship of a pretty special order to fail to complete even 400,000 houses in 1965. There was every reason to believe that the figure would have been much nearer 420,000. Instead, as we now know, the figure completed was only 382,000. I think that 1966 is seeing a further retreat from the Prime Minister's own chosen battlefield. March of this year was the fifth consecutive month and the seventh month out of the last eight in which the number of houses completed was actually less than in the equivalent

  1575
  month of the previous year. The Minister of Housing, left to conduct his tactical exercise without houses, has done his best to throw up a smokescreen. During the debate on the Gracious Speech on 28th April, the right hon. Gentleman, in anticipation of the figures due to come out on 3rd May, said:
  "The March figures are much better than the February figures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1966; Vol. 727, c. 981.]
  I think it came as a surprise to almost everybody to find that when they were published they were down yet again. They were down by 950 compared with March, 1965.
  What I think is even more significant is that both completions and starts have fallen in the first three months of this year. It may be felt by the House that the figures for houses started are a particularly gloomy augury for the future. Only 392,507 were started in Great Britain in 1965—not, of course, Northern Ireland—compared with 426,075 in 1964.
  Now we find that 13,265 fewer houses were started in the first quarter of 1966 than in the first quarter of 1965 and, perhaps even more fantastically in view of the Government's election pledges and promises, 16,276 fewer houses were started in the first quarter of this year than in the first quarter of 1964, so instead of going forward we are going steadily backwards.
  Of course, it is the private sector which has been hardest hit, with 11,482 fewer houses started this year than in the first quarter of 1965, but the public sector is also sagging badly. Starts in the public sector were 1,773 down in the first quarter of this year compared with the same period last year, and 6,770 down compared with the same period in 1964.
  I think that those figures put a little more clearly into perspective the Minister's somewhat disingenuous statement on 28th April that
  "in the public sector…despite the weather, starts are only 1,000 down in these three months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1965; Vol. 727, c. 981.]
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: I do not quarrel with any of the right hon. Gentleman's figures, but should not he also take into account the number of
  1576
  houses under tenders approved but not started at the end of the periods to which he is referring? Is he aware that since the March quarter of 1965 this number increased from 69,000 to 81,000 in local authority housing?
  Mr. Rippon: I think that it is important to judge by results. There are all sorts of figures in local authority programmes. Houses may be under tender, but if they are not started one cannot be sure when they will be.
  We now have a situation which caused the Sunday Times to report on 8th May:
  "The Government is now prepared for the prospect that it will again this year fail to reach its target of 400,000 a year, and could even fall below last year's total of 391,000."
  I am afraid that that shows that some people are still being misled by the Socialist election propaganda which included figures for Northern Ireland. The figure should be 382,000.
  But even if the figures for completions and starts, having regard to matters such as programmes and tenders started, show some improvement—as they certainly ought to do in the coming months—this, over a period of nearly two years, is a dreadful record for a Government who inherited not only firm, long-term programmes, but also a progressively productive construction industry.
  Over the period 1959–64 the output of new construction work generally rose in real terms at an average annual rate of 7 per cent. It is a measure of the failure of the Government's policies that last year the figure was only 2·5 per cent., well below the achievement under a Conservative Government, and well below what is required to achieve 500,000 houses a year by 1970, plus the rest of the nation's essential building needs.
  As the House will have noted, the debate today is not limited to housing, although this is perhaps the most dramatic of the Government's failures. But, of course, the Government's failures extend in general over the whole building field. We used to be told that to expand housing and education and hospital building it was necessary to hold back what the party opposite always described as less essential building and to impose physical controls. I remember the warning which I gave on 18th March, 1964:
  "It should be clearly understood that there is no reason to suppose that the imposition of

  1577
  controls over what is called less essential building would do anything but harm."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1964; Vol. 691, c. 1508.]
  And I explained why at some length. Now, once again, we have the physical controls which failed so dismally before. But we do not have more houses, and we do not have more hospitals, or more university building. It is only the number of official residences for Ministers which is rising, and I suppose that today we ought to congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on entering his new official residence.
  We do not hear much about hospital building. Here we have a blanket of silence. All we know, according to information which was given to the House in a Written Answer on 13th December last, is that 25 major hospital building projects costing in total about £25 million were deferred from the 1965–66 programme, and that only 19 projects costing in total £15 million have been put back in their place. No doubt we shall be told if there has been a sudden spurt in starts.
  I think that I can give an example of what has been happening. Let us consider St. Thomas's Hospital. A Conservative Government sanctioned £15 million for rebuilding, but the Socialist Government first stopped rebuilding altogether. There was then some bargaining, after which the Government gave permission to spend £13¼ million, but the Treasury was prepared to provide only £11¼ million. The other £2 million has to be found out of research funds, research of the kind that keeps doctors in this country and helps to stop the brain drain which used to cause Socialists so much concern when they were in Opposition. So much for the Prime Minister's talk of
  "forging the New Britain in the white heat of scientific revolution."
  Let me consider next university building. Clearly this has been cut back by the Government. For 1965–66 a Conservative Government planned that £54½ million of university building would be started. The present Government cut this by about £15 million, or more than a quarter, when, in July of last year, a six months' deferment was imposed on university projects. As the Principal of London University, Sir Douglas Logan, says in his Report for 1965–66 which has
  1578
  just been published, in words which pick up the Prime Minister's battle theme:
  "It is difficult to convey to those who were not right in the firing line the administrative chaos which ensued",
  and he cites as an example that it took five months to get exemption from the standstill order for the halls of residence which were being financed by an anonymous donor as far as building costs were concerned.
  Sir Douglas Logan went on to say:
  "I feared the worst from the outset. 'Deferment' could mean deferment only if the building allocations for 1966ߝ67 and subsequent years were at least as large as that for 1965–66 whereas in fact they were substantially less. The reply of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to a question in the House of Commons last December was reported by a leading newspaper under the heading, 'More building for universities'. The newspaper's misinterpretation of the position is perfectly understandable, because the Minister simply announced an increase of £7 million in the programme for 1966–67 and one of £5 million for 1967–68 without revealing that the effect of the deferment was that the university building programme had been cut by £15 million."
  But, of course, the truth on these matters cannot be hidden for ever. it is becoming more and more widely appreciated that the loss to the universities is even greater than revealed by crude statistics. First, it must be remembered, as Sir Douglas Logan points out, that the Conservative Government stated that the 1967–68 figure was to be provisional and subject to review, but only in an upward direction. Secondly, not only has the time lost been lost for ever, but the rise in building costs since the allocations for 1965–69 were originally announced is estimated to be about £4 million. So that the universities, therefore, are millions of £s short of the capital provision that the Conservative Government thought necessary to meet the Robbins expansion programme.
  I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) will accept that nobody thought that we had made too generous a provision. We, too, had our battles with the Treasury, but I think that we were not quite so savagely battered as the present Ministers responsible for the nation's building programme seem to have been.
  Further education projects to the value of £9 million which the Conservatives

  1579
  planned to start between August, 1965 and January, 1966 were deferred. This year's programme has not been increased to take account of that fact. It is the same story with colleges of education for teacher training. There was a cut of £5 million on building work from last year's programme.
  The school-building programme was announced with a great fanfare by the Government on 4th March. On the face of it, the figures show a natural increase taking place year by year. The Labour manifesto boasted of carrying out the largest school-building programme in our history, but analysis of the figures shows here again that the normal building programme will be no more in four years' time than it is now. In reality, it will be substantially less because of the rise in building costs.
  The current costs per place for new primary and secondary schools are now £230 and £435, respectively, compared with £189 and £336 in the first half of 1965, so it is no wonder that The Times Educational Supplement commented on 11th March:
  "The figures for the school-building programme over the next five years make a mockery of the pledges that the Secretary of State for Education and the Labour Party have given over the raising of the school leaving age, secondary reorganisation and the rebuilding of primary schools."
  No doubt hon. Members opposite blame economic difficulty, and remember that the present Foreign Secretary had this to say in November, 1963, when he was responsible for these matters on behalf of the then Opposition:
  "…if the industry is to do the job required of it, it must have confidence that there is not only a large programme, but that it will be a steady programme which will not be chopped down every time the Government run into some kind of financial difficulty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th November, 1963; Vol. 684. c. 638.]
  He also had a lot to say about the high proportion interest rates represented in the cost of houses and the cost to local authorities of keeping them available.
  As fast as these essential building programmes have been cut, so, as I have indicated, the costs have risen. The latest statistics supplied by the Ministry of Public Building and Works show that the prices of new houses rose by 10 per cent. in 1965, the greatest amount since
  1580
  records were kept. So much for the Prime Minister's statement at Stevenage on 16th September, 1964, that, "We shall cheapen the cost of housing by our interest rate policy". I should like to suggest that when it comes to the next General Election we shall not have a poster of the Prime Minister complacently smoking his pipe and saying, "You all know Labour Government works". What we may have is a poster saying, "Trust Jim. We all know that you can work for a Labour Government". There will be a little sub-heading, "From each according to his means".
  Meanwhile, to the highest interest rate for the longest period in our history must now be added the Selective Employment Tax. I will not argue that today. Indeed, I think, Mr. Speaker, that I must not talk about the damaging effect of this discriminatory burden on the building industry generally. We shall have other opportunities to do that. I only ask the House to note the Written Reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to a Question on 17th May, on Tuesday, when he said that the Selective Employment Tax would add about 2 per cent. to the cost of the average house. That is about £70 to £80. So it goes on, with the basic cost of housing rising steadily and the interest rate remaining at a level which the Socialists certainly did not advocate when they were in Opposition.
  The housing and building policies of the Government are now in ruins, and the House must consider this afternoon what has gone wrong and what can be done to put it right. In my submission, the Government have gone wrong because they have made a series of fundamental errors in policy. First of all, they have got the machinery of Government wrong. Secondly, they are not exercising their existing powers properly and efficiently. Thirdly, they do not understand either the purpose or the exercise of power in a free society. The Prime Minister has talked a lot about streamlining the Administration. It all sounds wonderful. But all we have got is more Ministers than ever before in our history and an increase of over 10,000 in the number of civil servants.
  When he took office the Prime Minister, almost without pausing for breath, added

  1581
  the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources to the list of Departments. Having appointed the Minister and his staff, he denied them the planning powers which were the only justification for their existence. At the same time, he left the Ministry of Public Building and Works with wide responsibilities for the construction industries, for the Government's own building programme, for the co-ordination of research and development throughout Government services and inevitably with a considerable say in the allocation of resources for all these purposes.
  Instead of making the Ministry of Public Building and Works a spearhead of his "war-time" building operation, he left the Minister outside the Cabinet. He had not even the excuse that he was streamlining the Cabinet. He put in it two Ministers where one had done for us to deal with the Commonwealth and the Colonies, and in spite of his previous criticism that 23 was too large a Cabinet. To keep the two Ministers occupied he set one the futile task of preparing the Land Commission Bill and gave the other the job of trying to investigate the responsibilities of the Lord Great Chamberlain.
  Now he is carrying out another reorganisation, and he is getting it wrong again. Having admitted his mistake in establishing the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources without responsibility for planning and land use, he is now smashing the machinery for ensuring that the construction industries, which stand right at the very centre of economic growth, can expand their output to meet the needs of building of all kinds, not just for housing but for both social and economic purposes. I can think of nothing more likely to impede progress than the fragmentation of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Public Building and Works and the overloading of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which is already the weakest link in the whole chain. The only cause for any satisfaction is that the Prime Minister has so far resiled—he does this frequently but usually not very graciously—from his earlier public statements as to leave the Ministry of Public Building and Works with general responsibilities for the construction industry.
  But it is hardly conducive to confidence in these industries for him to say,
  1582
  as he did on Tuesday, that this decision is "probably right but only just". How could he imagine that responsibility for the construction industry could be tucked away in some corner of the Ministry of Housing, cheek by jowel, perhaps, with water and sewerage and all the other responsibilities of the Minister. This is a group of industries which employs one in twelve of the working population, and is responsible for executing over 50 per cent. of the nation's capital investment. I would much rather that the right hon. Gentleman gave some attention, particularly in my constituency, to improving water and sewerage supplies. These are the real subjects and the ones which might give most immediate benefit to many people.
  My second criticism is that the Government do not exercise their existing powers properly or effectively, and this applies with particular force to the Minister of Housing. We had something to say about this in the House last Thursday, and I do not think that I need add much to that. The Minister of Housing has so snarled up his Ministry already that essential land for building is coming forward too slowly, town centre and other development is breaking down and delays in reaching decisions on planning appeals are growing longer all the time. The Minister has himself admitted in the House that it takes on average 44 weeks now between the holding of an ordinary planning inquiry and the Ministerial decision, compared with 32 weeks a year ago.
  The decision to transfer the National Building Agency to the Minister of Housing is a particularly retrograde and deplorable action. It was never set up, nor should it ever be used, simply to assess and promote industrialised housing programmes for local authorities. It has responsibilities as an independent agency serving both public and private enterprise over the whole field of building, as set out in its articles of association. When the Conservative Government reorganised the Ministry of Works and set up the National Building Agency, we published two White Papers, Cmnd. 2233 and Cmnd. 2288—which were presented to the House in December, 1963, and were generally accepted by both sides.

  1583
  I hope that the Government will now publish a White Paper on the reorganisation of the Ministry of Housing, explaining why they have made these new changes and also how they brought them about. An article published yesterday in The Times indicates that there is considerable cause for public anxiety about what has been happening. It says that not only is the transfer of the National Building Agency to the Ministry of Housing regrettable in itself, but it adds:
  "Still more disturbing is the means by which it has been brought about. Both Ministries and the Agency have preserved official silence during the fighting, but there is evidence that the takeover has been achieved covertly and by methods which must rarely have been used within a public body."
  These allegations are serious and they must be answered.
  Apart from the skullduggery which has gone on in the Whitehall war—no doubt more important to hon. Members opposite than the housing war—there is what I can endorse as an accurate statement in The Times:
  "When the National Building Agency was created by the Ministry of Public Building and Works, its independence as a company limited by guarantee and free from Government interference was paramount."
  It was, indeed, the essential condition on which the confidence of the industry, the associated professions and the local authorities was based.
  Here I come to the third and, in many ways, perhaps the most fundamental criticism of the Government and their policies—
  Mr. Charles Pannell: When talking about the National Building Agency, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that it was inherently right for the Minister to give it directions from time to time.
  Mr. Rippon: But in the articles of association it was also inherent that it should have an independent status and that directions should be given in an open and clear manner.
  My third fundamental criticism of the Government is that they do not understand the purposes of the exercise of power in a free society. In the debate on the Gracious Speech, the Minister of Housing said that it had required the
  1584
  massive intervention of public authority to assess industrialised systems, to organise local authority demand and to achieve the full potential of industrialised building. He is quite wrong about this. What is needed and what the Conservative Government did is, as we said in the White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Ministry of Works, to understand that the scale on which modernisation is required is so large and so complex that a strong lead from the centre is required. There is a very great deal of difference—even if right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot understand it—between massive intervention from the centre and giving a lead.
  What was required and what is still required is a revolution by consent—not with the big stick, but with the co-operation of the construction industries, the associated professions and the local authorities. The Government cannot produce houses. They cannot produce any of these buildings. What they can do is create the conditions in which other people may carry out their job more efficiently and effectively. The key to that is continuity of demand on the one hand and the maintenance of confidence on the other.
  In the next ten years, we must build not only millions of houses, many universities, colleges, schools, hospitals and all the other public buildings: we have also to invest on a large scale in new factories, roads, power stations, port installations and the rest. To meet all this, the output of the construction industries must rise by at least 50 per cent. in the next decade, and we cannot do that at last year's rate of a 2½ per cent. increase.
  If this achievement is to be possible, there must be continuity of demand to justify investment on the necessary scale. It is the tragedy of what has happened in the last year and a half—the Government's failure to keep all these programmes moving forward and all the time talking about how near they are getting to maintaining the old level—that they have undermined confidence and impeded co-operation. We have a further concentration of power in the hands of a Minister who said on one occasion during the debate on the Gracious Speech that he was "alarmed" about the slow rate of completions of council houses and on another that he was "puzzled".

  1585
  On private housing, he said:
  "… the puzzle is why, when there are masses of money available and when the bricks are available and the skilled labour is available, the builders cannot or do not complete the houses."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 28th April, 1966; Vol. 727, c. 984.]
  But what is a puzzlement to the Minister is part of the reason why the present situation is so bad. It may puzzle the Minister but the causes are not far to seek. The builders have had their confidence undermined by the Land Commission Bill, and by the Building Control Bill, by the extension of direct labour, by arbitrary cut-backs in already announced building programmes and, no less significant, by the restriction on bank advances. I hope for the benefit of all of us and not just for that of the builders, that the Minister of Housing will tell us where we can get masses of money at present. If he can get the money, why does he not start and get some out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  The Minister gave an interview in the Daily Mirror on Tuesday under the heading of "My big problems". He is quoted in it as saying:
  "If you ask what is restraining the enthusiasm of the small builders I would say that one thing is lack of confidence"—
  so he admits it himself. He says at the end:
  "Psychologically, this is a terribly difficult year for the small builder.'
  It is not psychologically difficult: it is actually difficult.
  The Minister may remain alone in his puzzlement, but increasingly the whole nation will share his alarm at what is happening. The Socialist housing and building programmes meet neither the challenge of today nor the infinite possibilities of tomorrow. Of course, the party opposite are very familiar with failure, for they have had it so often. They know all the tricks of the trade, the sly ways of not admitting failure, and the methods by which they try to blame somebody else. But they are running out of alibis. They are failing now, and they will continue to fail, as they failed in 1931 and in 1951, because they always combine a fatal combination of fallacious doctrine and administrative incompetence.
  4.38 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): In reply to the speech of the right hon. and
  1586
  learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who moved the Motion of censure, I will try to distinguish between the parts which were specifically those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman about Whitehall, and the more general parts, in which he almost repeated point by point the attack made by the Leader of the Opposition in a speech at Perth at the weekend.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham is concerned partly with the reorganisation of Whitehall, and partly with what he calls the criticism of the Government's exercise of power. He has accused my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of smashing up the Ministry of Public Building and Works, I do not think he will find that is true, and I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works will have something to say about that later in the debate. What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done is to leave the Ministry in charge, as sponsor, of the construction industry, and to allocate to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government a number of items in the Ministry which are essential to the housing programme. I shall have something to say later about the N.B.A. and about what we hope it will do when it comes to us.
  In the article to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, the sentence about himself may have been true, but as far as I know that was the only true sentence in a vindictive article of innuendo and lies, and which the newspaper should have been ashamed to print. I agree with his remarks about power in a free society. He said that we needed a revolution by consent and that we have to persuade people to move into the twentieth century. There, I entirely agree. What we are discussing is how we are to do it.
  I turn to what the Leader of the Opposition said at Perth. His charge against us in housing—and I shall concentrate entirely on housing—is that we failed, according to the Conservatives, by five tests which I shall take one by one. They are that we failed by the rate of house building; the level of mortgage rates; the supply of land—one thing which he did not mention, but which his right hon. Friend mentions regularly is the problem of local authority rents; and that we

  1587
  Failed, according to him, on the satisfaction of demand for owner-occupation.
  I shall deal with these points one by one and shall, in the course of doing so, try to provide the latest—April—figures. Although I apologise to the House for wearying it with statistics, I cannot avoid some figures in view of the speech to which we have just listened and the charges made at the weekend. I am bound to quote figures to try to correct the impression that hon. Members opposite systematically try to make, that there has been a sensational drop in house production since they left office.
  The Leader of the Opposition began his speech at Perth with the blank assertion that we have failed to keep up the rate of house building reached under the Tories. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham repeated that assertion this afternoon. Of course, they both know that this is untrue. Let us look at the figures again to see whether it is true that there has been a sensational drop in the rate of house building which the Tories achieved in 1964. In that year the rate of house building was 374,000 houses a year, and I give them credit for that. It was the best ever achieved in British history to that date.
  In view of the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) I have left out the figures for Northern Ireland but I am in some embarrassment, for we shall have a summing up speech for the Opposition by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) and I do not want to be ungenerous to him in leaving out the figures for Ulster from the total. Since, however, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames wishes me to do this, his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry will not think me discourteous for leaving out the Northern Ireland houses, since they are only a negligible addition to the total.
  Three hundred and seventy-four thousand houses was the biggest number built. That was the rate for 1964. In 1965, the rate was 382,000 a year. I said at the time that I did not boast of the rate being higher, but it is outrageous to go round asserting that the rate is lower when, in fact, it is higher.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Will the Minister recall that my quarrel with him about Northern Ireland was in no way to under-rate the importance of building in Northern Ireland, but because the Northern Ireland figure was included in a document headed "Labour builds 391,000 houses" when, as the right hon. Gentleman may be aware, the Government of Northern Ireland is not, and never has been, a Labour Government.
  Mr. Crossman: The right hon. Gentleman has sustained his point. I wanted to assure him that I was showing no discourtesy, in giving the total figures, in meeting his objection concerning Northern Ireland. Having got the rate tested by the actual rate of house building, and having seen that despite these astonishing remarks the fact is that we are building now at a rate greater than ever before in history, we will take the second test of houses under construction. At the end of 1964 the number of houses under construction was 434,000, and at the end of 1965 it was 444,000. Therefore the numbers under construction remained almost exactly the same during that period, or, rather, increased by 10,000. I do not claim credit for this. I think that the number under construction may be a sign that too much capital and labour were locked up. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham knows this quite well, because that was the number that he had when he left office. More houses are completed each year under this Government and more houses are under construction than under any previous Administration. By any test that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may choose to select, the annual rate of house building has not fallen. Since a deliberate effort is being made to give a different impression, one is bound to record the truth in this fact.
  I should like to turn to another deliberate falsification made by the Leader of the Opposition, although it was not repeated this afternoon. He said in his speech at Perth:
  "Where we"—
  that is, the Conservatives—
  "encouraged home ownership, Labour has deliberately turned against it. Local authority mortgages have been cut off."
  These are remarks by a responsible Member of Parliament, the Leader of

  1589
  the Opposition. He must know that that is a deliberate fabrication. It is an invention and is simply not true. Let us look at the figures for local authority mortgages. In 1963 the local authorities advanced £104 million; in 1964 £166 million; and in 1965 they advanced £208 million, and most of this was in the third and fourth quarters of the year after the so-called moment when the local authority mortgages were completely cut off.
  Mr. Rippon: Could the Minister give figures of the numbers of people to whom those advances were made, because one has to take into account rising costs?
  Mr. Crossman: We now have an interesting modification, because the statement was that we had cut off local authority mortgages because we hated the owner-occupier. Both are lies, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows quite well that these are deliberate lies to create an impression.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): On a point of order. I had always understood that for one hon. Member or right hon. Member to use the word "lies" of another hon. Member or right hon. Member was unparliamentary. May I have your Ruling on this, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): It is unparliamentary for one hon. Member to accuse another of lying.
  Mr. Crossman: I accept that and I substitute the word "fabrication".
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has twiced used the word "fabrication", once in connection with the word "deliberate". I understood that the tradition and usage of this House was that allegations of deliberate fabrication or falsification were just as bad as the use of the unparliamentary term "lies".
  Mr. Crossman: Before you give your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am willing to substitute—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Crossman: I am on the point of order
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the Minister is addressing me on the same
  1590
  point of order as was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I want to hear the Minister before I give my Ruling.
  Mr. Crossman: I was saying immediately to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks, I will fall back upon the final choice and say that this is a gross terminological inexactitude.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: My Ruling is that there are well-authenticated precedents for the alternative expressions that the Minister has used.
  Mr. Hogg: May I take it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the original words are unreservedly withdrawn by the Minister? Otherwise, will you please rule upon them?
  Mr. Charles Pannell: Further to the point of order. Surely, in the normal use of the English language, one can say that statements are lies without accusing anyone of being a liar.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are not discussing the normal use of the English language. We are talking about Parliamentary expressions.
  Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because his intervention has emphasised my point that the Leader of the Opposition tried to give the impression that the Labour Government, out of bias against the owner occupier, deliberately cut off local authority mortgages, whereas during the year in question they reached a record total. I do not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman would call that, but I know what people outside will think about it.
  Mr. Rippon: Will the Minister confirm whether he has given my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition notice of his vicious attack upon him? [HON. MEMBERS:"Where is her?"] Secondly, will the Minister confirm the accuracy of the figures which I have given, and will he reply to the speech which I have just made?
  Mr. Crossman: I am puzzled at this. A Motion of censure is being moved by the Opposition. If the Leader of the Opposition, who spoke last Sunday entirely on housing, is not here to stand up for what he said—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Hogg: Further to the point of order. Am I not entitled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask the Minister whether he unreservedly withdraws his original use of the words "deliberate fabrication"? If he does not withdraw, will you kindly rule upon it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understood that the Minister had withdrawn that expression and had used an alternative expression for which there is good Parliamentary precedent.
  Mr. Rippon: The Minister knows perpectly well where my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is this afternoon.
  Mr. Crossman rose—
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Would it be convenient for you at this stage, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to make clear, as is, I think, the fact, that the reason why the term "lie" is out of order in this House and why "terminological inexactitude" is in order is that the former conveys a deliberate intent to deceive, whereas the latter expression does not? Will the Minister, therefore, in turn, frankly avow to the House his withdrawal of any suggestion of deliberate misrepresentation by my right hon. Friend?
  Mr. Crossman: I am prepared to stand by the use of the words "terminological inexactitude" in the same way as Sir Winston Churchill at the time he used them. If he thought that there was no attribution of motive in them, then I think so, too.
  Let us return to the local authority mortgages and the accusation made by hon. Members opposite that we deliberately cut them off because we hate the owner occupier, we are now getting the facts. The fact is that local authority mortgages went up in that year, but they were restricted, and they were restricted because the local authorities were competing for the business of the building societies, which were then in difficulty. Therefore, a three-year average formula was reached, and during the winter we worked out a new formula under which we were able to let the local authorities resume full business again in April under a series of classifications of those to whom they should lend money.
  1592
  If the Opposition criticise us for that, will they tell us what their policy would be about local authority mortgages? Would they say, for example, that we ought not to have limited in any way the Greater London Council, which loaned £80 million in 1965? One-third of the Greater London Council's capital investment went out in mortgages. Was it wrong of us to limit this? Was it wrong of us to suggest that instead of competition between the building societies and the local authorities, we might have the local authorities usefully complementing the building societies, as we succeeded in doing?
  Of course, we shall not get an answer to this, but I might ask the hon. Member for Londonderry whether, in winding up the debate for the Opposition, he will tell us what his party thinks about this issue. Since he must now admit that the statement that we cut off the mortgages to spite owner-occupiers is untrue, because we did not do it, perhaps the hon. Member will tell us his view of what local authority lending should be.
  Mr. Graham Page: The Minister has just admitted that during the winter he did cut off the mortgages and that he has now allowed them to be resumed.
  Mr. Crossman: On the contrary, what I said was that they were restricted. They were not cut off.
  Mr. Page: What is the difference?
  Mr. Crossman: The difference is that the amount of the mortgages last year was greater than under the Tories. They were restricted from being even greater. Hon. Members opposite who cannot see the difference in language between restricting an ever-growing demand and cutting it off to spite the owner-occupier are guilty of self-deception.
  Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept simply that they were cut down?
  Mr. Crossman: Certainly. It could have been said that they were restricted because they had grown to colossal dimensions; but that is not what was said. What was said at Perth was that to spite the owner-occupier, we cut off the mortgages. As lawyers should know,

  1593
  there is a world of difference between the mewling of those two words.
  I turn now to one general point about the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and their general attitude. Nearly all their criticism of our housing policy concentrates on the private sector. They hardly mention the public sector. We came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that the first job we had to do was to make up our minds about the proper balance to achieve with the limited resources between houses to let and houses for sale. We decided that of the total programme, 250,000 must be allocated as houses for rent. That was a very big increase
  Mr. Rippon: When are they to be allocated?
  Mr. Crossman: In the National Plan.
  Mr. Rippon: 1970?
  Mr. Crossman: Yes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has put himself a target of 500,000, according to his Election manifesto. Of his 500,000, how many does he think should be for rent and how many for sale? Perhaps the hon. Member for Londonderry will reply to this in winding up the debate. What proportion would the Opposition have between the two?
  Mr. Rippon: What the Minister must let the local authorities do is to build as fast as they need for what they require, and the private builder should be allowed to go ahead also. The right hon. Gentleman should not assume that, by 1970, 250,000 people a year will not be able to make better provision for themselves.
  Mr. Crossman: This is interesting. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that all we have to do is to let the local authorities build all the houses they can—
  Mr. Rippon: They need.
  Mr. Crossman: —which they need—and build what they can, as fast as they can. I tell him bluntly that we at least are a Government who cannot afford to let the local authorities build all the houses they can—
  Mr. Rippon: And need.
  Mr. Crossman: —and need—because the need is gigantic. The need is large in London, Birmingham, Liverpool and Glasgow. Because we inherited one million slums, the need is so great that if local authorities were allowed to do that, if, first, they were given the possibility of doing it and then did it, they could absorb all the housing resources. All the skilled labour could be sucked out of the industry on the one job of houses for rent. This is a job which is all the more important because it was held down under our predecessors, because they let the pool of rented houses drop by one million during their ten years. There were one million fewer rented houses at the end. That pool has to be filled again. The trouble is that if we were to fill it as fast as we can, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested, no houses at all would be built for owner occupation.
  Therefore, one has to strike a balance. One has to say that we will allocate a certain figure to the local authorities and broadly let them fulfil it, because that is the area which we can plan and control. That was why we decided that we would let them go up to the total Of course, they can go higher—that is quite right; of course, they could do much more—but our feeling was that from our national resources we could afford 250,000 a year by 1969. That is the aim. I suggest that the Opposition might give me a more efficient answer than the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave—that we should let everybody do just what they like and that then there will be no trouble. it is very characteristic of him, and it is a totally unrealistic appraisal of the problem.
  During the election the Opposition concealed from the electorate systematically their attitude to public sector building. What rate of subsidy would they give to the public sector—their old subsidy of £24 a house or our new subsidy? We do not get a clear answer to that question. In these last 18 months we have built up the machinery necessary to get the public sector moving along the lines which we require. Our first job has been to select the areas where public sector building shall be concentrated. One of the things which we inherited was the idea that it should

  1595
  be spread over the country, in the way already described, namely, to let any local authority build what it can and then give the local authority so low a subsidy that it cannot afford to build. That was the solution of right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
  We did it differently. We have created a generous subsidy, increasing it from £24 to £67 a house, which means that local authorities can now build without putting an intolerable burden on the ratepayer or the council-house tenant. It is now necessary to decide whom we should allow to build where and how much. We therefore said to ourselves that we must have the building concentrated where the need is greatest, that we must select the seven conurbations where, as Milner Holland proved in London, the ghastly situation arose after 10 years of Tory rule. The Tories love the Milner Holland Report. They think it is wonderful. They did not make a single suggestion how to operate it in order to remove the evils revealed by the desperate famine of cheaply-rented houses not only in London but in all our conurbations.
  We have selected 130 local authorities, quite a minority, out of the 1,228 housing authorities in England. We have tried to bully them and pressure them to build because they are the authorities where the need is, where we have got to get the houses built, and to the rest of the authorities we must say, "We will give you what we can." We tried to get 60 per cent. of the public sector building into these 130 authorities where the slums are. If we are to abolish the slums in a reasonable time we have to concentrate and we have to be prepared for unpopularity. We have to be prepared to say to our friends, "We have got to hold you back because others have the greatest need." That is why we say that the greatest concentration should take place in Liverpool, London, Manchester and the seven conurbations.
  Having got the rolling three-year programmes which we shall revise every year, watching every local authority and spurring them on to greater endeavour, we have got to find techniques which will enable us to do it without overburdening the building industry. Here I should like to pay my full tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham for
  1596
  founding the N.B.A. It was a good thing to do. I think that a certain price was paid for what might be called his Departmental imperialism and the rivalry which was set up between his Ministry and the Ministry of Housing. Nevertheless the N.B.A. was a good organisation and I am glad to be able to pay a tribute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for founding it.
  However, I must say that what we inherited with the N.B.A. were over 350 systems jostling together, and no one had had the courage or the drive to sort them out and see to it that we got them down to a reasonable number to be used. That is now being done. All I would say is that following the Prime Minister's announcement on 17th May we are now arranging for the transfer of responsibility from the Ministry of Public Building and Works to myself and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. It is true that the N.B.A. will now concentrate on housing matters as it has been doing for the last 18 months. This does not mean public sector housing only. It will cover the whole field of housing and the development and application of system building. It will continue to work closely with the house-building industry on the same basis of confidence as hitherto. One other point to make is how successful industrialised building now is. The right hon. and learned Gentleman launched the idea of N.B.A. There was no actual building being done when the right hon. and learned Gentleman left office—
  Mr. Rippon rose—
  Mr. Crossman: I have given way a lot. Let me give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the figures. In 1964 just under 11 per cent. of the public sector dwellings completed in England and Wales were being built by industrialised methods. In 1965 the figure was 16½ per cent. In 1966 the figure is 22 per cent. and we shall get 40,000. This is really a beginning and I think that by 1969 we shall get the necessary 40 per cent. built.
  As I said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman started the idea of the N.B.A. but he did not undertake the difficult job of training the local authorities on one side, and undertaking the harsh work of sorting out the system builders on the other.
  Mr. Rippon: Of course, I started to do so.
  Mr. Crossman: In a very modest way. That has now been undertaken, and that means that we can now claim that as a result of the work which the right hon. and learned Gentleman started there has been a breakthrough, and industrialised building has come to stay and will more and mope form the mainstay of the local government system.
  Mr. Frank Tomney: Can my right hon. Friend say, in the interests of efficiency, what number he has decided upon and whether any one firm has got more than one system?
  Mr. Crossman: The system that we have arranged with the N.B.A. is that the Agency certificates the systems and we advise local authorities which systems are used. The systems are regionally distributed. I think I am right in saying that at present some 40 have been certified for local authorities to consider using.
  In addition to the N.B.A., the industrialised building programme has been greatly helped by the presence in the Ministry of somebody from the firm in which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is interested, Mr. Peter Lederer. It has been invaluable to have in the Ministry an outstanding engineer of such practical experience in system building. I am glad to say that now he is going back to Costains he will be replaced by Mr. Wood of Concrete Limited, a very outstanding constructional engineer who probably has as much experience of high rise building as anybody in the country.
  Mr. T. W. Urwin: Before my right hon. Friend leaves teat point of the National Building Agency, will he tell us a little more about the future rôle of the Agency after it has beer, absorbed by his Department?
  Mr. Crossman: It will not be absorbed by my Department, for the reasons that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given. It will have an independent existence and will work with my Department. It will be concerned with system building, with advising local authorities and helping
  1598
  in the job of training local authorities to make good use of the systems.
  I want to say a word about finance, and in particular about the issue of council house rents on which I know a number of hon. Members opposite are very concerned and on which we were constantly attacked during the election. We were asked time after time why, if we gave such lavish subsidies, we could not force councils to control their rents and introduce rent rebate schemes. This was put to us by the Leader of the Opposition in speech after speech, and I defended it. I think rent rebate schemes are good. I think that now we have rate rebate schemes, rent rebate schemes will come much more quickly. But I am not prepared to exercise dictatorship from Whitehall to remove from the local authorities their established rôle of fixing rents and allocating tenancies.
  I was delighted the other day to find that I had a real supporter in this attitude, in somebody who expressed it even more persuasively than I can and said it with a mellow forensic skill which is remote from my tongue. I have found the pamphlet which refers to the
  "demands that the Minister of Housing and Local Government should be empowered to control local authority rent policies and require them to operate some sort of rent rebate system."
  It says that we must beware of trying to have things both ways. It goes on to say:
  "If we want really responsible local government, attracting the best available local talent, the corollary is as much true independence as possible. The alternative of increased governmental control is to assimilate their position to that of mere agencies of central government, which is both more logical and more efficient to leave the civil servants."
  Those are the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham who opened this debate for the Opposition. They came three days after his leader had repeated his attack on those of us who say that councils should be permitted to be free. It would be interesting to know who speaks for the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition or their spokesman on housing. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who is to wind up will tell us how this slight discrepancy between those two interesting personalities is reconciled.

  1599
  Having said that, I come now, because I think that the House will be interested in them, to the April figures. We can then have the full picture of the first quarter clear.
  Mr. David Winnick: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of council house rents, could he say what safeguard there is for council tenants who are faced with substantial increases, as in Croydon, of over £1 a week? Does he see any form of safeguard for them such as tenants in the private sector now have?
  Mr. Crossman: I do not see the same form of safeguard as there is in the private sector. We introduced rent control for the tenant of private property to protect him from those who would exploit him for reasons of profit. As no council can make a profit on council housing, that kind of protection is not required for the council tenant, who, of course, has recourse to the ballot box in the normal way in self-defence. This is the reason why, in our system of local self-government, we have always said that the proper defence for the council tenant lies in the council chamber and the ballot box, not in Whitehall.
  A word now about the figures—
  Mr. Lubbock rose—
  Mr. Crossman: I want to get on now and give the actual figures, which I am sure the House would like to have. In April, public authorities started 15,300 houses, making 54,000 for the first four months of the year, compared with 58,000 last year; but, with 244,000 houses under construction, they have still a great deal in the pipeline, and construction times have been lengthening slightly. If this reduction in starts leads to a speeding-up in construction, the public sector will be all the healthier for it.
  Public sector completions in April were 13,200, making 53,000 for the first four months, almost exactly the same as in the corresponding months of last year. Last year's weather was good. This year's weather was bad. I think that they did well during the four months to maintain the construction standard of last year.
  Private builders started 20,900 houses in April a considerable improvement on
  1600
  March, which also was an improvement on February. That made 66,000 starts for the first four months of the year, compared with 78,900 last year. Private completions were 18,200 in April, making 63,900 in the first four months compared with 69,000 last year. So the private sector is substantially down in its completions, and the public sector remains almost constant in its completions.
  Mr. Rippon rose—
  Mr. Crossman: I must get on.
  Mr. Rippon: It is on these April figures.
  Mr. Crossman: I must—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must resume his seat.
  Mr. Crossman: It is always difficult for a Minister on these occasions. I have given way a great deal, and I ought to complete what I have to say and leave the debate for the House. I have something more to say about these figures, and hon. Members can comment on them afterwards.
  Mr. Rippon: We ought to have had them in advance, before the debate.
  Mr. Crossman: The figures are there, and I have just given them to the House. In looking at the private sector, there is this problem. We talk about—
  Mr. Rippon: It is too bad.
  Mr. Crossman: What is too bad?
  Mr. Rippon: I was saying that it is really too bad for the Minister to make a habit of giving selected extracts from figures. Some may happen to be damaging to his case while others may be favourable. I want an assurance that, whenever we are to have these detailed housing statistics, they will be given to the House immediately, in advance of debate. Otherwise, we shall only have to go over them all again next month.
  Mr. Crossman: The official figures will be out in a week, but I thought that the House would like to have them this afternoon for the debate. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want them, he need not have them. I have given them to the House, and I did so because I

  1601
  thought that I would be blamed severely if I did not.
  In the private sector, we do not programme, we do not control and we do not regulate. We have to rely on persuasion. The problem there is totally different from the problem in the public sector where we have loan sanction, where we have approvals, and where we can exactly control the output. In the private sector, partly because he insists on it—I have emphasised this to the builder—there is no interference, no regulation and no control. This is why I invited representatives of the building societies and the builders, along with the local authorities, to sit down with me and my officials and work out ways of achieving a steady and continuous advance to the half million. These working parties have been producing useful results, and the builders as well as the building societies are beginning to welcome the fact that, for the first time, they have been invited to co-operate with the Government in their housing plans. But I do not deny that the achievement of the private sector in the last 12 months has been disappointing, with starts hovering around the level which would provide an annual figure of 210,000. Of course, it is not so much less than the best achieved by our predecessors, but it is a long way below the 250,000 houses a year which we are determined to see the private sector provide for the owner-occupier by 1969.
  Mr. Graham Page rose—
  Mr. Crossman: I must get on with my speech.
  Mr. Graham Page: It is on these figures—
  Mr. Crossman: This disappointing level was the result of the mortgage famine last spring. However, I do not want to exaggerate its size. It has been improving from February to March, from March to April and from April to May, from the 12,000 started in February to the 21,000 started in April. If this improvement is sustained, the private sector could easily stage a come-back sufficient to embarrass any prophet of doom.
  There are 203,000 houses in the pipeline in the private sector, but one of the puzzles here is that, during the last 12 months, the period for completing a house
  1602
  in the private sector, which used to be two months longer than the period in the public sector—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, never."]—has now drawn level. [Interruption.] I am just giving the figures. The period is now longer—
  Mr. Graham Page rose
  Mr. Crossman: The period is now 12 months, but it used to be ten months. In the course of the last year, it has prolonged itself. I am giving the detailed figures. This spring, it is taking over 12 months to complete a house for sale, compared with just over ten months a year ago and just over nine and a half months in March, 1964. It used to take builders two months less to build a house for sale. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Now, it takes the same time to build a house in both sectors. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman said it took longer."] No, I said that they took less time before, but they have prolonged the period now so that they both take the same time. I hope that the House has it clear. It is now taking the private sector two months longer.
  Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman said that it is now taking the private sector longer to build houses than before.
  Mr. Crossman: Yes.
  Mr. Page: Longer than it takes the public sector.
  Mr. Crossman: No.
  Mr. Page: It cannot be true. It does not take the private sector longer.
  Mr. Crossman rose—
  Mr. Page: May I just complete this?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have the Minister and the hon. Member for Crosby on their feet at the same time.
  Mr. Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman gave way to me. I was on my feet, and I had not finished my question to him. I wished to point out that the figures which he has given for building show that there are 15,000 fewer houses being built this year than there were last year, which means that he will not achieve as many houses built this year as last year.
  Mr. Crossman: I was discussing the point that the figures now show that there has been a prolongation of building time in the private sector. The time for completion in the private sector is now two months longer than it was a year ago. What would make more difference than anything else to the results would be if the builders set to work with a will and completed even one-third of the 200,000 houses in the pipeline. The question we have to ask ourselves is why they will not.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself asked this question and he gave his explanation of the delay. One thing we are pretty clear about is that the big contractors are not affected. They are working in boom conditions, building all they can for the private and public sectors, and they do not seem to be affected by the difficulties of which we are talking. The difficulties are concentrated among the small builders, but one has to realise that 60 per cent. of houses are built by firms with fewer than 50 houses to build in a year and 30 per cent. are built by firms with fewer than ten to build a year. What we have to discover is how to stimulate the small builder to build as fast as he used to be building a year ago and as the big builder is still building. I think that we can knock out four things which are often said to be causing the delay.
  The first is high mortgage rates. It is clear that, with a 7¼ per cent. rate such as we have now, a mortgage still remains one of the most profitable investments, and, with Income Tax concession, it still costs less than 5 per cent. High mortgage rates are infuriating to the buyer, but the number of houses on which advances are being made by the building societies in the first quarter of this year is 34,000 new houses, and in the record four months of last year it was 31,000. So the amount of money being advanced and the number of houses on which it is being advanced is greater this year than last year. That dispenses with the idea that it is shortage of money or the high rate of interest which has anything to do with the subject.
  Nevertheless, the Chancellor and I were worried by the determination of the B.S.A. to raise the rate from 6¾ to 7¼ per cent. Now that it has taken the decision, we have decided to refer it to the Prices and Incomes Board. How to combine
  1604
  a continuous growth in building society business—
  Mr. Oscar Murton rose—
  Mr. Crossman: —this is essential to the private sector housing programme—with complete security for the lender and with efficiency in management is a very difficult question. We were not convinced that the traditional building society attitude to this issue was wholly in tune with modern conditions. Though the building societies disagreed with us, I think I can say that the building society representatives feel that something of value might come out of an examination by the Prices and Incomes Board. Replying to the right hon. Gentleman about the G.L.C., the council lends on fixed interest, and these things do not apply to it.
  Secondly, can it be a mortgage famine which is the difficulty? Clearly not. In that sense there has been no mortgage famine this year. It may be difficult some times to get a mortgage, but the number of mortgages being given is greater this year than it was in the first four months of last year. Nor can anyone say that it is a shortage of bricks and mortar or even of skilled labour. [Interruption.] I note that the Opposition agrees with me about this. It is not even shortage of skilled labour because skilled labour is slightly easier now than a year ago.
  There have been two things which have mostly been holding up building completions. The first is the concern of the builders about bridging finance. If they are concerned about this, as it appears, I hope that they will take advantage of our working parties and start discussing their practical problems with us, and if they feel that it is only the big builders who can come to see us, we shall be prepared to see them in the country and discuss the practical problems with them, because I believe that some of these things can be resolved in that way.
  The main reason that they have given—this is something that I must look at—is the land difficulty. According to them, they see this difficulty arising because of the coming of the Land Commission. This seems to me to be a complete and total misunderstanding of the

  1605
  situation. The land famine, the shortage of building land, has little to do with the Land Commission. It is something which we inherited when we came to office. It is amazing that people should have such short memories as not to remember the difficulties—the soaring land prices, the speculative boom and the appalling shortage of land.
  Let us look at the problem and see how it happened. It was the wanton demolition of the 1947 Acts planning machinery which caused the trouble. I am sorry to say that something else caused it, and that was the green belt policy adumbrated in 1953–54 by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) when he was Minister of Housing. I say that I am sorry to say this because certainly I share the right hon. Gentleman's desire to protect the countryside and limit urban sprawl or seepage or slurb and to keep the country open between towns. But, unfortunately, the green belt policy that he promulgated had a fatal defect. It was a negative preservationist policy without any policy for development accompanying it.
  If one has the first without the second, what one gets is not merely a wholly desirable preservation of the green belt but a wholly undesirable shortage of building land over the precise area where the houses are needed. The whole situation was made far worse by the complete failure in the 1950s to realise early enough that the population forecasts on which post-war development was based were hopelessly inadequate. When the situation dawned on the Tory Government of the day they did very little. The right hon. Gentleman said last week that in his view the whole of the land famine could be solved by the device of electing a Tory Government to do nothing again as they did in the previous ten years.
  We have had to face the situation and get land. Since we are accused of not getting land, I want to tell the House how we got it. There is no shortage of land suitable for building; on the contrary there is plenty. There is no land shortage in that sense. The problem is how to get the right land allocated and brought forward for development at the right place and at the right time. The problem is how to break down the artificial shortages impeding both public and private building.
  1606
  I had to take a very unpopular decision. I had to take a slice out of the green belt near Birmingham and give Chelmsley Wood to Birmingham because there was no other way of launching Birmingham's building programme. During thirteen years of Conservative rule Birmingham was unable to build. It is now building 7,000 houses a year because we got it the land required. It was land adjacent to the city, on its perimeter. I told Birmingham at the time "I am getting you this for the short-term, and for the medium and long term we must make preparations for releasing land which avoid taking the green belt, which jump over the green belt to the other side."
  I can point in each region to new allocations of land for public or private building which have been made on the authority of my Ministry in the last eighteen months either by amending development plans or by planning permission granted on appeal or "call-in". For example, in the Northern Region there is 500 acres at Sunderland; in the North-West there is 450 acres at Whiston mainly for Liverpool; in Yorkshire and Humberside there is 285 acres at Sheffield. But I will not go through the whole list. In every area one of the jobs of the Ministry has been to get land released and developed. We have some achievements there.
  Secondly, we have used the new town machinery far more fully than our predecessors did. We are now engaged in doubling, by a novel use of new town machinery, Northampton, Peterborough and Ipswich. This machinery enables us to designate land and obtain it for development, and we have done this in Swindon, Aycliffe new town and Wins-ford, which enables Liverpool to increase its target from 30,000 to 60,000. There is also to be a second generation of new towns. So we are acquiring and designating land. If our predecessors in their ten years had done a quarter of the designations and acquisitions of land which we have done in our first eighteen months, we should not have the terrible land famine which we have today.
  Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he is able to do all this without the Land Commission? Why does he need the Land Commission if he has all this land?
  Mr. Crossman: I was just coming to that. I was about to say to the right hon. Gentleman that all that we are doing is terribly piecemeal and so far insufficient to meet the needs of Birmingham, London, Sheffield or any other great city. Well do I know it. The right hon. Gentleman is not used to the fact that if one increases council building to the scale that we have been doing, one increases the requirement for land and needs more land. This is why we simply have, in addition to all the other machinery which we have got—which is inadequate—to revise planning law. This is something that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. We must do it and we are on the way to doing it. Also, we have to have the Land Commission. What is the value of the Land Commission? It is not primarily in the first case to public enterprise, not to the council, not to the new towns. All these have their facilities, with my help, for acquiring land. The people who are left out of it are the small builders. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says that they are not. But their very complaint is that they are.
  Mr. Rippon rose—
  Mr. Crossman: Let me finish this. The people left out, who say that they cannot get the land, are the small builders. They are the people who need the land. If I may say so, very often it is the big builder who is buying it up. What they need, therefore, is an agency which will go out and get the land for them, and, as I made perfectly clear—we have written in an Amendment to Clause 1 of the Measure to make it inescapably clear—we have power to direct the Land Commission as to where it should operate and in relation to which planning authority it should operate. I can tell the House that in the first stage when finances are limited we shall leave the local authorities and the new towns to rely on their own resources. We had to concentrate the activity of the Land Commission predominantly in releasing land for the small builder, who has a legitimate complaint.
  Mr. Rippon: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman allow local authorities to use their existing powers to buy land and release it to small builders? Why not make the necessary amendment, which the right hon. Gentleman can do admini-
  1608
  stratively, in respect of the green belt, and also speed up the process of planning decisions?
  Mr. Crossman: We have speeded them up as much as possible within existing legislation. The other stage will require a change in legislation, in removing the right of appeal in minor cases.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked why we do not allow local authorities to provide land for the private builder. The private builder would not feel confident that a local authority would provide him with land. A local authority is very much in the business of house building. It wants its own land. Although I can give instructions in the case of New Towns—as I am doing—in all cases to allocate 50 per cent. of land to owner-occupation, it is much more effective to work from the centre, because local authorities cannot get into virgin territory and buy the land early. They cannot go in and capture it before development has forced up prices.
  There is everything to be said for a Land Commission. All that is needed is for hon. Members opposite to help to persuade the small builder that if he knuckles down and builds his houses on the land that he has now, other land will be available to him afterwards.
  Mr. Reginald Eyre: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has contradicted the words of his hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources who, in the recent debate, said that the allocation of land by the Land Commission would be, first to housing associations, secondly to local authorities, and only in special conditions to private developers?
  Mr. Crossman: He certainly did not say that. I heard his speech. I am talking of the Land Commission in the early stage, which is what the builders are worrying about. This is one of the most essential arguments in our reply to this Motion of Censure. The right hon. Gentleman summed up his argument by saying that we had shown a total failure to respond to any of the challenges in housing which faced this country today.
  We have responded to the need of the great conurbations to build houses to get rid of the slums by giving them, for

  1609
  the first time, subsidies which enabled them to do so. We have used planning machinery—new town machinery—far more effectively to get the land. We have assisted in and started this job. We have got it ready. We know hat on the public sector side we have raised the level of building. The question is whether we can persuade the private builder to pluck up courage to do his job. I think that we shall do that as well.
  5.34 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Clegg: I want my first words in the House to be words of appreciation. Like all new Members, I have been treated with the utmost kindness by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and especially by the servants of the House—although I must confess that after a few days, taking quite impartially directions given from both right and left, I have twice finished up in the boiler house, from which I retreated feeling something like a latter-day Guy Fawkes. The kindness shown to all of us means a great deal.
  My predecessor was for 16 years Member of Parliament for North Fylde. During that period Richard Stanley devoted a great deal of time and effort to looking after the affairs of his constituents. He was specially concerned with individual problems. I only hope that, in my turn, I can do the same. I have been studying the records, and I have found that my predecessor's family was represented in the House for 44 years—from 1922 until this year—without a break. My hope is to be as good a Member in my time as they were in theirs.
  All hon. Members will agree that my constituency is the finest in the United Kingdom. Since the war it has seen remarkable progress in the building both of private and public housing. As the Minister has said, during that time we have seen town maps outstripped and target dates met long before they were due to be met. We have seen council house waiting lists greatly reduced. But some of the problems that we have been discussing still exist in my constituency. The shortage of land is one of the main ones.
  This is not due to the hoarding of land by private owners the difficulty is that there is not enough planning permission
  1610
  available for land to come on to the market. This will stop development on the Fylde Coast, and especially near the coast, unless the right hon. Gentleman gets planning permission moving more speedily and therefore gives the smaller builder a chance to build.
  We have many fine council estates in North Fylde, and I want to say something about the council house tenant. He is a much discussed man—a man about whom much is written. We are in danger of creating a static society among council house tenants. This is because of the system of tenure which exists as between a housing authority and a council tenant. At the moment the tenant is pretty well on a "grace and favour" basis. The right hon. Gentleman said that the fact that a public authority was subject to local elections provided good protection for the tenant. I suggest that that is not enough. The time may come when we shall have to provide a charter for council house tenants—a charter including powers for local authorities to grant leases over such a period of years as will provide a feeling of security for the tenant, subject to strict control or limited control on the part of a tenant to assign his tenancy. This would give the tenant a feeling that his home really belonged to him, and that he had a much more personal stake in it.
  The question also arises of the difficulty of council house tenants transferring from one house to another. This question should be examined. It is very difficult for such a tenant to obtain a transfer within the area of one local authority, but it is even more difficult for him to obtain a transfer from one part of the country to another. That is why I say that we are in danger of creating a static society. I wonder whether the Minister would consider setting up a body on the lines of a national exchange agency for council tenants so that tenants in various parts of the country could register their desire to move and arrange exchanges with other tenants. In that way we may be able to get more mobility into our council tenants society. These matters are important. It is dangerous for families to become rooted in one spot because they do not find it easy to move if they wish.
  I want to conclude by saying something which, on the surface, seems banal.

  1611
  The only answer to our problem is to build more houses. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that any doctrinal differences that stand between the achievement of our common objective of building more houses should go. There are doctrines on both sides of the House.
  I make a plea for the encouragement of private landlords to build more houses with their own money. This has been a great success in other countries. It would take the strain off local authority and Government finance, and the Minister would still be able to control the buildings to ensure that no injustice was done to ingoing tenants.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Price: It may be dangerous for an hon. Member to make his maiden speech in a debate on a thoroughly controversial subject, but, like others before me, I take some courage from what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said in the Daily Mail recently, that there was no longer need for maiden speakers to worry about whether they were controversial or not. I do not know whether right hon. and hon. Members opposite will find my remarks controversial or not. I shall not try consciously to avoid being controversial. However, I want to carry out one of the conventions of a maiden speech and mention my constituency, because both Birmingham and Perry Barr are very relevant to the debate.
  Birmingham is now one enormous building site. Probably more construction per square yard is going on there than in any other city in the country. Any measures designed to see this construction and produce the finished product are particularly relevant to it.
  Perry Barr is the sort of area in big cities in danger of being forgotten these days. Before 1920, it was entirely green fields. There was hardly a house in the constituency. By the middle of the 1950s, it was filled up. Most of the houses were built in the 1920s and the 1930s and a few in the 1940s and 1950s. When we talk about the rate of house building as of cardinal importance, we must also think carefully about the quality of the housing, because we can learn a great
  1612
  deal from the mistakes made during the 1920s and 1930s.
  Some of the older council houses were built very well, but serious mistakes were made and we are paying for them now. One of the mistakes was that the balance was all wrong. Hundreds of three-bedroom houses were put up for the families with young children who were moving in at the time. But it was forgotten that these parents would grow old and, therefore, no provision was made for providing enough small accommodation for them in their old age. Now we have the problem of these elderly people living in accommodation far too big for them, the only alternative being to move them far away from the area in which they have spent so much of their lives and in which they brought up their families. This is something that we must be careful to get right in future housing schemes.
  In the estates put up in the 1920s and 1930s community facilities for leisure time were often conspicuously lacking. The estates looked marvellous on the drawing board—geometrically a wonderful sight to see from an aerial photograph. But they consisted simply of houses and a few schools and not nearly enough community facilities. That is another aspect about which we must be very careful. We have to ensure a balanced community in our housing development. We do not want to encourage people just to sit in front of their televisions all evening, every evening. We want to have facilities nearby where they can join in and form a real community.
  These houses have been particularly hard hit because the cost of building new houses has been masked over the last five years by the fact that new rents have been constantly subsidised by council house tenants living in the older houses, and the latter feel this very strongly. In addition, we are reaching a point where many of the older houses built in the 1930s are presenting serious repair problems. I do not feel that many local authorities are putting nearly enough money into their repairs accounts to face this problem, which is growing more and more rapidly. I want to say two things about what we should concentrate on in ensuring the quality of these houses.
  First—and I give right hon. Members opposite all credit for this—the Parker Morris Committee was brought together

  1613
  and it laid down standards in which are enshrined the principle that ordinary working-class people are entitled to exactly the same proper facilities and decent amenities in their homes as people who can afford perhaps to buy rather more expensive houses. I am glad that my right hon. Friend is persuading more and more local authorities to accept these standards as an absolute necessity for all houses and flats which they erect.
  In surveying the houses built over the last 14 years in our big cities, one is struck by the tremendous contrast between the houses being built nowadays under the Parker Morris standards and those dreadful, pokey little houses put up in 1952 and 1953 in a mad rush to get 300,000 houses at all costs simply to satisfy a hysterical vote by acclamation at a Conservative Party conference. Ceilings were lowered, halls disappeared, and square footage was made much smaller. We are left with houses like this for the next 50 or 60 years. I am sure that hon. Members opposite have been in them. I would not like to have to live in one for the next 40 years or so.
  I want to congratulate the Government for the encouragement they are giving to industrialised building. I am certain that in this lies the key to getting the sort of production we need for the National Plan. No one who has been to the Industrialised Building Systems and Components Exhibition that is on now will fail to have caught some of the excitement about what industrialised building can do. Of course, it is not a panacea. I do not think that it will make a building any cheaper and there are faults in it. Britain has come to industrialised building very late compared with other countries.
  There are still too many systems and we need to cut them down. At a time when we are going over to decimal currency we have wrongly adopted a module of four inches. It is tragic that the powers that be did not take a metric module, which would have fitted in with the rest of Europe. Be that as it may, the system is working.
  It produces more houses, although it does not produce them much cheaper. It does, however, produce better quality workmanship with the same labour, possibly less, because things fit. They are made in factories and machined to very fine tolerances. Most important of
  1614
  all, it gives an opportunity for the development of housing. It means that we do not have the situation which existed in the 1920s and 1930s, when the same house was built for years and years and never improved. It means that architects can work on the systems and produce small improvements all the time.
  From that point of view it is something which must be encouraged even more than it is at present. That is why I am particularly pleased that in the new Selective Employment Tax we have a real encouragement to industrialised building, to the extent that a house built in a factory and not on site will be cheaper. The more industrialised building we can use the more we are going to keep down the cost of housing.
  Finally, I am particularly glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Minister of Housing and Local Government mentioned Birmingham. He spoke of the land which has been released for Birmingham, and as a Birmingham Member I am particularly grateful to this Government because they have allowed Birmingham, at last, to get on with the job of solving the housing problems, the solutions to which have lain stagnant for the last seven or eight years.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. Oscar Murton: It falls to me to have the peculiar pleasure of following not one maiden speech, but two, one from each side of the House. I would like, first, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) on his forceful speech and for the allusions which he made to his distinguished predecessor, and for the natural and proper pride which he takes in his well-known constituency. I should also like to congratulate him on giving fresh thought to a very difficult problem, namely, the mobility of council-house tenants, not only in one area but over the country. I am sure that everyone in this House looks forward to hearing from him again on this and other subjects in the near future.
  Secondly, I would like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price). He put forward an equally imaginative approach to the question of building. He spoke of the great city of Birmingham and of Perry Barr which, not so

  1615
  very long ago, rose from the green fields. He also made one or two allusions, having as one might say, thrown down the gauntlet about contentious subjects, to the volume of building which took place some years ago.
  There is contention and contention, and I am quite certain that we accept what he has said in the spirit of keenness with which he made his remarks, in the hope and desire of making his mark in this subject. I would like to congratulate him and say again that we look forward to him making contributions on succeeding occasions in general debates in this House.
  I would also have liked to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, if he had been in his place. My congratulations would have been because he has shouldered a considerable additional burden of housing problems by expanding his not inconsiderable empire to include the National Building Agency and that ailing body, the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. The Government have waited 13 months to announce the concentration of these powers under the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who becomes what one might call a super-Minister. But having done this, is it not strange that the final step, which would bring the axe down upon the collective necks of those in the Ministry of land and Natural Resources, should have been delayed? We do not know when this fatal blow will fall.
  The country is puzzled by this, because there is, as we on this side of the House at any rate know, a continuing disparity between the Government's promises in the matter of housing and their dismal performance, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman did with the figures which he gave us this afternoon. I am sorry to say that we are not to receive these in full for another week. I must protest mildly about this, because these figures are vital to us all in a debate of this important nature. I regret that the Minister is not here to answer this. It is extremely hard to comprehend the meaning and import of these figures from what the Minister gave us at the Dispatch Box today.
  There is another important point I would like to mention. I noted, when I referred to the guillotine falling upon the
  1616
  Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, that it would be a good thing if the guillotine fell fast. This is because the right hon. Gentleman made a statement this afternoon which we believe completely contradicts a statement made by one of his colleagues speaking in another debate, on the Second Reading of the Land Commission Bill, on the subject of priorities for the acquisition of land, and whether that land would be given to small builders.
  When this debate is wound up it would be a good thing if we were made aware of what the Government's intention is and which Ministry is speaking correctly on this matter. The country will not have failed to notice from the Press reports today that the Building Societies Association is going ahead with its intention to recommend what I am told is an all-time record of 7⅛ per cent. for mortgage loans. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister said 7¼ per cent. but I think that this was a slip of the tongue. The 7¼ per cent. refers to the G.L.C. rate, and 7⅛ per cent. is the correct figure which the Building Societies Association is recommending.
  The Minister and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor have done their best to put building societies in a straitjacket. Very understandably the building societies have slipped neatly out of it before the cords were finally and irrevocably bound tightly round them. I do not blame them because, as I understand it from the Press, they attempted to obtain a tax concession to help them with the service which they render to the public. Having failed to obtain this concession, they have resisted constant pressure, so I am told in the Press, applied by the Chancellor to reduce further their reserve ratios. I believe that the ratios have been gradually and systematically reduced over the past year or two and that they have now said, "So far and no further".
  This is a very serious situation, but the building societies are in no way to blame. The blame must lie solely with the Government, because it is their economic policy which has caused the trouble. The only people who are going to suffer are those families looking for homes of their own and who are frustrated because they cannot obtain mortgage facilities, either because the money is not available or,

  1617
  where it is becoming available, because the rate is very high. I disagree with the Minister who said, I believe, that 7⅛ per cent. is high but not insuperable. It is an all-time high, and far too high.
  The failure of the Government's housing policy relating to mortgages will not be solved by the 4¼ per cent. option scheme, which, we understand, is shortly to be introduced. A real stumbling block is the initial deposit. We all know that our constituents are worried about the initial deposit. Some people profess not to understand this. They say, "Surely anyone can save £100 nowadays for the deposit on a house". My answer to that, and of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, is, how can anybody, starting from scratch, save the money for a deposit when he probably has to pay £3 or £4 a week for the rent of a council house or private accommodation before he can even get off the ground and begin to save?
  If the Minister really wants to do something to help people to get houses of their own as opposed to keeping them in public authority houses, the best thing that he can do is to persuade himself and his colleagues that the lending of the deposit from Government sources might well be the answer. But if the Government are unwilling to make a loan of the deposit, a practical alternative is that they should let the building societies give a loan of 100 per cent. but guarantee the top 5 per cent. through the medium of the Exchequer. I feel—and this is a view which I hold very strongly—that intending purchasers should also be allowed to include their legal fees in the mortgage. They are another stumbling block, as I have seen in my constituency. When I was a local authority councillor, we hoped to persuade people to come out of council houses and go into private accommodation being built for sale, but they could not find the legal fees involved.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting and important point. I am sure that he has a lot of support on both sides of the House for it. It would be interesting to know why his party, during its 13 years of office, failed to do anything of this kind which would have been greatly beneficial to the people.
  Mr. Murton: We did give guarantees to building societies. The hon. Gentleman was probably rather busy during the General Election, but if he had read the Conservative Party's manifesto he would have seen that we promised something which I consider to be very much more concrete than that which the Government have promised. We shall see whether they ever fulfil it.
  A scheme could be devised which would be an incentive to persuade higher income council tenants to move into owner-occupied accommodation, to set them up as home owners, and to allow the accommodation thus freed to be given to those not so fortunate in having such a high income. I have found from talking to tenants that some of them are astonished that the equivalent of the rent which they are paying for a council house would go very nearly the whole way towards a mortgage repayment on a small privately-owned house. That is another point which needs reinforcing. Encouragement towards this end could be given, and the facts should be made known.
  I have spoken about mortgages and the methods which I think should be adopted to aid intending house purchases. What will certainly not aid them is the Chancellor's Selective Employment Tax. This has already been mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). It is all very well to claim that the construction industry is now to be brought into the investment grants scheme, after second thoughts on the part of the Government, but, at best, this will help only the really large companies; and even they will be appreciably worse off than before.
  My concern, however, is for the small builder. There has been discussion about the small builder today. He will be in a very difficult position. It is calculated that the Selective Employment Tax will have the effect of increasing the hourly rate by as much as 7½d. per man employed. This might well amount to 6 per cent. It will add at least 2 per cent. to the cost of homes. It has been suggested that the average increase might be £50 on the price of a three-bedroomed house. But I have seen as much as £100 quoted. The Government should take warning from this when they consider the Bill dealing with this tax. It

  1619
  is a vicious tax, because it strikes in the wrong places.
  The Minister must also face the fact that the constantly spiralling rate bill will not help the finances of intending house purchasers. His proposed measures to abate the annual increase, as he well knows, are totally 'inadequate because, although cumulative, they are not incisive enough in their opening stages. The Conservative Party's proposal for cutting the rate bill straight away by 10 per cent. was a much more realistic and positive measure. The Government should take heed of that and do something to improve their own proposals.
  I wish to draw the attention of the Minister, who is still not here, to a most unfortunate by-product of his Rent Act. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary who is concerned with that is not here either. The Rent Act is having an effect in housing young couples which was not foreseen. Many young couples begin their married life in very small flats or in older houses or in rooms let in those older houses, mostly unfurnished. I have found in my constituency that the owners of these houses containing small flats and unfurnished rooms are frightened by the provisions of the Act and the difficulties with which they would be faced if, for one reason or another, they wished to terminate the weekly or monthly tenancies which previously they operated.
  Through worry of what might befall them, and to avoid this worry, they do not let those rooms any more and, in consequence, Poole, which normally has a very adequate range of accommodation, is, for the first time for many years, facing a shortage. Not only is there worry for the landlords, but there is even greater worry for those denied the accommodation.
  Mr. Winnick: Would the hon. Gentleman like a return to the position which obtained under the Rent Act, 1957, when there was no security of tenure? Would he want the tenants of furnished accommodation to be evicted without a court order? Would he make the position clear?
  Mr. Murton: It was not possible to evict from unfurnished accommodation without a court order.
  Mr. Winnick: Furnished accommodation.
  Mr. Murton: In the case of furnished accommodation, the normal procedure was to go to the county court if a proper agreement was in force. The situation of this narrow band of people about whom I am talking is very much worse than it was before.
  I turn to another problem. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) will not object if I quote something which he said in November, 1964. He was speaking in an interview with a trade journal, Building. It was called something else then, but I believe it is called Building now. He was discussing brickmaking, and he said of these manufacturers:
  "I have offered them a guarantee. I have assured them that every brick they can produce over the next four years will be taken up."
  He went on to say:
  "Nothing has a greater psychological effect on a man than seeing plenty of bricks on the site."
  I do not want to make too much of this, because I think that enough has been made already in the form of bricks—I gather, to the tune of about 900 million. I am not so worried about the psychological effects of seeing bricks on the site as the psychological effect upon the workers and the manufacturers who have bricks in their yards, because I understand that now yards are full, and the stores of bricks are moving out into the green fields. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will shortly be grumbling because so much valuable land is covered by bricks—not used, but in stacks.
  It may be thought that I treat this subject with some levity, but, in reality, I treat it with great seriousness and worry because in my constituency we have a number of brickmaking firms which have put in special equipment at the admonition and exhortation of the Labour Government and now they are faced with a glut and they are in a position where they may have to pay off men. In my constituency, it is a serious problem. There are other constituencies with great

  1621
  brickworks where the position is even more critical, and I should like to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, if the message is passed to him, or from whichever Minister is to wind up the debate, that something is being done about this, and that the Government really have the intention to use those 900 million tricks, because if we divide that number by the number which go to make a house it will be seen that there is practically a whole year's housing lying on the ground in fields.
  We should like to see the Government live up to those promises they made. They accused us of paper promises. Let us see what they can do with their promises. Use the bricks, and use them quickly.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: I will come in a minute or two to the points which the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) made, but in so far as he has to deal with maiden speeches he will appreciate that from this side of the House I must first address my remarks to the hon. Member for Fylde, North (Mr. Clegg), who sits in front of him, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) and offer them congratulations on their maiden speeches. I should think we enjoyed both of them very much.
  I just want to tell them that there is in this place rather a myth about the difficulty of making a maiden speech. Those speeches will be about the easiest speeches they will ever make in this House. Actually, there is a flaw in this idea that a maiden speech is such an ordeal and is so difficult.
  Both hon. Members will have learned by now that the House is so kind, so tolerant to maiden speeches. They must never be adversely reflected upon in subsequent debate, and there is a sort of conspiracy to make a new Member feel at home. It will never be repeated.
  I was followed, when I had made my maiden speech, by Mr. Peter Thorneycroft. I am sorry, for personal reasons, that he is still not here. He said about making speeches that they get harder as one goes on, and they do.
  This speech of mine is a sort of maiden, in so far as I have not spoken from the
  1622
  back benches for five or six years, I think. I am, therefore, in a very curious sort of position. My hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate will be replying largely for any sins of commission or omission I may have committed at the Ministry.
  I do not want to talk very much about tricks and mortar and building licences. Indeed, at this moment I feel like a man with a load of bricks off his mind. I do not want to refer to this particular subject, but the House will understand that in so far as I do bear some responsibility for what has happened it did seem to me that I should intervene at this time and then get to some other more cheerful subject, such as abortion law reform or something like that.
  I should like to deal, first, with the question of bricks, because I really think that this gives us a key to the whole debate. I am glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned it, because I always like to follow the previous speaker. I wish to quote from an authority whom nobody here will impugn, Sir Arthur Worboys, at the annual meeting of the London Brick Company. He was speaking about conditions in 1964 and the 11 per cent. upsurge that year, and the shortage of bricks which was reflected in Parliamentary Questions from both sides of the House. Indeed, the very last debate before the election in 1964 was initiated, I think, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works, about the shortage of bricks. It is against those conditions that we came in and I dealt with the brickmakers. The hon. Member has been scrupulously fair in so far as he quoted the figure I had given for four years, whereas other people have sometimes quoted it in the context of six months.
  I happen to believe in four-year plans, and that the weakness of our system here is that we have annual Budgets and annual Sessions of Parliament—the sorts of things fit for a pastoral society—the rotation of crops, the seed time and harvest. The sooner we get down to consider matters over four-year periods the better, and we could come nearer to a four-year plan if we could carry legislation over from one Session to another instead of having the rather unseemly legislative scramble at the end of the year.

  1623
  However, to come back to Sir Arthur Worboys, he said:
  "When the Minister saw brickmakers in November, 1964, and set a target for an 8 per cent. increase in production in the following year, his reasons for doing so were justified by the heavy demand experienced for bricks in 1964 and the expectation of further growth in 1965 to meet a predicted steadily rising housing programme. Of course he had in mind the part to be played by industrialised building but, in his own words, 'In the context of a long term expansion of construction the increase of industrialised building will still be supplementary to traditional methods.' I am quite sure the Minister genuinely believed that a crash programme was required to get the extra bricks needed quickly and we should not forget that the 8 per cent. target was still well within the ultimate growth in brick production envisaged in the National Plan. What the Minister did not foresee and appreciate was the effect on building of the measures taken to correct the balance of payments and which later were enhanced by the Chancellor's severe cuts last July. In this respect, I suggest, brickmakers have a longer experience than the Minister of the cyclical conditions to which the industry has been accustomed in a national economy so precariously balanced between the requirement for growth and the need to protect sterling."
  I hope that today we look at the question of the protection of the building industry in the context of the whole national economy. This industry, particularly, reflects the economy, and we cannot insulate the building industry from it. If, therefore, we consider that sterling was in peril in 1965, and that harsh measures were necessary—and hon. Members on the other side were calling for even harsher measures—frankly, something like the Chancellor's proposals had to be embarked upon. It is against that background that I would justify anything which we said at the time.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was subsequent to those decisions that he was asking the brick manufacturing industry to expand its production?
  Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member is incorrect. I am stating what Sir Arthur Worboys said. I met them in November, 1964. The Chancellor's cuts were in July of the next year. As a matter of fact, the general trend in the industry was seen in the January or February. The hon. Member has his dates wrong.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: I apologise if I am wrong, but I know the right hon. Gentleman's advocacy in the early months of 1965 for an increased production of bricks. I remember him speaking in that respect on many occasions.
  Mr. Pannell: In this House we do not bandy charges of that sort without quoting more accurately than a general blanket assumption. When one hon. Member assures another that it was not so, then he should be taken as having stated a fact. If an hon. Member opposite said to me, "I assure you", I should, of course, accept his assurance. We talk of each other as hon. Members, and we take that to be so. People should not shuffle out on half-statements. But it does not matter. Truth is indivisible.
  I turn to a subject in which, probably to my embarrassment, I may carry the hon. Member with me. I want to mention the Selective Employment Tax. Of course, a Minister must take responsibility for anything he does when he is Minister, and I should certainly regard it as completely unpardonable if, when he ceased to be a Minister, a right hon. Gentleman referred to anything which had happened in his Ministry while he was a Minister. But he is. I think, entitled to reflect on the things which did not happen when he was a Minister.
  I therefore come to the point that I left office on 4th April and that I had never heard of the Selective Employment Tax while I was a Minister. I cannot, therefore, be charged with any of its implications.
  Mr. H. P. G. Channon: Not guilty.
  Mr. Pannell: As the hon. Member said. I am not guilty.
  Paragraph 18 of the Selective Employment Tax White Paper says:
  "The construction industry will pay the tax and there will be no refunds. This will induce economy in the use of labour. To the extent that the industry incorporates large quantities of manufactured goods (equivalent to about one-third of its total costs) there will be some offset to the effect of the tax."
  That bald statement seems to me to be bereft of reasoning. It seems to me to be as about insensitive as it is daft.
  I want to raise some rather more serious points. I will not go into the arguments

  1625
  about co-operative societies and such subjects and I will try to speak about things of which I have had some experience. It seems to me that while we can bandy across the House such things as the Corporation Tax for a long time, we might have thought about the Selective Employment Tax a little more before it was launched and, to use an aircraft industry expression, we might have got the bugs out of it.
  I notice that immediately the tax had been introduced there was a retreat in respect of agriculture from the proposal to recoup the money in the Price Review. The Ministry of Agriculture stands nearer to the industry of agriculture than perhaps any other Ministry stands to its respective industry. The next closest analogy is the building industry and the Ministry of Public Building and Works. The Ministry of Public Building and Works is nothing unless it is the leader of the industry, the protector of the industry and the Department without any doubt at all which has the greatest expertise in this field.
  I wonder how much this Ministry was listened to—because very often the Treasury seem to do things which do not sound intelligent to technicians.
  Mr. Lubbock rose
  Mr. Pannell: I will not give way. It is a difficult enough speech to make in all conscience.
  I remember Sir Stafford Cripps introducing a Budget in about 1950. Clause 13 of the Finance Bill—I remember it very well—proposed to put a tax on electric vehicles. I worked on electrical vehicles before I came to the House, and I think that I could claim, in a technical sense, to know more about them than anybody else in the House. I remember going to the Chancellor or the Finance Secretary at the time, and frankly I could not get down to their level. It needed a whole deputation of engineers under David Kirkwood before the Clause was finally withdrawn from the Finance Bill. It was withdrawn merely because engineers had looked at it afterwards. Surely it would be far better sometimes for engineers and builders to look at things beforehand.
  It is about time that we faced up to the nonsense of the Chancellor saying, "I cannot anticipate my Budget speech".
  1626
  What that means, in effect, in this country is that all sorts of people are taken into the Chancellor's confidence. I am not attacking my right hon. Friend the Chancellor; this applies to any Chancellor of the Exchequer. He becomes incommunicado to his colleagues. Permanent Secretaries are taken into consultation under seal of secrecy. And then everybody awakens one morning and finds out what has happened. This is just nonsense. I could give examples from various Administrations. It seems to me that it would be far better if we looked at such things as these taxes which affect industry, and took them in a more leisurely way.
  Looking back on the Dalton episode, can anybody be particularly proud of it? On both sides of the House, when a Minister makes a gaff we raise a hullabaloo out of all proportion to the seriousness of the mistake. I remember that I came into the House two minutes late at a time of hysterical election excitement—and what a fuss everybody made about that. We all slip up in that way, do we not, Mr. Speaker?
  Everyone claimed that a great constitutional principle had been breached simply because, before three weeks of an election period, with the almost certaintly, as the bookmakers bore out, of a return of a Labour Government, I suggested that those who were dealing with building licences over £100,000 should "hold their horses" for a bit. I did this to stop them from getting into trouble, from engaging surveyors, from engaging architects, from doing all sorts of things. After all, how much preparation can one do in three weeks for a building costing £100,000?
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr Rippon) has a vested interest in this matter, for he is a director of a building company. I wonder why he did not rush to my aid as quickly as he attacked my right hon. Friend the Minister—which he did in such a way that the Minister was scarcely able to say a single word.
  Mr. Rippon: Is the right hon. Gentleman asking me to come to his aid? He does not need me to come to his aid. He is making a splendid speech. It is a pity that his right hon. Friend does not understand that this work takes a lot of preparation.
  Mr. Pannell: I have a great regard for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as he knows, but as a director of a building company he seemed rather reluctant at that stage to support me in the knowledge which he and I have that in the three weeks no great harm could have been done at all. But there was a tremendous degree of excitement about that at the time.
  I want to say a word or two about the building industry. The hon. Member who preceded me spoke about building societies and all the rest and we have tended to get away from the people who do the building—the building operatives. I cannot repeat this too often. The Press think it rather funny when I keep reminding hon. Members that houses are built by builders. I want to give a few of the facts of life about the building industry.
  The National Plan is designed to achieve a 25 per cent. increase in national output between 1964 and 1970. This involves achieving a 4 per cent. annual growth in output long before 1970 and an annual average of 3·8 per cent. between 1964 and 1970. The output of the construction industries, on one opinion I have seen, is that it must increase by about 4½ per cent. a year, which is faster than the growth in national output. I have seen what I would call good figures on this matter stating that at whatever figure one fixes the growth rate of the national economy, whether 3½ per cent. or 4 per cent., to work it out the building and construction industries must, in the end, increase their growth rate by at least 1 per cent. higher.
  Bearing this in mind, I do not believe that one can lump the construction industries in with the service industries. We must compare like with like When I worked for a living before coming to this place I was a mechanical engineer. I believe that the motor car industry is a socially irresponsible one. Yet it is the most "sacred cow" from the point of view of Chancellors, particularly in matters of exports. I also believe that the motor car industry has tended to distort the thinking of Chancellors in that many other manufacturing industries also provide goods for export. However, while we call for the construction industries to
  1628
  achieve greater output, they are being held back.
  The building industry is not growing. It is not an attractive industry. There were 14,000 fewer men employed in it a year ago compared with the previous year and not enough apprentices are entering the trade. In 1964, 29,416 boys entered the industry, which was a reduction from 31,473 boys who entered it in 1962. The famous N.E.D.C Report of 1964, which the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham thought was a very optimistic document—he was Minister at the time—referred in paragraph 40 to the acute shortage of skilled men and to the supply of apprentices being well below the then present rate of wastage.
  There is another aspect of the building industry that must be taken into account; the amount of work it can carry. It is, in the main, an ageing industry. It is responsible for employing 10 per cent. of the country's male workers, 60 per cent. of whom are under 40, compared with 50 per cent. for all industries and services. Men tend to leave the industry by the time they are 40 and the reason is obvious. Often, perhaps usually, men must work in the wind and rain and before they reach that age they are looking for other jobs, perhaps jobs attached to industrial plant. They do not stick it once they are about 40.
  Site conditions have fallen behind and, while I admit that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham did a good job at the exhibition in the Horseferry Road, it must be accepted that, unlike so many other industries, the building trade still has the overhang of "hands" rather than people. Staff conditions are woefully lacking. It is remarkable to consider what are called white and blue-collar workers in the United States. The craftsman in America has terrific prestige, probably higher than that of clerical and sedentary workers. There is no great city in the United States which does not have an annual competition for the champion bricklayer. The champion is feted, not quite on the scale of a beauty queen because he is feted for a different reason. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham may remember that the N.E.D.C. Report stated:
  "What is clear is that there is no certainty in present conditions that this industry will be able to meet the demands made upon it,

  1629
  and the possibility cannot be ruled out that falling short may hold back expansion of the economy as a whole."
  Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not agree with that then, he probably will agree now. It is, on balance, more likely to be true now, because I found when I took office—and I got my information from the same sources as the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was Minister—that the industry could not bear the load that was demanded of it. I asked the industry if it could carry it and I was told that it could not. Although people do not like it when I advance this figure, I say with all sincerity that, in 1964, £100 million worth of work was available to the industry, but it could not do it.
  Time and again it has been said that the industry should be stretched so that it is able to expand and do this work, but all the evidence shows that if an industry is to expand—is to achieve far greater growth rate—to talk about "economy of labour" in such an industry is a bit ridiculous. Therefore, if I were making a case against the Selective Employment Tax, I would make a case on behalf of this industry.
  I do not want to be reported or taken as being against the Selective Employment Tax, although I agree with one hon. Gentleman opposite who, in a maiden speech, said that if we are to have an imponderable sort of tax, it should apply to industry generally. It would then be possible for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to alter the basis of that form of taxation. I agree that we want new forms of taxation, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor must be told that whatever else he might have done—if he had dealt with motor cars and all the other industries; the traditional ones which are so often dealt with in Budgets, like wine and whisky—the effects would have been predictable, but the Selective Employment Tax is completely unpredictable.
  Having said that, I should make it clear that the tax is none the worse for that because we must live in the time of dynamism and change. Had the tax been imposed across the board I would have welcomed it. But the present situation is similar to what happened to the building industry on a previous occasion about investment allowances. They were
  1630
  cut out and now they are given as a sop. I will not refer to that issue because I was mixed up in that one. Suffice to say that the arguments are the same, although the reasons seem to be different.
  There is no doubt that in the conditions which existed 12 months ago, with overheating of the industry by 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., the Building Control Act was justified; that is, at that time. However, I always said that I did not want the building industry to be subject to blanket stop-go again. I realised that a much more sensitive instrument—something more permanent in our legislation—was necessary to be able to affect the industry one way or the other. If that Measure was justified, I doubt whether the Selective Employment Tax is justified as well.
  What is the object of the exercise? Do we want to keep things in balance? Is the tax being introduced merely for the Chancellor's considerations? The answer is no. We are concerned, at the end of the day, with growth. We are concerned with providing a decent living for our people. This is, therefore, a socially desirable industry from every point of view, and it cannot be separated entirely from the conditions of the people who work in it.
  I will not go over all the arguments again, because other hon. Members wish to speak. It must be remembered that practices are growing up in the building industry which the new tax will help to foster. [Interruption.] There are corrupt practices growing up in the industry. The National Builder stated in March, 1966—a journalist was discussing the labour gangs idea with a colleague:
  "Our income tax system is a mish-mash of historical bits and pieces. A wage earner is chained to PAYE, itself a 1939–45 war-time invention, which some people still regard as illegal because it deducts income before assessment…"
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss on this Motion taxation in general. We can discuss the impact on the building industry.
  Mr. Pannell: I am very conscious of that, Mr. Speaker, but when I have finished I am sure you will see that I have not abused your tolerance.
  Growing up in this industry are what are known as labour gangs, people who contract out of sick-pay payments and out of

  1631
  protection and everything so that we go back to a kind of industrial jungle. The habits of these people are thoroughly anti-social, but by this tax they will be rewarded rather than rebuked. The article goes on:
  "A self-employed person is in a much more advantageous position. He gets into Schedule D and thus can claim relief on a range of expenses which is denied the ordinary wage earner. My fellow member, for example,"—
  this is a journalist talking of trade unionists—
  "earned £1,500 (or thereabouts) for the 1963–64 accountancy period, but he paid a mere £125 in income tax. This is quite legitimate; in fact, he pays an accountant £15 per year to handle his affairs.'
  This is perfectly true, I can imagine it.
  The article continues:
  "As he says to me, 'The tax business is really a legalised fiddle. I have been amazed at the number of reliefs that can be claimed if you are your own boss'. In my own tinpot way I have reckoned that he will be paying at least £250 a year in tax under PAYE."
  This practice has been condemned by employees and employers alike. Merely as a result of bringing this into the Selective Employment Tax the industry considers that it is likely to foster the practice.
  The position was put very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-West (Mrs. Renée Short) the other day, when she said to the Minister of Labour:
  "Is my right hon. Friend aware that the payroll tax proposals are encouraging the most undesirable practice? Is he aware that builders are being encouraged to sack their building workers and take them on as labour-only subcontractors? Is he also aware that if the practice extends any further into civil engineering, public safety may well be at risk because of the lack of supervision under this type of contract?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 892.]
  This is a statement of fact. Some hon. Members may remember the case, reported in The Times, of a man who sacked all his staff in order to get out of paying redundancy payments. He put himself outside—and divorced his employees from—a beneficial Act of Parliament and he said, "The Selective Employment Tax is 'on' and I shall get that back again as well." No one will commend that type of employer. I happen to have old-fashioned ideas about collective bargaining. I do not always believe
  1632
  in accepting the lowest tender. I believe in a fair price. That applies to trade union labour as well.
  This industry is too often left out of account. The expert advice of the Ministry of Public Building and Works is not listened to often enough. It is not just a service industry. Far too often the men in it have to work in the wind and the rain. We ought to see how we can improve their lot and their conditions.
  I say this with great respect to my right hon. Friend the Minister. The name of the Ministry is itself a misnomer. It has graduated from the First Commissioner of Works, the Estates of Land and Forests and many antediluvian titles. It now has a name which seems to be a hangover from historic buildings and glorified conveniences.
  Mr. Rippon rose—
  Mr. Pannell: Please allow me to finish this flow of oratory.
  The Ministry should be given a sort of title and status applicable to the workers in the industry and the industry itself. When I refer to "workers" I do not do so in an inverted snobbery sense; I mean the workers from the top to the bottom of the industry. I got into trouble for using the words "at your peril". Because I used a question-begging phrase I got into trouble. Words mean something and they sometimes have a poetry beyond their meaning.
  The word "construction" would sound much better in this connection. Why not a Ministry of Construction? One of the great arguments about nomenclature arises when people talk about grammar schools as that term refers to a whole range of history, and "comprehensive" is an ugly word. "High school" sounds better. It would be better to call this Ministry the Ministry of Construction. Then people could take a pride in it and it would be commened by the industry as a whole.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham is rather upset about the National Building Agency. When he was in office he was inhibited and did not know what to do about the Agency. Being a Tory, he objected to the idea of collective bargaining and a collective view of things and rebelled. He did not know how to use it. I have always

  1633
  been in favour of this work going over to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government because a building agency has to be organised and to have a catchment on other areas and to take over its problems. A good job has been done there.
  This, in a way, has been a bit of a maiden effort, a valedictory speech. It is not a subject which I want to pursue or to speak on again.
  6.46 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Scott: In the gentle game of cricket there is a tradition that a man making his debut frequently gets a rather loose ball as his first so as to get him off the mark. There is a corollary that he shall not hit that ball for four, but that he shall take a single. I hope that in "breaking my duck" I shall not take undue advantage of the courtesy, patience and tolerance which the House extends to me.
  As the hon. Member for Paddington, South I follow Commander Robert Allan, who served in this House for 15 years following very distinguished and gallant service to his country in time of war, with service to the House as a private Member, P.P.S. to two Prime Ministers and as a junior Minister. He gave dedicated service to the constituency of Paddington, South which has earned him and his wife a warm and lasting place in the hearts of all those who live there. He served the constituency with distinction and dedication and he set standards for his successor which it is my proud ambition to emulate.
  It is customary, I gather, also to mention—whether it is relevant to the matter under debate or not—one's constituency when making one's maiden speech. I shall spare the House a "Cook's tour"—or rather a "Jason's tour", as we call it in Paddington, where there are canal tours—but there is no subject which is closer to the hearts of Paddington people than the one which we are debating today.
  There is much which is sad about the history of housing in Paddington. The multi-occupation of neglected properties provided the background for the operations of Rachman and others like him. But I point out to those who debated the 1965 Rent Act the other day that it was not the 1957 Act which provided the mainspring for those activities, but the neglect
  1634
  of the housing stock in the inner ring due at least in part to rent control, and the pressure put on that stock by new arrivals in the area which was responsible for creating those conditions.
  But it is mainly about the future that I want to talk this evening. Paddington is part of the inner ring, sometimes called the rotten ring or the twilight zone, of London. Many of its houses are in a poor condition. They are, by definition, also areas of great opportunity where new housing environments can be created.
  The important thing is that, as we seek to creat these new environments, we define what it is that we are trying to do. At the moment, two main types of development are taking place in Paddington. There is private development, largely catering for luxury needs, and there is the building of large council estates. My fear is that, if this process continues, eventually a line will be drawn between the two types of development. There will be two communities with little in common and virtually an iron curtain dividing them. As these areas are redeveloped, we should seek to create a truly balanced community in them and we should encourage the middle band of housing between the two I have mentioned.
  We know that today the average council household is better off than the average household in privately rented accommodation. It is, therefore, less than realistic to continue to subsidise in many areas council tenants while withholding any sort of subsidy from those living in privately rented accommodation. The Westminster City Council, which covers the Paddington area, is at present introducing a rent rebate scheme. This, as far as I can tell, is a realistic scheme and will benefit council housing in Paddington. There is, however, another side to the coin. I believe that it is possible and practicable to work out a scheme for subsidising private tenants when their needs are as great as those of their fellows in council accommodation.
  I want, next, to mention the work of housing associations in catering for the needs of the middle band of housing, for they can do an immense amount to help those who are in the worst housing state in the big cities. They can make

  1635
  a great impact on the type of multi-occupied property of which there is so much in Paddington by converting those houses into decent self-contained flats which could then be let at non-profit rents, with local authority control to prevent them from becoming again overcrowded. What housing associations need is encouragement and loans from local authorities and encouragement from the central Government to enable them to make their full contribution to meeting housing needs in large cities.
  There is a need to encourage younger couples, in particular, to buy some of the smaller sound, older houses in areas like Paddington for owner-occupation. The big obstacle here is the reluctance of building societies in particular to grant sizeable mortgages on older properties. A scheme was in existence by which mortgages were provided on pre-1919 houses. I would hope that it would be possible to reintroduce such a scheme through building societies—perhaps through building societies and local authorities—because this would be a real help to young couples seeking to buy such houses. They would then improve them and bring them up to modern standards with their earnings.
  In a further attempt to satisfy the needs of this middle band of housing, when comprehensive redevelopment schemes are considered and introduced they should not be exclusively public or local authority development, nor exclusively private development. It should be possible to involve both types of development within one scheme. If the clearing of slums and the redevelopment of twilight areas is left solely to local authorities, it will take a very long time and there will at the end be a very ill-balanced community within those large developments.
  I would hope that it would be possible to give special encouragement to the large institutional investors to take part in large-scale redevelopment schemes hand in hand with local authorities, with regulated rents, with a fair return on their investment, so that they could make a positive contribution to the redevelopment of such areas.
  Finally, I appeal to those responsible for implementing the housing policy, whether centrally or locally, to abandon any doctrinaire devotion to a particular
  1636
  type of redevelopment and to think in terms of redevelopment by public and private authorities. I am convinced that only a massive combined effort can answer our needs.
  I appeal to everybody to ensure that when we have the opportunity for large-scale comprehensive redevelopment we build for the future. Too often we can see being built today the slums of the next 25 and 30 years. It is well worth extra investment now if we are to create really exciting environments for those who will live in these areas in the many years that lie ahead.
  I am convinced that we can wed the tradition of Wren and the other great builders with the concepts of Buchanan, that the sound Victorian houses that we still have in Paddington can be blended with the new comprehensive development that we hope to see, and that we can have inspiring surroundings and a really balanced community to make up tomorrow's London.
  6.56 p.m.
  Mr. John Forrester: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of addressing the House for the first time. I crave the indulgence of hon. Members on this occasion. I will endeavour to earn the gratitude of the House by being brief and please my hon. Friends by promising not to mention even once the Selective Employment Tax.
  I have the honour to represent Stoke-on-Trent, North. People ask, "Where is Stoke-on-Trent?", or, more often than not, they say, "That is the Black Country, is it not?" With all due respect to my colleagues from the Black Country, that is the beginning of an argument. These people never follow the question, "Where is Stoke-on-Trent?" by asking, "What do they do in Stoke-on-Trent?" Hon. Members will know that the names of our manufacturers are known all over the world. The things that we produce in the potteries are synonymous with beauty and quality wherever those virtues are admired. Our coal industry has played a vital part in the country's economy in days gone by and is still doing so. It would be an odd house that did not possess at least one thing which was made in the City of Stoke-on-Trent.

  1637
  We are proud that two of our firms were awarded the Queen's Award to Industry for their export achievements and that another firm was given an award for technological achievement. If all industries had an export record equal to that of the pottery industry, we should not have a balance of payments crisis.
  I have the honour to follow as Member for my constituency Mrs. Harriet Slater. My distinguished predecessor was a most able and conscientious Member who attended to her constituency duties most diligently. One tends to think that perhaps she, in common with so many Members on both sides, was too good a Member and was too conscientious, because I am certain that the work that she put in here and in her constituency was responsible for the breakdown in her health which caused her to retire at what might be considered to be a comparatively early age.
  I know from conversations with Members of the House and with officials that Mrs. Slater has left her mark here permanently. Indeed, her name will go down in the history books as the first woman Whip, an honour of which I know she was very proud. I sometimes wonder whether the previous Parliament would have lasted for 17 months if she had not wielded that whip so effectively on some of her colleagues. She performed many tasks ouside the normal calls of duty, which helped to keep this Parliament in being.
  I am conscious of her devotion to duty, and of the high standard that she set for herself and expected from other people. If I could but approach her standard during my stay in this House, I should be more than satisfied.
  It is the duty of any civilised society to provide for its people decent houses and education. It used to be bandied about that it was no good giving better homes to people who lived in slums, because they would not know how to look after them anyway. Time has shown that when one improves a man's environment his whole being usually begins to improve at the same time and to take on something of his new surroundings. This is good not only for the individual, but also for the nation.
  I am pleased that the Government are conscious that we must plan our housing
  1638
  programme ahead. This has not always been the case, but I hope that in the years to come we shall know exactly where we are going. The supply industries and the construction industries are entitled to know precisely what targets the Government have in mind, so that they can make their long-term plans accordingly.
  We are concerned because in the pottery industry, which is a supplying industry for the builders, we have come across short-time working in the sanitary supply industry. With a record number of houses produced last year, we are a little mystified as to why this should be. Perhaps it is that the sanitary industry and the brickworks industry have not taken into account sufficiently the impact of new materials and that we have not realised what this will mean in terms of production.
  I would hope that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government could perhaps forecast a little more accurately in future the extent to which it expects new materials to overtake the old ones. Can it do some research and tell us what traditional materials will be replaced, how long it will be before that happens, and by what percentage? This would prevent the personal hardships of short-time working as it is being experienced in Stoke-on-Trent at the moment and would also prevent the consequent loss of production and the wastage of skilled manpower.
  I am quite certain that all right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides of the House, want to see more housing provided. We shall not be satisfied until all the slums have been cleared. But we want to be absolutely certain—and I think that the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) was right in this—that we are not building today the slums of the future; that when we have knocked down houses that are 80, 90, or 100 years old we do not have to start to knock down those that are only 30 or 40 years old. Our aim should be to build quantity and quality. I would, perhaps, even suggest that if we had to choose between having a smaller number of houses of quality and a higher number of houses of inferior materials—perhaps even bad workmanship and bad design—we should go for quality and not quantity.

  1639
  Houses are an expensive commodity. We do not want to find that when we have paid for them we have immediately to knock them all down. Councils spend public money on houses, people spend hard-earned savings on buying their own houses, and it is not right that they should, perhaps, be faced with a big bill in a very short time for repairs and renovations. There are still, unfortunately, far too many jerry-builders, and I hope that the Government will press ahead with their plans for voluntary acceptance of good standards of building. If they cannot get this by voluntary action, I hope that they will not hesitate to introduce legislation so that we can have good standards of building and thus protect the people who buy those buildings.
  Two of the biggest headaches of local authorities and private citizens are the high interest rates and rising costs. Most right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, despite what some people think, are keen on home-ownership, and it is because of this that we hope that the Government will soon be able to introduce their scheme for lowering the mortgage rates for private purchasers. The Government have introduced higher subsidies for local authorities, and this should assist the councils to build more houses more cheaply in the future, and, perhaps, at the present time, also.
  I cannot help reflecting, however, that this probably helps the backward authorities. In Stoke-on-Trent we have built about 30,000 council houses, and we are now approaching the stage when we have to decide, not how many more thousand houses we need for our present population, but, rather, whether we need any more houses, or whether we must now concentrate on specialised building for old-age pensioners, and so on. The fact that we built so well, so early, rather seems to mean that we shall not qualify for the increased subsidies, or that only a very small proportion of the houses that we have for rent will now carry the bigger subsidies. It sounds as though those who have been kicking their heels, who failed to solve the problem earlier, are those who will profit most. It looks as though the first shall be last in this instance.
  1640
  In an authority such as ours, in those circumstances, we shall not be able to use the extra subsidies to alter the pattern of our rents for council houses, as the Minister has suggested in one of his White Papers. I was glad to hear him say this afternoon that there is no truth in the rumour that he will introduce a national rent policy. But, when he is discussing rents, I hope that he will bear in mind the fact which I have just pointed out, and that he will also remember that many areas do not enjoy the very high wages that some of the more affluent areas enjoy.
  My city is one of the former, and what would be a fair rent in London, Birmingham or Coventry would be a disaster in some of the industrial areas of the North. I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind. The necessity of having to increase rents continuously—periodically is, perhaps, a better word—is a problem which is in need of the most urgent solution and to which I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will give most careful consideration.
  It is the duty of the nation to house all people decently. We need an adequate supply of the right kind of accommodation for a particular stage in a person's life. A person may start with a three-bedroom house for a family, then have a two-bedroom house, and later a bungalow. This is something that we should be planning now. There is no proper balance between rented and owner-occupied accommodation. I hope that when we build we shall build wisely build well, and build to last.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: It is indeed a great pleasure to follow two such talented and interesting maiden speeches as those to which we have just been listening. The hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) has a very important housing problem in his constituency. As he said, his constituency is part of the inner ring of greater London which has been neglected in the past, and in which, as he put it, there is an enormous opportunity for imaginative redevelopment. I very much sympathise, in particular, with the point he made about co-ordination between the programmes of council house building and those of private developers, and that we should

  1641
  not in constituencies like his create separate areas of an apartheid nature which divide council house residents from those who live in private occupation.
  The hon. Gentleman made an extremely important point there, and I was also very pleased to hear him underline the importance of housing associations in urban redevelopment. We see that they have contributed by their increased output to the solution of the housing problems even during the last year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have many interesting things to say in the months to come about the problems of urban development and the contribution that the housing associations can make to the solution of that problem.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) follows, as he said, Mrs. Slater, who was very much liked on all sides in the House. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member's nice tribute to her. We shall all miss her very much. We are, however, delighted to welcome the hon. Member as her successor.
  I very much agree also with the hon. Member when he says that we shall not be satisfied with the performance of any Government until all the slums have been cleared in this land of ours and until we can be completely satisfied that in the new buildings that we are erecting to replace the slums, we do not in turn create new potential slums which might place a burden on the next generation. I entirely agree with the hon. Member that building standards should be of almost as great importance as the actual quantity of houses that we erect. I congratulate both hon. Members and I express the hope that we shall hear frequently from them on this important subject.
  I turn now to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and to the Conservative Motion to which he was speaking. The view of my hon. Friends and myself is that that Motion and the right hon. and learned Member's speech are altogether too extravagant. It is premature to make such a sweeping condemnation of the Government as is contained in the Motion and in the right hon. and learned Member's speech.
  I noted some of the phrases used by the right hon. and learned Member, and
  1642
  I would like to remind the House of what he said. He said that there had been a steady destruction and deterioration of the policies that were inherited from the Tories. I did not think very much of Tory housing policies. I did not think that there was very much that could be destroyed or deteriorated in those policies.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): Well said.
  Mr. Lubbock: The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham said that the Government's failure extended over the whole housing field. He implied that they had not done one good thing since they came into office. My hon. Friends and I cannot accept that. Thirdly, the right hon. and learned Member said that the housing and building policies of the Government are in ruins. He bases all this on one quarter's building figures which do not show much of an improvement on last year. I shall make some criticism of that myself, but it is altogether too extravagant of the right hon. and learned Member and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to go up and down the country screeching that the Government's housing policy is in ruins based on such totally inadequate evidence.
  I was interested to hear the right hon. and learned Member's speech and to note the point made by the Minister that the Opposition appear to be almost entirely preoccupied with owner-occupation. Owner-occupation is extremely important. We have a high percentage of it in my constituency. But I agree with the Minister that one sometimes wonders why right hon. Members on the Tory Front Bench forget completely about the rented sector and, when they do by chance remember to discuss it during our debates on housing, as the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) did in his speech, they always speak from the point of view of the landlord. Every time that is a coconut, as every hon. Member who served on the Rent Bill Standing Committee will agree.
  Because the shortage of accommodation is primarily in the rented sector, I prefer to deal with that sector first before I make a few remarks about owner-occupation. One of the most important features of the present situation—I do not say that

  1643
  this is a new feature, but it is one to which, perhaps, we do not pay sufficient attention—is the steady drain that takes place from the pool of private rented accommodation.
  Since the passing of the Rent Act, 1965, it may even be that this trend has accelerated—I made this point in the Standing Committee on the Rent Bill—because as landlords obtain vacant possession of properties, they are even more likely now to sell them for owner-occupation rather than relet them on a regulated rent than they were prior to the passing of that Act.
  That is not a criticism of the Act, but it means that local authorities should be encouraged to acquire dwellings which are let at controlled rents from the landlords by negotiation between the local authority and the landlord. I am glad to see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary present, because I have written to him about this and I have tried to press him to encourage local authorities in this policy. If they were to do this, they would over a period of years expand the amount of rented accommodation which was available at their disposal and, as vacancies arose in the controlled property, they could let it at normal rents to people from their waiting list.
  That is one respect in which local authorities could, perhaps, help themselves as well as helping the landlords of these controlled properties who, in many cases, have been unfairly treated over a period of years. I am not speaking of houses which have been bought as an investment, but, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows, there are instances when the landlord has the property as practically his sole income and he has held it for a large number of years without receiving much return, certainly not enough to compensate him for the rise in the cost of living.
  In many of the examples which I have met, when I have suggested to the landlord that he should offer his house to the local authority he has said that he would be delighted to do so but that for some reason, when it comes to the stage of negotiation, the local authority is not willing to purchase his property, either because it is too far away from the other council estates, the rent collector cannot get up there, it is not the type of
  1644
  property that the local authority has in mind, or for some other reason. I think that local authorities need encouragement.
  Mr. Mellish: It has been our general policy since we have been in power so to encourage local authorities. I am glad to tell the hon. Member that the Greater London Borough of Lewisham, for example, does this in a good and persuasive way and has acquired a great deal of property. One cannot, however, do more than encourage local authorities. They cannot be forced to acquire property.
  Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman does not need me to tell him that some boroughs are better at this than others. Knowing how persuasive the hon. Gentleman is, I am sure that he can go round to the boroughs which are not following the advice which I have given and see that they come up to the level of the London Borough of Lewisham, which, I have no doubt, is doing the really good job that the hon. Gentleman says. If others follow that example, this will materially assist the housing problem in Greater London. Possibly this applies in other big conurbations also. If so, they should consider the experience of London.
  While I am on the subject of London, I thought that the Minister's remarks about the green belt were a little ominous. The right hon. Gentleman went a lot further than I have heard him go before in saying that there should be no bar on the outward spread of building around the big cities unless the land concerned had been put to good recreational or other use. In other words, we are not to have the blanket green belt policy which has hitherto been observed by Governments of both complexions, whether Conservative or Socialist.
  I would like the Minister to think again about this. I believe it to be entirely the wrong policy. I do not want to see Greater London continually spreading outwards. My constituency has some of the most beautiful country in Greater London which is very much enjoyed by the people from inner London, who come out to us at weekends and bank holidays and who find a bit of green within easy reach of their homes. I do not, however, speak of it from that point of view.

  1645
  It is the general policy of population dispersal which conditions my thinking on this subject. I do not wish to see the major cities growing still larger. I wish to see a much better relationship of the regions one to another concerning population growth. That means not encouraging the further growth of places like Birmingham, Manchester and London, but creating completely new centres of growth well away from those places so that there is no movement of population between them.
  I do not think that the Government have gone nearly far enough in that direction. If they adopt the policy of nibbling away at the green belt, which seemed to be in the Minister's mind, that would be extremely reactionary. I hope that I have misunderstood what the Minister said. All Governments have failed in thinking of this policy of dispersal in a really imaginative way.
  I was reading an article last week about a scheme proposed by Mr. Teggin—I wonder whether the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has seen this—about the idea of having a new city on the Wash. Instead of having small new towns of 100,000 or 120,000, Mr. Teggin is proposing that in this new Wash city there should be 750,000 people—a complete new city—and the author of this article, Dr. Peter Odell, says that it would fit in particularly well now that gas has been discovered in large quantities in the North Sea. Of course, this is not the only argument in favour of the Wash city, but it is an example of the kind of imaginative thinking that the Government ought to be pursuing instead of just encouraging the growth of our large cities and tinkering away at the problem of building new towns within access of the conurbations or expanded towns where the people living in those towns can easily get into London for employment. This is not dispersal at all, and the Government should consider this matter very seriously.
  I have already mentioned the Rent Act. I think that in spite of the fact that we had a debate the other day initiated by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), this ought not to be left out of a general debate on housing and building. The effect of the Rent Act, as we have observed it so far, is one of the most important features of the present theme. As I was not able to take part
  1646
  in that debate, due to other commitments, I should like to say to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that although there has been some improvement in the situation, we have not yet reached the stage where evictions can be prevented altogether and where no one whatsoever is thrown out on the street. That was, after all, the purpose of the Act.
  The problem of homelessness is still with us. We still have the service tenants who lose homes through no fault of their own, and we have the problem of caravans, which I have mentioned to the hon. Gentleman before. This is becoming even more serious now that we have the 1965 Rent Act. People who live in caravans are placed in a much more inferior position compared with that of anybody else in the country. They have no right of protection whatsoever against arbitrary eviction by the site operator at a moment's notice. Very few of them have written agreements, in spite of the fact that the National Caravan Council has recommended its members to supply written agreements, and, of course, not all site operators are members of the National Caravan Council. No local authority, it seems, will accept responsibility for a person who is turned off a caravan site. What does he do? He goes to another site operator and perhaps pays a further fee of £50 to £150 to get a new plot, and he is there with no security of tenure again. As the hon. Gentleman, I hope, can imagine, this is a very unsettling kind of life which leads to great anxiety.
  I have a case in my constituency of three families who have been given notice to quit by the end of this month. One is a family with two small children aged two and four. The husband works at one of our big London power stations. This is a very essential occupation in Greater London, but it is not an occupation which is particularly well rewarded and it is no use anybody telling me that my constituent can go and buy a house. As he has been at this place for a matter of only two or three years, under the rules agreed by all the London boroughs, he will not be put into one of their houses.
  What advice can I give him? I have telephoned practically every chief officer on the local authority and I have received a great deal of sympathy, but the fact

  1647
  remains that my constituent's caravan is going to be towed on to the street at the end of the month. He will then be trespassing and, so far as I can see, there is nothing that I can do to help him. I wish the Government would give attention to this problem, because there are nearly 300,000 people living in caravans and they are entitled to the same kind of protection as the Government have given to those who live in houses.
  Before I leave the question of rented housing, I should like to take up the Minister's remarks about the improved subsidies which were introduced by the present Government. Since the new subsidies were first announced, and certainly since they were planned by the Government, the costs of building have risen considerably. I have some figures which were given at a G.L.C. meeting on 17th May this year. They show that the average capital cost—I think this must be for a three-bedroom house—excluding land, has risen from £4,300 in the year ending 31st December, 1964, to £5,040 in the year ending 31st December, 1965, which, as the hon. Gentleman will see, is a very considerable rise indeed. I suggest to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that it is no good the Government announcing increased subsidies, which, as he knows, my party welcomes, if at the same time these are going to be practically swallowed up in the enormous rise in building costs.
  I must say that there are certain things that could be done more energetically to limit this most steep rise in housing costs. The question of industrialised building methods has been mentioned, and the G.L.C. has done a great deal in this respect. The G.L.C. is going into industrialised building on a large scale, and it is already beginning to derive some financial benefit from it. At the beginning of the National Building Agency's existence it was very difficult to get any hard and fast figures in relation to what the contractors expected industrialised systems to do as regards the cost of an individual house. But now we are beginning to show results. I understand that the houses that are now being built for the Greater London Council—three-bedroom houses of very nice design which I saw at the I.B.S.A.C. Exhibition the other day—are costing £2,250 which I believe is less than
  1648
  the average tender price for a three-bedroom house constructed by conventional methods.
  But this is not the end of the line, and if we can push the quantities up and reach a level of 40 per cent. of total local authority building, we shall find that industrialised systems will save something like 25 per cent. on the cost of a house. Therefore, whatever the Government have done so far, it is not enough. Much more needs to be done to persuade local authorities to adopt these new methods, and, as the Minister said, to educate them in applying these methods.
  I must also refer briefly to the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). I agree with every word that he said about the effect of the Selective Employment Tax on the construction industry. This had already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in his speech during the Budget debate, and indeed my right hon. Friend also mentioned the other problem discussed by the former Minister—that of the proliferation of the one-man-only labour sub-contractors, which had been one of the central themes of the excellent maiden speech made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton) in the Second Reading debate on the Building Control Bill. As the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware, the hon. Member is in a position to speak with some considerable experience of this matter because he has for some time been the research officer of the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives. Therefore, I hope these views will be conveyed to the Chancellor because he has had them now from his hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green who is an expert on the subject; he has heard them from the former Minister; he has heard them directly from my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, and no doubt he has had representations from the building industry itself. This is a situation which must cause everybody the greatest anxiety, and it is not too late for the Chancellor to think again about his proposals for the construction industry as he has already done, wisely, for agriculture.
  Finally, I come to the question of home ownership. I think it must be a matter of great anxiety that the building

  1649
  societies have now decided, I gather, to raise their lending rates to 7⅛ per cent. But so far as I can see, under existing circumstances they cannot be blamed for what has happened. They asked the Chancellor to make some concessions in his Finance Bill, and this he refused to do. He could have done it last year when my hon. Friends and I put down an Amendment which would have exempted the building societies from Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax. I still think that that would have been a sensible thing to do, because the profits of a building society are not profits in the sense in which that word is used for an ordinary commercial or industrial company. They do not belong to equity shareholders who have no part in the company itself. They are used to finance further lending by the companies and so expand the number of people who can own their own homes. There is, therefore, a strong case—it would be out of order to develop it now—for some tax concessions to the building societies to help them to keep their interest rates down to a reasonable level.
  I do not know what the pros and cons of the disagreement on reserve ratios between the Minister and the building societies may be. It would have been helpful if the right hon. Gentleman could have said a little more about this subject in his opening speech. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who is to wind up will tell us why the Government are confident that reserve ratios much lower than their present levels would be satisfactory and why the building societies for their part consider that they must be maintained at their present level.
  If there is this disagreement between the Minister and the building societies, one method of resolving it would be by the Government guaranteeing the building societies if they reduced their reserve ratios below the level they think appropriate. That is a question which might be discussed with the building societies to help in reaching agreement with them.
  There seems to have been a lack of communication between the Government and the building societies. There have been so many areas of disagreement. The building societies have said that the two-tier interest rate scheme is totally unworkable. If we are to extend home ownership into income groups lower than those at present able to benefit from
  1650
  mortgages, we shall have to think again about this scheme, and, perhaps, adopt something along the lines of the Merrett-Sykes proposals under which every person who borrowed from a building society, whatever his actual tax rate, would be able to deduct at the standard rate from the payment he made to the building society, the society then being able to reclaim that afterwards.
  Mr. Mellish: The building societies have never said that our proposed mortgage schemes are totally unworkable. They have said that they have another scheme which they think is better.
  Mr. Lubbock: That is a matter of interpretation of what the building societies have said. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says because, no doubt, he has been in closer contact with the building societies than I have. But there is no difference between us that the building societies do not like the Government's proposed scheme. It ought to be possible, in discussions with them, for the Government to achieve the same objective of helping people in lower income groups than are at present able to take out mortgages without at the same time imposing the enormous administrative burdens on the societies which, I understand, they say the Government's scheme would involve.
  Since the Labour Government came into office, they have done only marginally better than the Tories did in their final year of office. After a year and a half of Socialist Government, they cannot expect to go on using the excuse of Tory mismanagement. They are still more than 25 per cent below the target of 500,000 houses which, quite rightly, they set for themselves by 1969–70, and, although the Minister has assured us once again today that the target will be met, I should have greater confidence if the figures given by him today had been more encouraging.
  I make no complaint about those figures being given in the middle of the debate. It was helpful to have them in advance of publication so that we could consider them before we made our speeches, and I thought it rather ungracious of the Opposition to criticise.
  Mr. Rippon: Come, come. Does the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that interventions prolong speeches.
  Mr. Lubbock: I appologise, Mr. Speaker. I am just coming to the end. It appears from the figures which the Minister gave that completions in the local authority sector are running at the same rate as last year, whereas in the private sector they are considerably down, so that, taking the total figures for the first four months, we are not doing as well as we did in 1965. No doubt, there is a good explanation for this. The weather always has something to do with it, and the Minister mentioned that.
  What we want before the debate ends is an assurance from the Government that they expect during 1966 at least to exceed the number of completions we had in 1965. There must be a considerable improvement in the housing situation before the Labour Government's performance matches the promises which they made at the election times. Although we on this bench are not prepared to support the sweeping and inaccurate attacks made on them by the Tories this afternoon, we do not think that either Minister has a right to take pride in merely keeping pace with Tory achievements while promising the millenium in four years.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. George Rogers: At the outset, I wish to refer to the two maiden speeches we heard today, two excellent speeches in a long series of excellent maiden speeches since this Parliament assembled.
  My next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) has much the same problems in many respects as I have. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) was, probably, the first man in the House ever to say that it was an honour to be a Whip. I speak as one who was a colleague of our much respected Harriet Slater, the former Member for that constituency, whom we all admired and were extremely fond of.
  What amazes me is the lack of nerves which all the new Members show. They speak felicitously, with easy phrasing quite unlike the stammering which most of us experienced when we first came here—I know I did—and they seem to have none of the humility which we had
  1652
  when we first entered Parliament. Whether this is because, in the last few years, we did not create an impression in the country which would give new Members humility, I do not know, but they certainly seem to have none of the humility and nervousness which most of us experienced.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) said that the House tried to make new Members feel at home in their maiden speeches. He might have added that, in their subsequent speeches, their reception may make them wish that they were. I can assure the two hon. Members that the cut and thrust of debate in the House can be fierce at times. I propose now to give an example in the comments I have to make about the Opposition Front Bench spokesman today.
  I do not know what happened to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) between his defeat in 1964 and his return here at the last election. He used to be an equable, balanced man whom we all respected. He has come back an insecure neurotic. He cannot sit still for five minutes. He cannot bear to hear something with which he disagrees without jumping up and interrupting. I do not believe that, in all my 21 years here, I have ever known a Minister to be interrupted so much by interventions and sedentary interjections as my right hon. Friend was today.
  It is a good job for the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he was dealing with that Minister, because he might otherwise have been handled much more harshly. I hope that he will settle down and, after reflection on the rebuke which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) gave him for his attack upon us, will subside into that ordered and responsible assessment of our achievements with which we were familiar in the last Parliament. If not, he will cease to have the respect which we once so freely gave him.
  I never cease to be surprised, after 21 years, at the wonderful amnesia about their own record which the Tories can produce at any given moment. They have a sublime impertinence when dealing with their own faults and records and an equally sublime impertinence when dealing with the records of others. They reduce their own faults to an infinitesimal

  1653
  point which is almost non-existent, but, on the other hand, they exaggerate our faults to an extent which becomes sheer fantasy.
  Why do they bother? The electorate gave the verdict at the last General Election on the views which the right hon. Gentleman expressed this afternoon. Yet before we have been in office a month he comes forward with his half-baked extravaganza about the failures of the Government. Even the hon. Member for Orpington has to admit that we have done fractionally better than the Tories.
  We know that the hon. Member for Orpington is impartial, so if he says that we have done fractionally better that is an objective assessment. After 16 months with a majority of between one and three and one month with a good majority, we have done fractionally better than the Tories did. I feel confident that in five years we shall have done substantially better than the Tory Party did.
  Let the Opposition not be at all desponded. If, after three or four years, the Labour Government have not done better than the Tory Party did in respect of housing, the most vociferous criticism will come not from the Opposition benches, but from this side of the House. If the Government do not produce land at a reasonable price, if the Land Commission does not work, and if the Government do not carry out the promises that we made to the electorate, let the right hon. Gentleman opposite rest assured that my hon. Friends and I will have a very strong measure of criticism.
  But I know perfectly well that if that should happen the most disappointed people will be the Ministers themselves, because they passionately desire, as we all do, to solve the hideous housing problem which is a stain upon our nation, and still represents some of the worst slums in the world, and certainly the worst in Europe, at least the most developed parts of it.
  One hon. Member opposite who should know better was actually unaware that thousands of tenants were evicted without court orders. He said "If there were tenants evicted without court orders". But thousands were evicted by private bailiffs. When property was decontrolled there was no need to go to court for an order. Yet one hon.
  1654
  Member was unaware of this fact. Perhaps this amnesia about the record of the Tory Party is not surprising. The hon. Member is an estate agent. Perhaps his point of view would not be particularly towards the hardships of tenants. It would be in another direction.
  There were also the remarks of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). He actually chided the Minister for including Northern Ireland in the housing figures because it had a Tory majority. When did the Tory Party forbear to take the credit for the houses put up by Labour-controlled authorities? They boasted about their housing record for years when in most of those years a large proportion of the increase in housing was the result of the work of vigorous Labour housing authorities. Indeed, the London County Council would have done far better than it did if the Tories had not restricted it by their financial policy, and if they had not refused to give it permission for any more out-county estates at a time when it needed out-county estates to take the overspill resulting from its large slum clearance plans.
  This brings me to my constituency. It is all very well to talk about owner-occupiers, mortgage rates and high interest charges, but in North Kensington, South Paddington and many other parts of London the problem is one of rented property. There is no land for either small or large builders to erect houses on which building societies can grant money. There is no land there at all. The old property is, in many cases, too bad to be bought, and building societies will not give mortgages on it. Even where local authorities grant mortgages, they will not give more than a proportion of the selling price because the property is old and rotten and in many cases not worth the money and the price has simply been inflated as a result of the policies pursued by the Tory Party when in office.
  What we want is emphasis upon a drive to clear our disgraceful slum areas and house the people of London and the other great conurbations in decent places worthy of the twentieth century. This is wanted for people who have lived in the twilight areas far too long.
  The Minister rightly said that if people do not like the way in which their local

  1655
  authority behaves they can use the ballot box. That is all right for some areas, but it does not work in the Royal Borough of Kensington. It has been a Royal borough since about 1890, and it has never had anything but a Conservative majority. In its wildest moments it never even got so far left as the Liberal Party in the days of Lloyd George. It has always been Tory. So it is a one-party State, and it has all the complacence of a permanent one-party majority. All power corrupts, and it certainly has corrupted the energy and initiative of my local authority.
  The problem that we have in Kensington is the result of 50 years of complacency, 50 years of handing over housing responsibilities to housing associations and anyone else who would take them off the hands of the local authority, rather than that it should do the work itself. Since the war it has done better. It started very slowly, but it has got better. I understand that the Government have now asked it for a greater target. When the Minister has the information, I should like to know how far it is towards achieving that target and whether he can give it any assistance to increase the tempo with which the target is being achieved so that my people may have more hope than they have at the moment.
  Mr. Mellish: I can tell my hon. Friend that the present Minister has told the Royal borough that it can build to capacity and that if it comes forward with any extra demands for housing it will be given permission. I can only say that, as in the case of many other London boroughs, its first three months' performance is not at all a happy one, but I do not want to condemn the borough on a three months' performance. However, my hon. Friend can take it from me that something will be done in the forthcoming months to ensure that the target which the borough has been given is realised.
  Mr. Rogers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information.
  I shall be glad of any help that he can give the Greater London Council over its comprehensive redevelopment of the Kensal New Town, which was envisaged immediately after the racial troubles in my constituency in 1957. We were supposed then to be a special borough
  1656
  because of our special problem, but we have seen precious little special help so far. Also, the scheme for the comprehensive redevelopment of that area, which was proposed then, has not yet begun.
  I know that this is not the fault of the Greater London Council. It needs extra help from the Government. If the Government can give any extra help, I shall be very grateful if they will do so.
  Mr. James Allason: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the delay in the development of the Kensal New Town was entirely the fault of the Labour-controlled London County Council, and that the Kensington Borough Council has been extremely keen to press forward with this for many years?
  Mr. Rogers: This is dangerous ground for the hon. Member. One of the reasons why rehousing in Kensington has always been so slow is that for years the borough council refused to let the London County Council into the borough to do any of the rehousing. The London County Council wanted to do this very often, but the borough council refused. I know that the borough council resents the fact that the Greater London Council has come into the area at all now. Responsibility for this lies in the broader aspects of the policy introduced by the last Government.
  I am not surprised that there has been some reduction in the tempo of new house building. We are changing sights a little, and altering direction. We are altering taxation. All this is bound to cause a certain loss of confidence, especially among the smaller builders. The large contractors—the kind of firm with which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is concerned—can handle this sort of thing. They have expert staff and large reserves. It is more difficult for the smaller man. Furthermore, he is apprehensive.
  For years he has been making hay while the sun shines. He has made a lot of money. He has paid too much for land, but this was because he knew that in boom conditions he could get it back from the purchaser. House and land prices have been inflated by the business of auctioning every piece of available land for the highest price to the builder, who knew that he could get it back from the prospective purchaser. But with betterment tax and the other new taxes he

  1657
  now feels that he will not make so much money for himself.
  Some builders are not at all public-spirited. They are not in building to satisfy a social need but because, like the landlords, they are able to fill their pockets satisfactorily. There is the builder who, knowing that a building is scheduled, or that trees are protected by local orders, will chop down the trees and destroy the protected buildings because he knows that he will merely have to pay a fine, which he can put on the cost of the houses that he will sell in boom conditions. He may be able to get the gullible public to pay for his defiance of laws to protect our property and our trees.
  I hope that those luxuries are over. We have have far too many luxurious days since the war. We all know of flats built by private enterprise and advertised as luxury flats, although the only thing about them that is a luxury is the price. If we can bring down the profit margins on these new houses and flats to a reasonable sum by reducing the cost of land we shall be doing the public a good turn.
  I am not sure that a certain amount of buyer's resistance has not developed in this matter. Near where I live a number of houses were completed last year, but no extra ones have been built on that site because not one of the completed houses has been sold. The reason is that they are not only too dear, but are ugly, both in design and colour. Because of those defects and the price there is a certain amount of buyer's resistance. The repayments on houses costing £8,000, £9,000, £10,000 and £11,000 which are being erected in the suburbs are ridiculously high. Not many people have incomes large enough to be able to afford these repayments over many years.
  I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Orpington said about the building societies. He talked a good deal of sound sense. I wonder whether the Government have explored the question of interest rates. When I was in New Zealand, at the Commonwealth conference at the end of last year, I found that that country had several ways of assisting people to buy houses. It had a 3 per cent, interest scheme which, admittedly, was not applicable to every
  1658
  purchaser. It would be a good idea if the Government made some inquiries about such a scheme, because if New Zealand—a country with far fewer resources than ours—can operate such a scheme, even on a limited basis, we should be able to do something like it, where necessary.
  I will now leave the debate to other Members. My feeling is that it is premature. The country has shown that it wanted us to be given a chance to prove that we can do the job we said we would do. The Opposition are wasting time having this debate. Like the electors, they should have given us a fair crack of the whip. I am quite confident that the Government will do the job that they have set out to do, and that by the time we next go to the electors we shall have a housing record of which we can be proud, and which will not have been gained at the expense of tenants exploited by private landlords, as was the case in the old days.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) on his maiden speech. He is the only hon. Member now in the Chamber who made his maiden speech today, but the fact that we have had no less than four in this housing debate—and that all those who have made maiden speeches have spoken with authority and deep knowledge—is an indication of the importance of housing not only socially and economically but in respect of every facet of the nation's life.
  I entirely agree with the closing remark of the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. George Rogers) to the effect that the Government are changing the emphasis on housing, and that in the interim period there is bound to be a lessening of construction work. If that admission had been clearly made by the Minister earlier in the debate it would have been accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but the Minister went out of his way to defend the Government's policy, giving no explanation of the fact that there is a lessening of building activity generally, not only in completions but in starts.
  The right hon. Gentleman caused amusement to hon. Members on both sides when he pleaded the not bad but poorer

  1659
  weather conditions this year. We know how wet it has been, but it has not been wet to the extent that it can in any way have affected house completions or starts. That argument is not acceptable to anyone with a close knowledge of the building and contracting industries.
  The circumstances of the programme that we see today have arisen because of the changes in Government policy, to some extent because of the promises they have made, and also because of the proposals which have led to increasing uncertainty both in the private and public sectors of the building industry. These uncertainties are by no means resolved, and the Minister has not made any contribution to their resolution by his remarks today.
  We are able to see no progress on the question of concessional interest rate. The interest rate is rising against the Government's hopes and despite every effort on their part. Despite the fact that they have been in consultation with building societies for about 12 months, this has not brought the Government and building societies any closer together. I pay tribute to the efforts that the Government have made, but there is a clear failure here. A little pique is involved in the Government's now taking to the Prices and Incomes Board the proposals of the building societies for a 7⅛ per cent. interest rate. During a period of high interest rates this increase is bound to be reflected right through the economy, as it has been in the mortgage rates for the Greater London Council.
  For the Minister, when challenged on that, to say that it is a fixed rate surely is a denial of most of his own case, because it is a fixed high rate—a fixed higher rate than ever before. The advantage of building society rates is that they move up or down but not so the mortgages made available by local authorities. So, to some extent, the Minister was denying his own case in this regard.
  We have yet to see the substance of the Government's proposal and promises have now been made for at least 18 months on interest rates. This has led to uncertainty among house buyers. Many house purchasers, prudently, have said, "I shall not buy a house with the present level of interest rates; I shall wait and
  1660
  see what the Government's proposals are." But the longer they have waited the more difficult their circumstances have become and the more expensive have the interest rates turned out to have been.
  This is the difficulty. I see the Government's point of view in trying to paint a good picture, to show a promising policy, but they do so regardless apparently of their ability to fulfil the undertakings they are making. That is the great difficulty of the Government today in their housing policy and to some extent they have only themselves to blame.
  The same applies to builders and developers. There is, as the hon. Member for Kensington, North said, a sales resistance, but, in addition, there are the unknown features and the uncertainty of the proposals for the Land Commission. These are causing developers to hesitate to plan their development schemes years ahead of their immediate requirements.
  Building contractors, both large and small, plan, if prudent, three, four or five years ahead, and they are not feeling the measure of confidence in the situation to expend the substantial sums involved in the necessary land acquisitions. They cannot say what the cost of that land will stand at when eventually they will be enabled to build. The incidence of the levy, and so on, is there, but indeterminate, and it introduces a feeling of uncertainty and insecurity.
  We have had the Government's proposals on leasehold reform. Much of the development now taking place of multi-storey flats for sale is caught by the White Paper's proposals. It is a very satisfactory form of development, giving as it does a high density, being properly designed, a high standard of amenity, on central sites convenient for people's employment without the responsibility for the maintenance of gardens, for which there is a lessening demand.
  But the implications of the leasehold reform proposals of the Government are leading builders to hesitate to embark on schemes of this character. This is not only so in the private sector, but also in the public sector, where local authorities have been equally unsure of the measure of development and building they should undertake. They have suffered desperately this year on the question of interest

  1661
  rates, which has made development costly and the interim period of development a substantial debit on their housing revenue accounts. They have also had the difficulties of higher rents.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) mentioned that, in Croydon, the rents for council houses have gone up by as much as £1 per week. This must lead local authorities which are conscious of their housing responsibilities to hesitate and wonder whether council house rents are not getting to the point at which many of the applicants on their lists will lose the ability to pay and where many people will decide to purchase a house if they can get the deposit together.
  So, for the local authorities, there is this uncertainty and, in addition, the new subsidy arrangements meant that many schemes deferred for perhaps six or nine months during the past year, waiting to see the level at which the new subsidies would be placed. Although selected authorities were allowed to take advantage of the higher subsidies for schemes that had been started in the interim period, this was not previously known and prudent authorities hesitated to embark on schemes without knowing the financial implications involved.
  The building consortia among local authorities, initiated by the last Government, were getting substantially under way through the ability they offered their members to enter into bulk purchasing arrangements. These have also encountered difficulty. For example, a consortium in Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire had been proposing to base its arrangements on 3,000 units for 1966 but was told that the programme would be cut by one-third. This affected not only the plans of the consortium, but, also, building generally in the public sector.
  So we have this rather bewildering pattern of change. Although it has been said that perhaps the debate is premature, surely an 18-month period is long enough for the Administration to begin to get the bugs out of this thing and begin to make up their minds and implement decisions they reach. But so many decisions are still unresolved. There is still uncertainty. Essentially, this stems from the paragraph in the National
  1662
  Plan in the chapter dealing with housing, which gives the clue to the Government's thinking. Paragraph 3, on page 170, says:
  "… the house-building programme has never been planned as a whole."
  Behind all the Government's thinking is the fact that they are determined to plan the house-building programme. That is the essence of their case. This controls all their thinking and whatever steps they take they are determined to see that these conform to an overall plan.
  But the house-building programme has been planned before. It was planned between 1945 and 1951 with the disastrous result of licensing and the proportion of public sector building fixed at two-thirds and the private sector at one-third. It failed dismally then and I predict that we shall see a failure in house building again if the Government put their determination to plan the whole thing as first priority. There are so many factors in house building. This is also emphasised in the National Plan, which points out that large numbers of smaller builders are engaged in the industry. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned this today. The National Plan goes on:
  "… the Government think it essential to try to achieve a steady and predictable house-building programme, planned as between the public and private sectors …".
  This the Government will find impracticable. It is beginning to lie at the root of their problems. What they were not content to do was to build upon what was a successful housing programme up to the end of 1964, when a record number of house completions was achieved, followed by a higher number of completions last year as a flow-over from the earlier programme. If they were content to build upon that success, without trying to strike at the very roots of how that success was achieved they would stand a much better chance of substantially enlarged housing programme.
  In many parts of the country there are adequate numbers of council houses to meet the new requirements of those in need of housing assistance. I welcome the emphasis which the Minister placed on the selection of expansion in the public sector. This is mentioned in the White Paper, Housing Programme

  1663
  1965–70, paragraph 7, with which I agree, says:
  "… the Government's aim to increase the building programme fastest in the regions where housing needs are greatest—where existing housing is exceptionally bad or inadequate or where new housing is wanted to assist economic growth."
  Looking at paragraph 12, there is the surprising words:
  "While the Government must provide for a steady growth of building for owner-occupation it would be criminal—"
  what an extraordinary word to use—
  "at the present time not to allow for an even faster growth of building to let."
  We do need a faster growth of building to let, but on a selective basis. The burden of my case is that houses for owner-occupation should be a priority call upon our resources, with equal priority in the public sector to slum clearance and residential development, building in the development areas, building in London, and the residential requirements in the new towns. Where subsidised accommodation is adequate, local authorities should be encouraged to sell to tenants in circumstances where this would not be detrimental to estate management.
  In this way, much of the interest burden on the housing revenue accounts of local authorities would be lifted. In supporting house ownership the Government are paying lip-service to it and not making an effective policy of house building for sale part of their proposals. It is a programme of this character which would be most likely to ensure a successful housing policy.
  8.13 p.m.
  Mr. Allan Williams: When I took my place in the Chamber at 3.30 p.m. I had a speech prepared which may not have been logical in its points, but which was logical in its flow. Now, having eliminated those points which have already been discussed, and having added some others which I would like to answer, I am afraid that I will probably have to flit from point to point. I beg the indulgence of the House in so doing.
  Many of us will remember that during their last years of office Tory Ministers stamped around the countryside warning us that as a nation we were to have to
  1664
  increase production in our building industry by about 50 per cent. by the early 1970s. They warned us, quite rightly, that we would have to do this with an increase in manpower of only 2 per cent. Surely it follows from this that what is needed is a more efficient use of manpower, or to put it another way, the manpower at present being used in the building industry is not being used intelligently or efficiently. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must make up their minds about what they want. Do they want more efficient employment in the industry?
  Many of them have criticised us simply on the grounds that as a result of the Selective Employment Tax things in the industry will not be quite as they were. This is the essence of achieving more efficiency in any industry. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said that the tax could have a damaging effect, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) made a similar point. No one would deny that this tax may have a harmful effect. Nearly every tax can or does have an harmful effect on some sector of the economy.
  What we have to ask is what are the alternatives, what would the Opposition have done, and what harmful effects would have arisen as a result of their measures and whether they would have been worse than those resulting from ours. We have been told that the tax will affect prices. This could be true, but it need not be—
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Has the hon. Member seen an Answer by his own Minister to a Question I put down, in which the Minister admitted that the tax would increase prices? Why does the hon. Member say that it might when the Minister admits that it will?
  Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman could be patient, no doubt all of these mysteries will be solved for him.
  I said that it may, and in some cases perhaps, will affect prices. In other cases it may not, as I will demonstrate in a moment. In some areas, such as London, it would be foolish to pretend that the price of housing is based upon the cost of housing. In many of the key areas of the country there is a pure demand and supply position in which the shortage

  1665
  of housing and the excessive demand for it dictates the price level, and these prices are far higher than any level which would be justified by costs.
  In these cases the Selective Employment Tax need make no difference at all. Even in the areas where these conditions do not apply the industry could, if it had the will, absorb part or, in some cases, the whole of the extra cost which this tax could impose. Better use could be made of labour. Far too much labour is wasted on the building sites through lack of supervision; far too much labour is wasted simply because of a lack of business "know-how." Far too many small and medium-sized building sites have no phasing whatever of their ordering of supplies. Consequently, for days on end, sometimes for weeks, workers are doing little or nothing or skilled workers may be doing unskilled work, waiting for essential supplies.
  Again, the building sites could adopt better techniques in order to absorb some of these costs even though it may not absorb all of them. We have heard fears voiced by hon. Gentlemen opposite that this could force small builders out of business. This could be true, but does that really matter? About 40 per cent, of the output of the building industry comes from firms employing less than 25 men. Perhaps some of these small builders need to be forced out of business so that their labour force could be released to go to the more efficient unit. These efficient firms could even end up with reduced labour costs. At present, the big and efficient firms who have a careful timetable of production are having to pay a premium on their labour costs to ensure that they have the amount of labour needed. It could be that the release of labour from the smaller and inefficient firms would lead to greater efficiency in industry.
  Another point which was made was that we had failed to enable people to own their own home. Indeed, this point was made by the Leader of the Opposition over the weekend. As I will demonstrate with figures later, hon. Members opposite are hardly in a position to attack us on this score since, during their last 10 years of office, at least 380,000 people who could have had homes—and before anyone jumps up to ask me to
  1666
  explain this, let me say that I will explain it later—were denied homes by the calculated housing policy of the Conservative Government.
  Right hon. and hon. Members opposite talk about the owning of homes. For 13 years they tolerated and preserved a situation—we have heard it eulogised this evening—in which a person could pay for his house and not own it. It is called the leasehold system. I am sure that most hon. Members know how this system works. At the end of the lease, despite the fact that a person has paid for the house, it reverts to the ground landlord and becomes his property, and the leaseholder can be forced to put it in good condition for the ground landlord to take it from him.
  We had a debate on the leasehold system shortly before the dissolution of Parliament. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite denied in that debate that the leasehold system caused hardship. They said that leaseholders should be able to buy their homes at a fair market price. They used the word "fair", so it sounded reasonable. But when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources probed a little further into what they meant by a "fair market price", the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) admitted that he meant that not only did the leaseholder have to pay for the plot, but that he had to pay again for the bricks and mortar. This was their interpretation of a fair leasehold policy.
  Those of us who sat through the debate well remember that certain hon. Members opposite described leashold reform as, on the one hand, a spivs' charter, and, on the other, confiscation. If right hon. and hon. Members opposite felt as emotively strongly as this and that leasehold reform was so iniquitous, what should their reaction have been? Surely they had a clear responsibility, which was to march into the Division Lobby against leashold reform. After all, they had opposed it for 13 years. But nothing would have tempted them into the Lobby at that time because they knew that an election was near. Although they thought it an immoral Bill—it had to be if it was confiscation and a spivs' charter—they could bury their consciences in view of the imminence of a General Election.

  1667
  [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If any hon. Member opposite wants to intervene to deny that, he is welcome to do so. I should be fascinated to hear his denial.
  Another allegation made against the Government is that we failed to keep up the rate of house building. The first thing which has to be made clear is that we built more houses than the Tories ever built. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We did. The official figures support that. I have an Answer, dated only yesterday, on this point. We did build more houses than the Conservative Party built, and we are building more houses now than the Conservative Party ever built. Its spokesman today said that what we needed was a continuation of what he described as the progressive Conservative policies on house building. He said that we must keep moving forward in the house production race. I am sure that all hon. Members on this side of the House agree with that. But I am not sure that all hon. Members opposite agree with it.
  If they agree with their spokesman, where were they in 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1958? In each of those years the figure of housing output was lower than it was for the year before. In 1954, the Conservatives reached a level of house building which they did not equal until 1964. Where were their consciences and good intentions during those ten years? By 1958, in Wales, they were building only 66 houses for every 100 houses they built in 1954. In England, they built only 79 houses for every 100 houses they built in 1954. It took them until 1964 to creep back up, and at last they got beyond the 1954 figure. This is why I say that the Conservative Government cost 380,000 people their homes.
  In answer to a Question which I put to the Minister of Housing on 3rd August, which asked how many more houses would have been built in England and Wales had only the 1954 output been maintained—and we have heard from the Conservative Party today that it must be the intention of any efficient Government to maintain and, indeed, accelerate the level of building—I was told that 352,000 more houses would have been built in England alone, the equivalent of one year and two months' output, and that 30,000 more houses would have been built in
  1668
  Wales, the equivalent of two years' out-put.
  Who can seriously believe the talk of right hon. and hon. Members opposite about what would have been achieved had the Conservative Party been reelected? They tell us that they would have built more houses than we built last year. I am tempted to ask: with what? They have spoken today about a surplus of bricks. We can talk about a deficiency of bricks when we came to power. At the end of September, 1964, there were four days' supply of bricks in the brick yards. What were right hon. and hon. Member going to build the houses with—promises? Perhaps they would have used Conservative Party election manifestos.
  What was the Tories' policy towards housing? The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), at the Conservative Party conference—I am sure that no good Conservative would lie at the Conservative Party conference—in 1963, which is a significant year because the Tories knew that there had to be an election by 1964 and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not be held back by any inhibitions, said that it "would not be realistic" to set a housing programme of 500,000. But by 1965 the Tories had changed their minds and were saying that they could build 500,000 houses, and a year earlier than we could.
  Mr. Costain: Would the hon. Gentleman admit that by the ordinary progression of increase the building of 500,000 houses was quite possible? But his own Government's National Plan shows a reduction in increased production. How does the hon. Gentleman explain that?
  Mr. Williams: I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I am surprised that the Conservative Government had as Minister of Housing someone who so little understood what was going on. With all the information of a Department available to him, he should have been quite capable of estimating the number of houses which would be built next year. So it should not have come as a surprise to him to find that there was an increase in the number of houses built in 1964 and 1965. We must assume that, since the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East said that it was not realistic to set a housing programme of 500,000. it really was not realistic in his opinion.

  1669
  In Wales, this year is a remarkable boom year in building. Last year we increased house building in Wales by 3 per cent. over that in the year before. In the first quarter alone of this year we are 16½ per cent. up, on starts of building, on the same period last year. For every six houses which were being built in Wales last year there are seven being built this year. This is a measure of the attainment of this Government in housing.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the hon. Member appreciate that while these wonderful things are happening in Wales, in Scotland completions, starts, and tenders are all very seriously down this quarter?
  Mr. Williams: I do not know the statistics in Scotland, and I do not pretend to. I will take the hon. Member's word for that. All I can say is that in the area of the country which I represent we are getting better treatment in housing than we have ever had, and for this we are very grateful.
  Finally, because I know one or two other hon. Gentlemen want to speak—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I would briefly urge that the Minister looks to some practical measures which would be of great help to people who want to buy their own houses, and one of these would be to impose some sort of control upon solicitors' costs and some control on estate agents' costs; because if we add solicitors' costs in buying and selling to the estate agents' costs we often find that, together, they come to as much as 5 per cent. of the deposit on a house. This would itself facilitate the home ownership which we want in this country.
  My final point I would ask the Minister to have regard to is, that high priority be given to the need to preserve older houses, because far too little attention was given to those when right hon. Members opposite were in office, when, during a phase in Wales when 18,000 houses were being built to replace houses which were derelict, a further 10,000 were actually allowed to slide into disrepair. It does not make much sense to be gearing up the industry when, at the same time, we are chasing our tails by unnecessarily adding to the demand for housing.
  I suggest that at last we are having a positive approach to the country's housing needs, and that the past record of the
  1670
  Conservative Government in no way enables the Conservatives today to criticise our Government on this matter.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. H. P. G. Channon: As I know that a number of other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall try to be brief, but I must take up the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) on one point. The only defence we have had so far from the benches opposite of the Selective Employment Tax being imposed on the construction industry is that it will force out small builders, drive them bankrupt and that that will be a good thing. If that is the explanation of the Government's imposing this tax on industry, then they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I did make the point that it could lead to the redistribution of labour within the industry and that it could lead to greater efficiency. I trust the hon. Member will not overlook this argument.
  Mr. Channon: Indeed I will not, and I hope the hon. Member will not overlook the fact that one-third of the industry is involved in maintenance work and that it will be extremely difficult to raise that to greater efficiency.
  I hope that the House rather than take the hon. Member's views will take those of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). I was delighted he spoke earlier in this debate, and I agree with practically everything he said. In particular, he was quite right about the Selective Employment Tax. It is a fantastic situation that the Government should impose a tax upon the building industry, when the object is to encourage its output—a tax which, as was pointed out, will help the manufacturers of fruit machines. It is fantastic to impose a tax which penalises the people building houses. I cannot believe any hon. Member, whichever side of the House he sits, wishes to support a policy which penalises builders and charities and helps the manufacturers of fruit machines.
  The late Minister of Public Building and Works did the House a service—
  Mr. C. Pannell: Not late. I am still here.
  Mr. Channon: I should have said the ex-Minister. The right hon. Gentleman

  1671
  has many years of useful life in front of him in this House.
  This is a debate in which the Government are being accused of failing in their house building policies. Hon. Members have sometimes derided what we set about, and what action has been achieved, so may I briefly remind them of the figures, which have not been seriously challenged. There were 434,000 houses under construction at the end of 1964.
  Did they build 434,000 houses? Did they build 420,000 houses? They were left with a target of 400,000 houses and they could reach a target of only 352,000 houses. I am glad that at least the Minister of Housing had the decency to say that it is not a record of which he is proud. I should think not. There was a short-fall of 50,000 houses between the target left to the Government and the number built whereas, on 31st December, 1963, there were 381,000 houses under construction and 373,000 houses were produced in 1964, a short-fall of only 8,000.
  The Government's failure produced this extraordinary short-fall last year. The hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. George Rogers) put his finger on the point when he spoke of lack of confidence in the building industry. This has been a major factor in what has taken place. Of course there is lack of confidence. How can there not be when we have building control put on, the import surcharge, house prices rising and a Selective Employment Tax? All these factors, naturally, have undermined the confidence of the building industry.
  The part of the speech by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West with which I disagreed concerned the stock of bricks. How did he encourage confidence in the brickmaking industry by his policy? In 1964 the brickmakers of this country produced 7,800 million bricks and they were told by the right hon. Gentleman that this was not enough and that they must expand further. They were told that they must produce an extra 600 million bricks in 1965. The target which he wanted achieved was 8,400 million bricks. Does he still wish that they had achieved this target? Had they done so, there would have been 1,100 million bricks in stock
  1672
  at the end of last year, because at 31st December last year there were 561 million bricks in stock and the industry had reached nothing like the target which the Minister had set.
  Mr. Pannell: To be fair, Sir Arthur Worboys was at some pains to tell me, when I asked for this increased production, that it had been the intention to increase production anyway. I do not want to delay the hon. Member in the short time he has available, but if he reads the whole of the speech from which I quoted he will see that this point was very well brought out.
  Mr. Channon: I accept that, but it is as well that they did not increase production otherwise the brick situation would have been very much worse than in fact it is. There would have been 1,100 million bricks in stock at the end of December. We heard in earlier debates about 882 million bricks at the end of March. We have heard the April housing figures given by the Minister today. They were given us a week early, and we were delighted to have them. Can the Minister give us the April brick figures? Presumably if the housing figures are available we can also be given the brick figures for April.
  It is my guess that when we are told them, whether tonight or later, we shall find that the figures of brick stocks have gone up again. It is my information that bricks are still being stocked all over the country, in spite of the fact that it is the middle of May and that the situation this year is worse than it has ever been. It is worse than it was even after the bad winter of 1962–63, which was the worst winter we have had in this country for years. I believe that the brick situation this year was even worse than it was after that winter. We have a Government-inspired glut of bricks rather than a weather-inspired glut of bricks.
  The Minister this afternoon produced figures for the first four months of the year showing that there has been a drop in the housing figures compared with last year. One hon. Member told us that there had been an increase in the figures for Wales, in which case the decline in England must be much more serious even than I thought. The figures are down in Scotland and down in England. I am glad that Wales at least has had some joy out of this.

  1673
  We were told that the weather was bad. I wonder whether the Minister took the trouble to check with the Meteorological Office, because in fact there was less frost in the winter of 1965–66 than in the winter of 1964–65. I took the trouble to check that with the Meteorological Office. The excuse is therefore totally invalid, and I hope that the Minister will not use it in winding up the debate.
  This debate is not about 13 years of Conservative rule, although hon. Members opposite try to ride out of the situation always by quoting the past. Let us have some policy from them. Are they proud of their record and of what is happening this year, when after four months the figures for housing completions are down on the four months of last year, and when even last year they failed to meet their own modest target by 18,000 houses? At this rate of progress, do they expect to reach the target of 500,000 houses a year by 1970? If so, they are going backwards in order to do so, because the figures are going down and not up.
  This is a record of failure by the Government. They are building fewer houses and more expensive houses. House prices have risen faster than at any time since figures were first kept. They are higher than they have ever been. Mortgage interest rates are higher. The import surcharge put the prices up. On the Minister's own admission, the Selective Employment Tax will put up the price of houses. What we have had after 17 months of Labour Government—not just of one month—is a Government which has produced more controls on the building industry, for we have started to go back to the old days of building licences and the Government have managed to put up the price of houses higher than they have ever been. Having built fewer houses and having managed to have a shortfall in house-building, hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they are proud of their record.
  I suggest—and it was typical of the hon. Member for Orpington to indicate that he would abstain, which is what I think the Liberals will do—that whatever has happened in the past in the housing situation, over the last 17 months the Labour Government have completely
  1674
  failed to live up to their promises to the electorate in two successive elections.
  The Prime Minister said that the Socialists would tackle the housing situation like a war-time operation. Had we tackled the war the way the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are tackling the housing situation, we would have lost. The party opposite has a record of muddle and mismanagement in this sphere, with fewer houses this year than last—fewer, more expensive houses and more controls—and that is the failure which has led us to censure the Government and why we will vote against them tonight.
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Barnes: Some of the hottest exchanges particularly at the beginning of the debate, have been about figures. Let us not talk about statistics—about which set of figures is right and which is wrong—because whether or not the figures are true, I do not want to talk about them. I want to speak about people, people who are hoping to live in the houses about which we are talking today.
  Particularly I want to speak about people in London and the great conurbations, for so many of whom the only chance of getting a decent home of their own is to obtain a council place. I was staggered at the laconic remark of the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) when he threw out the phrase about local authorities being allowed to build as fast as they could and as fast as they needed to do. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing has rightly made clear to him what the factual implications are of doing that. What surprised me about the remark was the apparent lack of involvement it showed with those whose only chance of obtaining a decent home is to get a council place.
  There is, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said, this Tory obsession with the problems of the owner-occupier. My hon. Friends, on the other hand, are trying to offer to every section of the community—we have had the Rent Act for those living in unfurnished accommodation, and coming along are leasehold reform and the scheme of option mortgages—the right to have a home of their own. Of course we need

  1675
  to build houses for owner-occupiers, but, as the White Paper rightly says, we need to increase at a much faster rate the building of houses to rent.
  It is not completely out of character that hon. Gentlemen opposite should tend to take this view, because when they were in power, from 1953 and throughout the 'fifties, they allowed the number of houses being built by local authorities to decline each year until, in 1961, we had the lowest number built by local authorities since 1948, which, of course, was only three years after the war.
  Dealing with London, the Milner Holland Report made it clear that the people hardest hit in the housing situation were familities with below-average incomes with two or three children—and in London one does not have to be earning much below the average to be in trouble with one's housing, particularly if one has a family of any size. So let us talk about families for a moment and forget about statistics. Let us, for example, talk about a family with three children living with the wife's mother. The wife's mother has a three-bedroomed basement flat. She also has two adult children living with her, a man and a woman. The only possible sleeping rota that can be worked out in this family involves the father of the three young children moving out at night to sleep with his brother in another house. Like so many basement flats throughout London, dampness comes in. It means, particularly during the winter months, that the children have a stream of colds and chest complaints of one sort or another.
  Let us talk about a different family; about a man who is a baker's rounds-man and who takes home £14 5s. to his wife and three children who live in two rooms in a flat on the top floor of a building. Because they live on the top floor and there are people living in the flat underneath theirs, the children must be very careful not to make too much noise. Being very small, these children are not very good at being quiet. The husband is good about not making a noise because he was brought up under similar conditions, but he does not want to have to train his children to tiptoe across the floor like he had to do when he was small.
  1676
  When he comes home he may find his eldest child—perhaps aged only 3 or 4—playing on the corner of the street because his wife is busy putting the younger children to bed and there is no room for the eldest child in the flat at the time. The man himself was brought up on street corners and he has felt that he had seen the last of that kind of thing. He does not want his children to have to suffer in that way.
  I quote these instances to emphasise that it is important always to keep before our minds when talking on this subject that it is about people rather than figures and statistics. I quote the cases of these people because the only chance they have of being decently housed is of getting a place provided by the local authority. If they were to move out of an unsatisfactory basement flat they would have to be prepared to pay about £8 a week in rent in order to find a suitable unfurnished flat for a family of that size. This is why it is absolutely right that in the National Plan the Government should set a target of 250,000 houses a year built by local authorities and 250,000 built for owner-occupation by 1970. It is no exaggeration to say that the future happiness of thousands of people depends on that target being met.
  It is not enough merely to worry about the building of houses. When local authority waiting lists are such a size and the competition for places on lists is so great, it is vital that applications should be dealt with fairly and properly. I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will encourage local authorities to deal with applications all the time as fairly and efficiently as possible. There is room for improvement in this respect. I do not believe that it is a good thing for any administrative organisation, when it receives an application for anything, to send out a printed card with the words on it, "Date as postmark" and stating that a reply will follow in due course. That is a lazy way of dealing with applications. Inevitably, there will be cases where a further communication for some reason or other is not addressed to the applicant. It makes people very angry when they have a card such as this and find that it is not followed tip within a reasonable time.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I am not sure which is the constituency

  1677
  of my hon. Friend. Could he tell us in detail what the policy of his local authority is in allocating houses so that other hon. Members might compare his experience with that in their local authority areas?
  Mr. Barnes: My constituency is Brentford and Chiswick, which is in the new London Borough of Hounslow. The local authority is operating a points scheme. I shall not go into details of the scheme because they would be of parochial interest only, but we have to remember when talking of London that local authorities have had difficulty under the reorganisation of local government throughout the London area and through the changing of the size of their areas. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall not go off on that tangent.
  Mr. Brian O'Malley: Would not my hon. Friend consider that one of the great condemnations we should make of the last Administration, looking at the matter from the point of the view of the council house tenant, is their complete lack of control of land prices particularly in constituencies such as his during the whole 13 years in which the party opposite was in office?
  Mr. Barnes: I am sorry, but I missed the beginning of my hon. Friend's remarks because I was distracted. May I be allowed to know what the beginning was?
  Mr. O'Malley: I was asking my hon. Friend to consider the rocketing prices of land in great conurbations as a result of the failure of the Tory Party to do anything about it in the whole of their 13 years in office.
  Mr. Barnes: Certainly. This is why the Government have their proposals for the Land Commission.
  Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: Would the hon. Gentleman discourage interruptions from his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), because it would be a great pity if, through any accident, the only Scottish Member who seeks to take part in this debate, namely, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), were precluded from doing so?
  Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order. That is an aspersion on Scottish Members, including myself, who are anxious to take part in this debate but who, because of the abusive speeches made from the Opposition side, have been unable to do so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The quickest way of allowing Scottish Members to speak is for the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) not to intervene.
  Mr. Barnes: I am anxious to pursue this line of argument, namely, the way in which applications are dealt with by local authorities. I have already quoted one example. I have had several examples brought to my attention of another thoughtless action. This is where people who go to make an inquiry about a housing application, not to the main office, but probably to the local sub-office, are told, "Your best way of getting a home is either to emigrate or to have six children". This is the sort of thing that is sometimes said. It can be said thoughtlessly, but it is bad public relations. If this country needs anything, especially in regard to the whole matter of housing, it needs better public relations by local authorities and a greater respect for the members of the public with whom they deal.
  I emphasise the fact that people dealing with local authorities set much store by what officialdom says to them. Let me again cite the case of the family I described earlier who are living in the basement flat—the mother's flat. This family had been on the housing list for a number of years. I am going back two or three years now. In desperation they decided to move away from London altogether. The husband thought about which parts of the country would be most suitaible for him to obtain similar employment. He decided to move to the Isle of Wight with his family.
  The family were on the Isle of Wight for 6 or 9 months. This was not a satisfactory solution for the family by any means, because they found that the husband was unable to command a job at a rate of pay anything like that which he needed in order to support his family in the way they had been accustomed to being supported while they had been

  1679
  living in London. Therefore, the family decided to return to London, not to the same house, but to the same London borough in which they had lived before.
  The family contacted the local authority again. They were assured by the individual to whom they spoke at the local office of the housing department that they could take up on the housing list at the point at which they had left off, that their position would not be changed. The husband went back to his family and told his wife of this. Hopes are raised very easily. The wife was extremely pleased that this was the case. But it transpired that this was not the case, that the family had lost the place they originally had on the housing list before they moved to the Isle of Wight and, as a result, they had been put back a considerable amount of time.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: This is a case very suitable for the ombudsman that we were promised in the Labour manifesto.
  Mr. Barnes: May I return to the point, because I believe—
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Barnes: I am sorry, I did not hear the question.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I said that this was a case where the ombudsman could be useful.
  Mr. Barnes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; this is absolutely so. This is the type of case one would want an ombudsman to look into. I will go on with this theme, because it is an important subject and I should like to see it through.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Barnes: No. The clock is against me.
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Barnes: I am sorry, but I must drive home this point about local authorities. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have felt that the way that local authorities handled matters of this kind is of great importance.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): If the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor does not give way, the hon. Gentleman must sit down.
  Mr. Barnes: The individual in the office of the housing department told this gentleman that he was extremely perturbed about this matter and telephoned the head office of the local authority. Again he returned to the individual concerned and reiterated that the local authority's director of housing was very perturbed about this situation, but that because he had gone to the Isle of Wight with his family they had lost their place on the housing list. This gentleman returned to his family and told his wife, "The council is very perturbed. I was standing there while the clerk at the local office rang up the head office and spoke to the housing director, and he said that the council is very perturbed."
  I urge the Minister of Housing and Local Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—to try to bring home to local authorities throughout the country, and especially to housing departments, that individuals set a great deal of store by remarks that are made when they have dealings with local authorities. Many right hon. and hon. Members would probably agree, especially those who have had any administrative experience, that in a case like this it is much better to write a letter, because when one writes a letter, whether to a housing department or to an organisation of any kind, that is a piece of paper which lands on somebody's desk. It niggles them; it worries them. They try to put it in their in or out tray, but if they have a conscience at all this bit of paper on their desk worries them. But if you talk to them on the telephone, or go in and have a conversation with them, there is no record of the exchange between you as there is when a letter is written. That is why it is so exasperating and heartbreaking that there are many people all over the country going to see housing departments, being interviewed, ringing them up, and setting far too much store on what they are told.
  Therefore, I should like the Minister to be aware of this problem. I realise that we were talking about the problems in London, with the reorganisation of local government throughout London.

  1681
  There are the problems of the bulging housing lists in London. Many people cannot get on the lists, and there are these problems in many constituencies. I ask the Minister to encourage local authorities to use a more efficient way of dealing with housing applications, and to improve their public relations.
  Mr. O'Malley: Would my hon. Friend say what his opinions are on the rôle of an ombudsman in local affairs and local government, with particular reference to the kind of case that he has quoted?
  Mr. Barnes: That is a very interesting point, but I am most anxious, because time is very short, not to be distracted from the two central points that I have been trying to make throughout this speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] The two points that I have endeavoured to make and which I had hoped I had made clear are, firstly, the importance of giving a greater priority to local authority building of houses to rent, rather than owner-occupied houses, which is what we have had in the past. The second point is, for hon. Members who missed it or who have just come into the Chamber, the need for better and more efficient handling of housing applications by local authorities.
  Time is drawing very short, and therefore I should like to summarise what I have been trying to say. The real subject that we have been debating is not the figures and statistics that have been bandied about. It is the homes that are desperately needed to create the conditions which alone make happiness possible for thousands of people throughout the country. People want these conditions while they are young and while their children are young. This is why I would back the Government to the hilt to meet the target of half a million houses a year by 1970. Poised as we are on this big breakthrough in housing, I can only say that it is churlish of the Opposition to table their Motion.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) spoke for ten minutes to enable the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) to say all he had to say in 20 minutes. I would not, however, like the
  1682
  House to lose the opportunity in 30 seconds to hear what has happened in Scotland.
  In Scotland last year, we built 2,000 fewer houses than in 1964, and in the first quarter of this year completions were down by one-sixth on the same quarter of 1965. Housing starts in Scotland in the first quarter of the year were down from 10,000 to 6,000—
  Mr. William Hamilton rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Member who has risen must not continue to intervene when the hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way.
  Mr. Taylor: The tenders for the houses to be built next year and in the future years were down by one-quarter—[Interruption.]
  Mr. William Hamilton rose—
  Mr. Taylor: I would simply like—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must insist that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) does not persist in his intervention when the hon. Member who has the Floor has not given way.
  Mr. Taylor: I would like to say the final word. In Scotland, as I believe in England, the Government have carried out a gigantic confidence trick by saying a great deal and by having a scandalous record, a record which is all the more scandalous bearing in mind the terrible housing problems of Scotland.
  Mr. William Hamilton rose—
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: I am certain that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), as I know he will, will acquit me of any malice towards Scottish Members and will realise that I am only too anxious that they should get an opportunity to take part—
  Mr. William Hamilton: Give me two minutes, the same as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) got.
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Member has not been here all day waiting to make a speech, as my hon. Friend has been.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: Perhaps I may begin by referring, first, to some of the maiden speeches to which we have listened with great pleasure this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) made a most attractive and fluent speech, which clearly showed his grasp of the subject. I most certainly offer him my congratulations and, I am sure, those of the House.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) said in his maiden speech that he would avoid mentioning what his hon. Friends had said of the Selective Employment Tax. That was carrying uncontroversiality a long way, but the hon. Member was most successful in that. I am sure that we all congratulate him on making a fine speech. The hon. Member indirectly paid tribute to our ideas on a National House-Building Registration Council, and we were gratified by that.
  I would like also to refer to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), which was delivered with such confidence and sincerity. As he said, Richard Stanley's family have been represented in this House without a break for 44 years. With the majority which he commands, my hon. Friend will have no difficulty in emulating that record without a break. I congratulate him on a speech which was well delivered and which, in brevity, was an example to us all.
  There was an excellent speech, too, from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price), on which we congratulate him sincerely. He spoke with obvious knowledge of his subject. His majority does not suggest, however, that he will have a 44-year tenure of membership.
  I come next to the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). There is nothing maidenly about the right hon. Gentleman, but he showed virtue this afternoon, for not only did he ask for a degree of immunity, which, some, I am sure, would grant him—but, I fear, I cannot entirely—but he
  1684
  made what, I am sure, was recognised by the House as a most courageous and, as he said, a very difficult speech. We all listened to it with very great interest. He was almost non-party in his approach. I could go even further and say that he might almost have made his speech from this side of the House.
  I shall have to be critical of the right hon. Gentleman in due course, but I must commend him for the courage with which he made his speech and for the manner in which, during his tenure of office at the Ministry of Public Building and Works, he tried—and "tried" is the operative word—to stand up for the industry of which, as he said, the Ministry of Public Building and Works ought to be the leader. This is recognised in the industry, whatever other criticisms they may make.
  I find myself in a great deal of agreement with much that he had to say, especially about the Selective Employment Tax and its possible effects in adding to the manpower problems of the industry. However, I would probably get into trouble, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I were to pursue that line very much further. The right hon. Gentleman doubted whether the Building Control Bill, with which he had some connection, was justified—that is, if it was to be followed by the Selective Employment Tax. I must say that I agree with him there.
  The right hon. Gentleman shares with us on these benches the concern which we all feel about the manner in which this tax may give undue encouragement to the already spreading growth of labour-only. He referred to its dangers and he was, no doubt, thinking particularly of the possibility of the inefficiency of a labour-only gang being let loose on the electrical side of the industry where obviously its activities could be lethal. I am sure that that is the kind of thing he had in mind.
  To come to the subject of the debate, this is a grave moment for the housing and building industries. It is a time when, so far from advancing, we are actually in retreat. So far from the new Britain being built, increasingly less of anything is being built at all. It is a time when spokesman after spokesman from the industry has complained of lack

  1685
  of confidence and uncertainty as to the future. It is a moment when the Minister of Housing—who is not noted for the modesty of his claims on occasions—admits to the House and on television that the position in the private sector is far from comforting and he says that he is not at all proud of the Government's achievements. Today, he merely said that it was disappointing.
  What is going wrong? Why is the new Britain not being built, and why is it only a dream in the minds of the Prime Minister's speech writers? Why this failure? The Minister expressed himself puzzled about the situation, but I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) unravelled the tangled skein for him very effectively. I shall try, if I must, to do so again.
  The position is this. The private building industry depends on forward planning, a regular flow of orders and the knowledge that it can proceed with a reasonable degree of certainty whether there are controls or not. This means that builders should have the prospect —this was mentioned a good deal this afternoon—of a regular flow of building land and not the prospect of the supply drying up. The Minister made comments on this which I found unconvincing this afternoon.
  It means, too, that contractors should see orders for new work increasing in value as against the same period of the previous year, and not falling as in 1965 as against 1964 and as they have been doing month by month since. It means that private builders should be able to be sure of a reasonable flow of bank loans for their requirements and should not be faced with Bank of England directives drying up that supply at the same time as the Government press for more building. That is very important.
  It may well be that that is the reason why the Minister mentioned this afternoon the slowing up and the delays in completions. That may well be. It also means that builders should have an idea of how many houses can be built for sale in the future, and that is without the changes of mind which the Minister's speech made apparent from time to time. We have had different committed totals
  1686
  mentioned in almost every speech. I have evidence of that beside me.
  Mr. Crossman: Quote it.
  Mr. Chichester Clark: If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to quote it, I will do so.
  First, at the Labour Party conference of 27th September, 1965, speaking of builders and ideas for housing, he told us that there should be roughly a 50–50 split. Later, in "The Housing Programme" issued in November, 1965, we find him saying that there should be a tolerance on either side. After that, there comes another quotation, when he said:
  "I am going to leave private enterprise completely free to build every house it can sell."
  That came in a B.B.C. Home Service party political broadcast on 11th May, 1966. Now we know where we are—or do we? Do the house builders know where they are? With respect, I do not think so.
  Besides which, the builders should not have to spend their time watching the public sector in the form of direct labour organisations being artificially stimulated at their expense. What is really needed—this has been said so often, notably in some powerful speeches from this side today—is a restoration of confidence in the industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South-end, West (Mr. Channon) was very vehement and entirely right in what he said and gave many examples of this. In passing, I must point out that there were few industries which, in 1964, were more ready to co-operate with the present Government than the building and construction industries, and this was true of the building societies as well. But few have been more disillusioned.
  Some strange things were said by the Minister today. He told us that the big builders were going ahead with their house building. Obviously, he has not heard about Wimpey and he has not read Taylor-Woodrow's annual report, in The Times of 18th May, which said:
  "The number of houses constructed and sold during the past year was considerably less than in 1964. Contributing factors to this were the credit squeeze and shortage of mortgage funds for owner-occupiers, together with uncertainty over interest rates."

  1687
  I wanted the Minister to know about that.
  There are other factors creating the lack of confidence. Seemingly little things can create it. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister announced that the National Building Agency was to be transferred to the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, the Agency so successfully created and which operated so well under the aegis of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham. I concede that such a transfer should not necessarily cause builders to lose a great deal of sleep, but they have found it worrying. Some of the reasons—whether they were entirely accurate or not, perhaps one does not know, but I believe that they were—were set out in an article in The Times from which my right hon. and learned Friend read. The Minister made a vicious attack on The Times this afternoon, but we have had no explanation as to what is going on.
  There have been strong rumours—I must say this and get a denial if it is not true—that the National Building Agency has been developing its own system of industrialised building, a move which is condemned as unethical and certainly not conforming to the purpose for which it was established. We must try to elicit a denial of that this evening. It is further suggested in the industry that the transfer from one Ministry to another took place so that the Minister could produce his own national system, with the expertise of the N.B.A., a system which would then be adopted and recommended, perhaps with the backing of loan sanctions, to local authorities.
  Mr. Crossman: If the hon. Gentleman wants it, all I can tell him is that, as I said before, there is not a word of truth in any of that about myself.
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am not imputing any motive to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Crossman: I said that there was not a word of truth in that allegation about what I have done. It is an allegation about what I did. I am saying that it is untrue. If the hon. Gentleman asks me, I deny it. I hope that he will accept my denial.
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: Of course, I shall accept the right hon. Gentleman's
  1688
  denial, but that is not quite the point. I was asking whether the N.B.A. itself had been developing a system, possibly with co-operation, which the Minister may not have known about. I accept that he has not done it, but we are talking about the N.B.A. which has only now been transferred to his Ministry. Perhaps he now follows what I mean.
  If there is to be a national system —as I say, I accept what the Minister says and give him the benefit of the doubt on the question whether this is a form of nationalisation of part of the construction industry—what guarantee is there that it will be subjected to any kind of competitive forces? It may well prove that a system is developed which will be more expensive and, possibly, difficult from the standpoint of our balance of payments because it will not have the expertise and experience of private industry which will be competing with it and which would tend to make it price-conscious and more competitive in its development.
  But the industry will be even more suspicious unless it is assured that a state of affairs does not exist in which the N.B.A. will be able to use in the Ministry the knowledge which it has derived from systems submitted for appraisal by outside builders. This worries the industry very much, and we want an assurance about it tonight. I trust that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will give that assurance. We will get that assurance will we not?
  I also want to speak about direct labour. The industry is not happy about the emphasis placed on local authority direct labour organisations by the Government. The Opposition are not against direct labour in certain sectors. Direct labour organisations do the most important and necessary work, particularly maintenance work. But it is ludicrous to suggest that by the abolition of the one-for-three rule last November healthy competition was provided for private builders. How can any private builder be expected to compete with the resources of the general rate fund and the taxpayers which can be found standing behind direct labour departments to bail them out if the need arises?
  The argument used to justify the infamous Circular 50/65 about the importance of continuity to direct labour

  1689
  work in expanding the house building programme is completely specious. Of course continuity is desirable. Every builder longs for it. That is what I said when I began my speech. But this is suggesting continuity at the expense of the independent builder. We might well see certain local authorities attempting to abandon altogether the practice of putting out work to competitive tender. This was what Mr. Kirby Laing was warning the right hon. Gentleman about in his presence at a dinner last November. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman squares such a happening with the Banwell Committee's Report. It would be interesting to hear the argument—it would be an interesting theological argument—on some other occasion.
  But all this is being done for a form of enterprise—direct labour—which is not notably productive and which is, sometimes at least, grossly and scandalously inefficient at public expense. I am at a loss to know why the right hon. Gentleman should be taking action which will draw labour from private building to direct labour departments in an industry which already has serious and growing labour shortages in various sectors. The right hon. Gentleman know that output per man employed by contractors—we have had the figure once today, but I will give it again—on new housing work for public authorities—not private enterprise—in 1964 was £2,825, while the output per man employed by local authorities was £1,990.
  I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman—he is too shrewd—would want to advance the argument put forward by the Manchester Direct Works Committee in its 1963–64 annual report when it tried to suggest that Ministry statistics confused productivity and output. He knows very well that that report contradicted its own argument a few pages later on. However, the fact is that the output of direct labour departments is far from satisfactory and that to increase their work artificially, which seems to be what is happening, simply means that fewer houses will be built, and in all probability they will be built less quickly. I am sure that that is a result which no one in the House wants.
  Also, there are the periodic scandals which occur, such as at Cardiff and Liver-
  1690
  pool, where the ratepayers are left "carrying the can" for inadequate estimating and sheer inefficiency. The case that everyone has read about is that at Salford. There is a real tribute to direct labour.
  Beside me I have the Dale interim report into overspending by the Salford Direct Labour Department. It does not make good reading. I wonder whether the Minister can be happy about the abolition of this corrective check of periodic competition for a department which may prove in this case to have lost £500,000 on contracts worth less than £6 million, or where 33 out of 40 contracts were overspent—one by 38 per cent. We have seen more than enough of the general rate being poured down the drain in this way, and this comes from the people's guardian of the burden of the rates who sits opposite me tonight.
  Another thing that I want to know is whether the Government plans for the future include provision for direct labour departments to pay taxes, on the same basis as private builders pay taxes. I take it that we will receive some sort of assurance on this point tonight. We will get that, will we not? The industry want to know. When the Government first announced their nexus of building controls in 1964–65—the Control of Offices and Industrial Development Act, the six months' moratorium, and the Building Control Bill with its unhappy history of retrospection and Ministerial confusion — these controls appeared to be directed against the big builders, whom the Government, in their all too finite wisdom, thought had too much work to do.
  We were told that the builders were doing the wrong sort of job. A variety of reasons was put forward for the controls. One day it was the balance of payments, then it was overheating in the industry—and then, in a flash of revelation, we had the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) telling us that we were having the controls in anticipation of future crises which the Government thought likely.
  It seemed that only the big builders were to be hit by these controls, but that is not what has happened. The little man is being hit harder than anybody. The 45,000 firms mentioned tonight by

  1691
  my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, who employ between one and 10 men, derive little or no benefit from investment grant schemes. They have been hit because their profit margins are already low, and they will have to pass on all the new taxes instead of absorbing them, as some of the bigger firms can.
  Then there are the building material producers, especially the smaller ones. They are hit by this ludicrous brick stocks position. Bricks are now sitting around in yards and fields and car parks all round the country. The small man is affected most. He has limited transport and storage facilities. The position is very serious in some parts of the country.
  I remember the right hon. Member for Leeds, West telling us, in a most engaging way, that he was the prisoner of whatever he happened to say at the time. Of course he is the prisoner of what he says. What he said at one time was, "Nothing has a greater psychological effect on a man than seeing plenty of bricks on a site". They are not all on the sites, but there are plenty of bricks—in fact, there are so many that the appetite of some building material producers may sicken, and next year we may have a shortage of production.
  The brick scandal stands out on its own. It is worth a debate on its own, although I doubt whether the Government would welcome that. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) said that he knew areas where the situation was particularly serious. The Government have an injured look when we mention bricks, and the right hon. Member for Leeds, West looks like a family pet whose tail has been trodden on while it is still wagging. He says, "Why are you blaming us for turning a shortage into a glut?" We are not blaming the Government for that; what we are blaming them for is for turning a year of record production and expansion—1964—into a year of gloom and cut-backs in production, and now into a year of crisis, which is continuing and deepening.
  It is remarkable that we got the housing totals for March today, but we have not yet had the brick totals. Perhaps we shall get them later on tonight. Heaven knows, they will be bad enough, but April may
  1692
  well be the cruellest month. It may well be worse, but I hope not.
  "We shall plan the bricks", said the Prime Minister. We warned the Government in November, 1964, just how expensive a bit of false planning would be. That is what has happened. I shall be surprised if we hear more about the weather in 1962–63 as compared with last year. There is no comparison. We have heard from the Minister that the glut in 1963 was as bad as this year. It is a false comparison. Anyone who compares the weather of 1962–63 with last winter should really go to see his meteorologist.
  The position is simple. The Government's house-building programme has run into serious trouble. One should have expected it, because there was the same flop after the war, resulting in the same dismal failure. We have stated what has gone wrong and what will still go wrong as long as the Government indulge in futile irrelevancies like the Land Commission and the Building Control Bill and allow the economy to stagger along from one Budget to another every few months, each more austere than the last.
  It is fitting that the Minister of Housing and Local Government should be the field commander for the "supremo's" war operation on housing. Some time ago, the House was reminded of a famous dictum delivered to the Royal United Services Institution. It was:
  "If the art of propaganda is to conceal that you are doing propaganda, then the essential substance of propaganda is that, if you give a man correct information for seven years, he may believe the incorrect information on the first day of the eighth year, when it is necessary from your point of view that he should do so."
  The speaker was the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
  But the right hon. Gentleman will not get eight years—there is no doubt of that—and I hope that he will not find the first part of his dictum about giving correct information beyond his powers. I wonder whether he has not altered his dicta to suggest that, if one tells the people often enough that more houses will be produced, the rates will be reduced and mortgages will come down, they will not believe the hard correct facts, which are that fewer houses are being built, rates are rising astronomically and mortgages are historically high and getting higher—just as, in the same way,

  1693
  the people may be made to believe that in February the Winter Emergency Committee is warming their rooms and that the Commonwealth Peace Mission and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance have ended the war in Vietnam. This is the same approach.
  The Government have delivered a serious setback to the construction industry. They have used it as an economic regulator, which they said they would not do. They have checked its expansion and damaged its confidence, making it virtually impossible for it to achieve its tasks. We see falling orders for new construction and limping productivity—a very tarnished tribute to purposive planning and gritty action. We see the anxiety of many builders about the position of their long-term fixed price contracts because of their fears that the taxation ideas of the Government may have grave repercussions. We shall have an assurance about that, of course, tonight, will we not?
  There is a slump in building for sale, together with record mortgage rates, damaging and irrelevant controls and the hare-brained Land Commission scheme, which will mean less building land and dearer housing prices. By the present methods, the Government will not achieve their objectives. As my hon. and learned Friend said, the Government are combining doctrinal fallacy with administrative incompetence and if, as it seems, they want change in the industry, they can bring it about by a different method—through confidence and co-operation. It is for their incompetence to do this that we condemn them in the Lobby tonight.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Reginald Prentice): The first task that I would like to perform is to join those who have congratulated the four maiden speakers who have addressed the House during this debate. I heard some of all four and nearly all of each, and I think that the House would like to congratulate my hon. Friends the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price), Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) and the hon. Members for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) and Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) on the speeches which they made. All were relatively non-controversial, but were not too
  1694
  inhibited by tradition in that respect. All showed an intimate knowledge of the housing conditions in their own constituencies, and we all look forward to hearing from them again.
  I also want to refer to what he described as being in some ways a maiden speech—namely, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). This was an excellent speech, of great courage and humour and it showed that the House has regained a very distinguished back bencher. It is no empty tribute to say that we all look forward very much to hearing further speeches from my right hon. Friend. He said that he was not going to speak on this subject but, as far as I am concerned, he is very welcome to do so at any time. Whatever subjects he chooses we shall look forward to hearing from him frequently.
  This has been a curious debate, during which there has been a kind of divorce between the Opposition Front Bench and the rest of the Opposition. The speech in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) opened the debate, and the speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), have been polemical speeches; they appear to have been rehearsing for an election campaign without realising that they have fought the campaign and lost it.
  So far as the rest of the benches opposite are concerned, they were nearly empty at the beginning of the debate and they are not very full at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about your benches?"] Perhaps there are not many on this side, but it is the Opposition's censure debate. It has been curiously unlike a censure debate, except for the rather artificial polemics of the opening and closing speeches and the short speech of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who joined in the polemical spirit. On the whole, I am in sympathy with those who did not make this a polemical occasion.
  There ought to be a party debate and, where necessary, a party clash about housing. No one could complain at that, but I think that the right way to approach this at the beginning of a long Parliament is to look at it constructively. If we are to argue about these things

  1695
  we should argue constructively rather than score party points. This is a subject which we shall all approach with a certain amount of humility. Governments and local authorities of all parties and the industry have collectively failed to solve the housing problem of the nation.
  This is essentially a human problem, and here I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes), who drew attention to cases in his constituency. Every Member and every councillor, certainly a councillor in any of the great conurbations of the country, has housing cases every week at his advice bureau and in his mail which reflect the kind of cases to which my hon. Friend referred. Ever since I became a member of Croydon Council in 1949, and during my years as a Member of Parliament, I have had cases of this kind every week. We need nearly four million homes, and we need them now if we are to give a decent home to every family needing one. It is a problem which is getting more difficult. There is an extra demand of 180,000 homes a year, and we need that number just to stay in the same place before we begin to make progress. Therefore, while we can argue and bandy statistics in order to make party points, this is the kind of occasion when we should address ourselves constructively to the problem and remember that in the final analysis these houses are not going to be built by politicians of either party. They will be built by building trade workers—using "workers" in the widest sense in which my right hon. Friend used it. It is the duty of Government and Parliament to help provide the conditions in which this can go forward in the most constructive way.
  The Motion refers to housing and building policies. Naturally, the opening speeches were concerned almost entirely with housing. The speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry and, to some extent, my speech will be on building generally because this is the field of the Ministry of Public Building and Works, though clearly housing is involved. Indeed, about 40 per cent. of new construction in the construction industries is housing. Clearly, the two things are linked. But the division of labour in this debate reflects the division of responsibili-
  1696
  ties between my right hon. Friend and myself.
  Reference has been made by more than one hon. Member to the transfer of some functions from my Ministry to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government which was announced by the Prime Minister two days ago. It is completely logical that there should be within the Ministry of Housing and Local Government those functions which particularly relate to housing as such. There should be within the Ministry of Public Building and Works, and there is, responsibility for the Government's relations with the building industry, with the civil engineering industry, with the building material producers and with the professions related to these industries. I may be pardoned for reminding the House that we are retaining in my Ministry the sponsoring roôle for these people.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry referred, in particular, to the National Building Agency. It is especially logical that the work of that Agency, intimately concerned as it is with the development of system building, should be related to the Ministry which has responsibility for the housing drive. I think that this is a logical transfer, and it is one which I completely support.
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: If that is the case, why did the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in debate in the House not long ago, say that he was embarrassed by a question about the National Building Agency because it was in dispute between himself and the Minister of Public Building and Works?
  Mr. Prentice: If I can speak for my right hon. Friend, "in dispute" meant that the future of it was still being discussed. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite must not judge the relationships between us on these benches by the kind of relationships which exist on the benches opposite. Our relationships are very friendly, harmonious and co-operative.
  I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman referred to the quite unjustified attack against the Agency which appeared, I believe, in two publications suggesting that it was developing its own system of industrialised building and, moreover, that it might use its position as a body issuing certificates of appraisal

  1697
  on systems to indulge in unfair competition. This is completely incorrect. There is no foundation for it whatever, and it is unfair to the people concerned.
  I believe that the rumour arises from the fact that some experimental work has been going on, on a modest scale, between the Agency and the Research and Development Group of my Ministry into component development. This is looking ahead to the future technological developments which are likely to take place and which we hope will take place, and is part of research. It is in no sense the preparation of a separate industrialised building system. On 27th April, when I took the chair at the National Consultative Council for the first time, this question was asked and I gave a complete assurance on the subject which was accepted by the leaders of the industry.
  I have referred to the roôle which remains with the Ministry of Public Building and Works. I want to draw attention to something which was true of the Ministry when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister and which is still true since. The Ministry contains within itself, on the one hand, a Research and Development Group of great distinction which has earned the respect of people in the building and civil engineering industries, and, on the other hand, a very considerable building programme of its own. Its research and building operations can be married together, so that we can practise what we preach and can convey the lessons of our own experience to the industry. I should like, if I may say so in parenthesis, to have the building activities of the Ministry rather better known. I do not think we get the credit which we deserve for some of our achievements. Our achievements in the recent past have been very varied in their nature—from the constructive job done in providing buildings for the Forces in Sarawak, to the architecture and planning of the new Post Office Tower, and a great variety of building work in between.
  I think that, taking the roôle as the sponsoring Ministry of the industry, I should like to deal with at least three of the main criticisms raised of the Government in this debate. First of all, the criticisms which can be roughly bunched together under the heading, lack of confi-
  1698
  dence. It has become something of a cliché to say that there is a lack of confidence in the building industry. I think that there is, in a sense, a lack of confidence, and I want to explain what I mean by that, but before I do so I think we have to make a very sharp distinction indeed between a real lack of confidence for real reasons, and the polemical suggestions of hon. Members opposite, who have talked, in this debate as they did in the election, of almost every item of labour policy which they disagreed with, such as our land policy, our leasehold reform policy, our mortgage policy, and tried to suggest that there is a great lack of confidence in the building industry because of those. In so far as there is any truth in this, in so far as these matters have raised doubts in the minds of the builders, hon. Members opposite themselves have a considerable responsibility, because there is no reason why any development of those policies need have affected the production or development of the building industry.
  What the leaders of the industry I have met in the last few weeks have said to me, with some justice, I think, is this, "Our industry is particularly vulnerable to stop-go policies of any Government." Therefore, when there is an economic situation such as the danger to the £ last year, and when there are restrictive measures such as the Chancellor had to take in July last year, they say, "Our industry is liable to take a bigger share of the sacrifice than others, and, what is more, we go suffering from that months and even years later, when the economic situation may well have changed and when, indeed, restrictions put on us at an earlier date prevent us from achieving the full measure of growth which is now needed by the economy."
  This is something which Governments have to consider very carefully, but I say that with three provisos. The first proviso is that these troubles did not start with the election of the Labour Government. In so far as the building industry has had brakes put upon it, this happened under Conservative Governments on a large number of occasions. Secondly, I think it is fair for us to say that to some extent the industry cannot be expected to contract out of the economic situation. No one can contract out from that. When there is a crisis, when there is a run on

  1699
  the £, everyone must expect to pay the price of that.
  Perhaps the building industry, by its nature, is in a particularly vulnerable position from which no one can rescue it. It is one of the facts of its situation. I would make the point that if the industry suffers in this way, that must not be used by the industry as an alibi for its own failures, and there are failures in the building industry as many in it admit themselves.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of items of criticism and said they were purely figments of the politicians' imagination. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that his right hon. Friend has received no representations from the building industry—on his advisory committee—about interest rates being raised and that these were interfering with the industry's efficiency?
  Mr. Prentice: Of course there are representations from the industry on all these occasions. What I was saying was that there is a real difficulty in the nature of the industry, a difficulty which certainly was not solved by hon. Members opposite when they were in power. [HON. MEMBERS: "We built the houses."] If we are to come back to bandying figures about, I would remind hon. Members that they built far fewer houses than we have built. I thought that hon. Members opposite had been severely squashed on that argument, but if they do not want to debate building seriously, then we can come back to the figures. Perhaps the hon. Members who are now intervening have not been in the debate most of the time. Although I gave way to the hon. Member I do not wish to give way again because of the time factor.
  I accept, particularly as Minister with responsibility for the industry, that the Government have a duty to try to do everything possible to ensure continuity for this industry. They have a duty to try to ensure conditions in which there can be a steady expansion of production, without the stops and starts which have occurred in the past under Governments of all kinds. This does not mean that the Government must always agree with what the industry tell them, but it means that the Government must have re-
  1700
  gard to the industry's legitimate interests, and this is particularly so of the Ministry of Public Building and Works.
  May I make two brief references to other matters which have been raised in the debate before I turn to the positive work of my own Ministry? The first concerns the vexed question of bricks. I was asked for the April figure. The provisional figure for the end of April shows a stock of 885 million bricks, which is almost exactly the same as the figure for the end of March. May I say straight away that I accept that it is much too large a stock. I have had discussions with the leaders of the industry about it and I realise that they have a great deal of capital tied up in a way which is very serious for them. But I do not accept that it is fair for hon. Members opposite to put the blame, as they have tried to do, on my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West. He urged a higher production, but so did the Conservative Government when they were in power.
  If we are to try to exchange party points on this subject, the essential fact to remember is that it is 18 months or more from the time when a brick kiln is started to the time when production is flowing from it. Most of the industry's capacity which is now leading to these high stocks was, therefore, commissioned in 1964 or earlier—and commissioned by the industry taking a hardheaded view of the prospects as they saw them and not because they were exhorted to take this decision by Ministers of the previous Government or by my right hon. Friend.
  I believe that previous Ministers, Including my right hon. Friend, and the leaders of the industry were correct to plan that expansion in the light of the information which they had at the time. What they could not have foreseen in 1964 or early 1965 was the effect of the deferment measures in July or other measures of restriction taken by the Government—measures which had to be taken by the Government in view of the very serious economic situation. This is, therefore, part of the price which the country has had to pay for that economic situation, and I shall be happy at any time to debate with hon. Members opposite the question of which side of the House is more responsible for creating it.

  1701
  May I comment on the Selective Employment Tax. I am well aware of the views of the industry on this tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) fairly said, in choosing any new tax a Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound to create difficult problems for those who have to pay it. But I ask simply that the House and the building industry should see this in perspective and should recognise three things on the other side of the balance sheet. The first is that the industry will benefit from the removal of the import surcharge in the autumn, with its effect on timber prices. The second is that the industry will benefit because of the rebate paid to manufacturers of building materials, and indeed the rebate paid to industrialised builders whose components are produced from these materials. The third and most important point is that the industry will benefit from the investment grant scheme. Taking all that together, these will be powerful incentives, though perhaps harsh incentives, towards a redeployment of manpower which is badly needed in the industry—not towards a reduction in manpower but towards the more efficient use of it and greater investment in machinery.
  Although people will say that the investment grants are not as much as the cost of the tax, it should be remembered that, as the amount of machinery increases in the industry, the value of the investment grants will increase. Under the terms of the National Plan, investment in machinery, on figures agreed with the industry, will nearly double between 1964 and 1970 and there will be extra incentives for that.
  Although I would like to have spent much more time on this aspect, one gets carried away when answering a great number of points raised during a debate, so I turn to what I consider to be the most important thing to which we can give our attention now. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite are not interested in solving the housing problem, they should say so. We should be looking forward to the needs of this industry in the remaining years of this decade and in the 'seventies. We should take a look at the measures which are needed to increase its productivity, efficiency and output.
  1702
  I pay tribute to the work that has been done since June of last year under the umbrella of the two Economic Development Committees, one for the building industry and one for the civil engineering industry— "Little Neddies" as they are called—which are beginning to tackle a number of problems collectively in the industry, perhaps some years after they should have been tackled. These committees have a joint chairman, Lord Campbell, and a joint Vice-Chairman, Mr. Bishop. These men, of great distinction and knowledge, are getting down to the tasks ahead of them and are working in close co-operation with the research and development group in my Ministry, to which I have already referred.
  I remind the House of some of the big tasks that must be tackled in this way. The most important problems of all—and I agree here with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West—are those concerning manpower. It is in the proper deployment of manpower and the proper treatment of the workers in all respects that the future health of this industry depends most of all. A great deal of work is being done in co-operation with the Ministry of Labour and my Ministry on these matters.
  The Construction Industry Training Board is now getting into its stride, and in the year 1965–66, for the first time, the training levies were charged to firms in the industry. Some of them did not like it, but the progressive, forward-looking firms have accepted the fact that for far too long they have been training craftsmen who have been poached away from them by firms which were not doing their share. There must be a great improvement in the quality and quantity of training that is done in the industry, and this applies to industry generally.
  Management training is particularly important and, within the Ministry of Public Building and Works, the directorate of building management is promoting a great many ideas, is giving advice and is helping to develop courses in technical colleges and elsewhere. An aspect of management training which is not usually mentioned is the advice which we are giving to clients of the building industry

  1703
  on the management decisions that they must make. We too often hear about the failure of builders to satisfy their clients. We should hear more about the failure of clients, by their decisions or indecisions, to afford guidance to those who are building for them. To do a little sales talk in this direction, a handbook, entitled "Preparing to Build", is available and I recommend that it be studied by those who must make important building decisions.
  Another very important subject is the promotion of industrialised building. I will not dwell on this issue. My right hon. Friend made some important references to it and I will merely add that in the direct building programmes which are being carried out by the Ministry of Public Building and Works, we are doing a great deal of system building, using contractors. This is being done in, for example, housing for the forces at Catterick, Aldershot, Gosport and elsewhere, and in programmes for Post Offices, training centres and many other public buildings.
  It is important that the industry makes fast progress in its methods of winter building. The interruption of building by bad weather is another aspect which causes a break in production and my Ministry is doing a great deal of work on this by providing lectures, articles, and broadcasts, and giving advice to builders, and publications on the subject.
  Another very important point is the development of standardisation of dimensions and of components. Those who understand the industry well would say that we have suffered in the past from too great a uniformity in the appearance of the finished building combined with all kinds of meaningless variations which add to costs and make building more difficult. Therefore, the kind of standardisation of dimensions and components which will enable building to be more efficient and to progress faster, and which will at the same time give a real chance to the architect, is the kind of progress we must make. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr about the relation of this to the process of going metric. On the point he raised about modules in the system building, I am afraid these were decided some time before the decision to go metric was made.
  1704
  Another very important point relates to the testing of new materials. My right hon. Friend established the new d'Agrement Board which will be of great importance in certifying and testing the reliability and quality of new materials in the industry. By collaboration with the Internationale Union d'Agrement it will be possible to find new scope for exports.
  Another very important question is that of building maintenance, which has not been raised very much in the debate. Something over £1,000 million a year is being spent on maintenance costs in building. This absorbs a very great proportion of the skilled labour in the industry. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has become chairman of a committee which is studying this and also studying the promotion of more efficient systems of maintenance. Another very important point is the improving of contract procedures in order to avoid delay and confusion. Here we have the advice of Sir Harold Banwell's Committee.
  I could go on with a dozen of these points, but one more which I should like to make concerns a new announcement. We are concerned with the development of computers in the building industry. They are already being used by some firms in connection with research, design and management problems. This is something we want to encourage, and I shall appoint a Committee under Mr. R. T. Walters Deputy Director-General of Research and Development in the Ministry, to study the present position and advise on the promotion of further advance. I will close on this
  Mr. Rippon: Answer some of the questions.
  Mr. Prentice: I am answering the questions. I want to say something about the future of the industry, which is far more than the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham did in a much longer speech. If he wants to play this in a controversial way, all right. This, after all, was supposed to be a censure debate, although it has rather flopped from that point of view on the benches opposite.
  Every one of the progressive, the forward-looking steps to which I have referred in the last 10 minutes has either been started under the Labour Government or was started in the last couple of

  1705
  years in the death-bed repentance period of hon. Members opposite. Most other industrial countries started them years earlier. If they had been started years earlier in this country the industry would have been enabled to make a much bigger and faster contribution to our housing needs and the other needs of our people. Therefore, it is an impertinence for hon. and right hon. Members opposite to put
  down this so-called censure Motion tonight. It will be received with contempt by those who understand the building industry outside, and the rejection of it by this House will be applauded by the majority of public opinion.
  Question put: —
  The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 327.

  Division No. 13.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Farr, John

  Loveys, W. H.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Astor, John

  Fortescue, Tim

  MacArthur, Ian

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

  Foster, Sir John

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Awdry, Daniel

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

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Balniel, Lord

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Maddan, Martin

  Batsford, Brian

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Bell, Ronald

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Marten, Neil

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Mathew, Robert

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maude, Angus

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mawby, Ray

  Biffen, John

  Gower, Raymond

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grant, Anthony

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

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Grieve, Percy

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Blaker, Peter

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Body, R.

  Gurden, Harold

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Monro, Hector

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  More, Jasper

  Braine, Bernard

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)

  Brewis, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Murton, Oscar

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Bryan, Paul

  Hawkins, Paul

  Neave, Airey

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

  Hay, John

  Nicholls, Sir Harmer

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Burden, F. A.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nott, John

  Campbell, Gordon

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hiley, Joseph

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Clark, Henry

  Holland, Philip

  Peel, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Hordern, Peter

  Percival, Ian

  Cooke, Robert

  Hornby, Richard

  Peyton, John

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Cordle, John

  Hunt, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pounder, Rafton

  Costain, A. P.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Crawley, Aidan

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Crouch, David

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Crowder, F. P.

  Jopling, Michael

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Dance, James

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

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

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kitson, Timothy

  Roots, William

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Doughty, Charles

  Lambton, Viscount

  Royle, Anthony

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Drayson, G. B.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Eden, Sir John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

  Sharples, Richard

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

  Eyre, Reginald

  Longden, Gilbert

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Smith, John

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Stainton, Keith

  Tilney, John

  Whitelaw, William

  Stodart, Anthony

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Talbot, John E.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Tapsell, Peter

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Younger, Hn. George

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

  Walters, Denis

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Teeling, Sir William

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Mr. Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott

  Temple, John M.

  Webster, David

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dempsey, James

  Howie, W.

  Albu, Austen

  Dewar, D. C.

  Hoy, James

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Alldritt, Walter

  Dickens, James

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Alien, Scholefield

  Dobson, Ray

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Anderson, Donald

  Doig, Peter

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Archer, Peter

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hunter, Adam

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dunn, James A.

  Hynd, John

  Ashley, Jack

  Dunnett, Jack

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

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

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

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

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Eadie, Alex

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Bagier, Gordan A. T.

  Edelman, Maurice

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Barnes, Michael

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

  Barnett, Joel

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Baxter, William

  Ellis, John

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  English, Michael

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

  Bence, Cyril

  Ennals, David

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Ensor, David

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

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Bessell, Peter

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

  Judd, Frank

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Faulds, Andrew

  Kelley, Richard

  Binns, John

  Fernyhough, E.

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

  Blackburn, F.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Boardman, H.

  Floud, Bernard

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Booth, Albert

  Foley, Maurice

  Ledger, Ron

  Boston, Terence

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswch)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

  Ford, Ben

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Boyden, James

  Forrester, John

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Fowler, Gerry

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Gardner, A. J.

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lomas, Kenneth

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

  Garrow, Alex

  Loughlin, Charles

  Buchan, Norman

  Ginsburg, David

  Luard, Evan

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn, P. C.

  Lubbock, Eric

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  McBride, Neil

  Cant, R. B.

  Gregory, Arnold

  McCann, John

  Carmichael, Neil

  Grey, Charles

  MacColl, James

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Chapman, Donald

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McGuire, Michael

  Coe, Denis

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Coleman, Donald

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mackie, John

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hamling, William

  Maclennan, Robert

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hannan, William

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Harper, Joseph

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Cronin, John

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Haseldine, Norman

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hazell, Bert

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

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Manuel, Archie

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mapp, Charles

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Henig, Stanley

  Marquand, David

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Mason, Roy

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Maxwell, Robert

  Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Delargy, Hugh

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Mellish, Robert

  Dell, Edmund

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  1708

  1709

  Mikardo, Ian

  Price, Thomas (Weathoughton)

  Swain, Thomas

  Millan, Bruce

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Taverne, Dick

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

  Rankin, John

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Moonman, Eric

  Redhead, Edward

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Tinn, James

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Tomney, Frank

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Richard, Ivor

  Urwin, T. W.

  Moyle, Roland

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Murray, Albert

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Newens, Stan

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

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

  Wadace, George

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

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

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Roebuck, Roy

  Weitzman, David

  Ogden, Eric

  Rogers, George

  Wellbeloved, James

  O' Maliey, Brian

  Rose, Paul

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Whitaker, Ben

  Orbach, Maurice

  Rowlands, Christopher (Meriden)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Orme, Stanley

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Oswald, Thomas

  Ryan, John

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Paget, R. T.

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Palmer, Arthur

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

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Short, Mrs. Ren—e (W'hampton, N. E.)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Pardoe, J.

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Winnick, David

  Park, Trevor

  Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Silverman, Juius (Aston)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Pavitt, Launtnce

  Slater, Joseph

  Woof, Robert

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Small, William

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Snow, Julian

  Yates, Victor

  Pentland, Norman

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Zilliacus, K.

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Perry, Georgu H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Stonehouse, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Mr. Law on and Mr. Whitlock.

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

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

  TRANSPORT FINANCES BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [18th May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Which Amendment was, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which seeks to make provision for
  using £366 million of the taxpayers' money for the purpose of meeting the deficits of the British Railways Board and the London Transport Board for the period ending on 31st December, 1968, when the Government have failed to provide the House with details of their future transport policy, have failed to take the necessary action to reduce the deficits of the two Boards and are now seeking to make grants of a size which indicates that they anticipate further increases in the deficits of the two Boards".
  Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
  Debate resumed—
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 313; Noes 210.

  Division No. 14.]

  AYES

  [10.13 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Barnett, Joel

  Boyden, James

  Albu, Austen

  Bence, Cyril

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Alldritt, Walter

  Bessell, Peter

  Brooks, Edwin

  Allen, Scholefield

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Anderson, Donald

  Binns, John

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Archer, Peter

  Bishop, E. S.

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

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Blackburn, F.

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

  Ashley, Jack

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Buchan, Norman

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Boardman, H.

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

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Booth, Albert

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Boston, Terence

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Cant, R. B.

  Barnes, Michael

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

  Carmichael, Neil

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Ogden, Eric

  Chapman, Donald

  Howie, W.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Coe, Denis

  Hoy, James

  Oram, Albert E.

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

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

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hynd, John

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Cronin, John

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Paget, R. T.

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pardoe, J.

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

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

  Park, Trevor

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

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

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Pentland, Norman

  Delargy, Hugh

  Judd, Frank

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Dell, Edmund

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Dewar, Donald

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

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

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

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Dickens, James

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Dobson, Ray

  Lawson, George

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Doig, Peter

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Ledger, Ron

  Rankin, John

  Dunn, James A.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Redhead, Edward

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Reynolds, G. W.

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

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Eadie, Alex

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Richard, Ivor

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Ellis, John

  Lipton, Marcus

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  English, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

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

  Ennals, David

  Loughlin, Charles

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

  Ensor, David

  Luard, Evan

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Roebuck, Roy

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

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Rogers, George

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Rose, Paul

  Fernyhough, E.

  McBride, Neil

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McCann, John

  Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  MacColl, James

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Floud, Bernard

  MacDermot, Niall

  Ryan, John

  Foley, Maurice

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  McGuire, Michael

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

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

  Ford, Ben

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Forrester, John

  Mackie, John

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Slater, Joseph

  Gardner, A. J.

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Small, William

  Garrow, Alex

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Snow, Julian

  Ginsburg, David

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

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Manuel, Archie

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh

  Mapp, Charles

  Stonehouse, John

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Marquand, David

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Gregory, Arnold

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Grey, Charles

  Mason, Roy

  Swain, Thomas

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Maxwell, Robert

  Swingler, Stephen

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Symonds, J. B.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mellish, Robert

  Taverns, Dick

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Millan, Bruce

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Tinn, James

  Hamling, William

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

  Tomney, Frank

  Hannan, William

  Moonman, Eric

  Urwin, T. W.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Haseldine, Norman

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hazell, Bert

  Moyle, Roland

  Wallace, George

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Henig, Stanley

  Murray, Albert

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Newens, Stan

  Weitzman, David

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Whitaker, Ben

  1712

  1713

  White, Mrs Eirene

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Whitlock, William

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Yates, Victor

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Winnick, David

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Mr. Fitch and Mr. Harper.

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Murton, Oscar

  Astor, John

  Gower, Raymond

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

  Grant, Anthony

  Neave, Airey

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Grieve, Percy

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Balniel, Lord

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Nott, John

  Batsford, Brian

  Gurden, Harold

  Onslow, Cranley

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Bell, Ronald

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Biffen, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Peel, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Percival, Ian

  Birch, Rn. Hn. Nigel

  Hawkins, Paul

  Peyton, John

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Hay, John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Blaker, Peter

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Body, R.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Braine, Bernard

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Brewis, John

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Holland, Philip

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Bryan, Paul

  Hordern, Peter

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hornby, Richard

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Burden, F. A.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Campbell, Gordon

  Hunt, John

  Roots, William

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Royle, Anthony

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Clegg, Walter

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Sharples, Richard

  Cooke, Robert

  Jopling, Michael

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

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Smith, John

  Cordle, John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Stainton, Keith

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Stodart, Anthony

  Costain, A. P.

  Kimball, Marcus

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

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Crawley, Aidan

  Kitson, Timothy

  Talbot, John E.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Tapsell, Peter

  Crouch, David

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Teeling, Sir William

  Dance, James

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Temple, John M.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Longden, Gilbert

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Loveys, W. H.

  Tilney, John

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

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  MacArthur, Ian

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Doughty, Charles

  McMaster, Stanley

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Drayson, G. B.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Maddan, Martin

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Eden, Sir John

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Marten, Neil

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Mathew, Robert

  Webster, David

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maude, Angus

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Farr, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Whitelaw, William

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Fortescue, Tim

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

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Foster, Sir John

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Worsley, Marcus

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Monro, Hector

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  More, Jasper

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)

  Mr. Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott.

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay]

  Committee Tomorrow.

  TRANSPORT FINANCES [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).
  [Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the payment of grants to the British Railways Board and the British Waterways Board on account of deficits on revenue account down to the end of the year 1968 and to authorise the payment of such grants to the London Transport Board, it is expedient to authorise any such increase in the sums which, under the Transport Act 1962, are authorised or required to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, issued out of the Con-
  1716
  solidated Fund, raised by borrowing, or paid into the Exchequer as may be attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

  (a)extending by one year the period of five years referred to in sections 22 and 23 of the said Act of 1962 (grants and loans to the said Railways Board and Waterways Board to meet deficits on revenue account arising during that period);

  (b)raising from £450 million to £800 million the aggregate limit imposed by the said section 22 in respect of grants or loans to meet such deficits of the British Railways Board;

  (c)making corresponding provision in respect of deficits on revenue account incurred by the London Transport Board, subject to an aggregate limit of £16 million.—[Mr. J. Morris.]

  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  WOOL MARKETING SCHEME
  10.28 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move,
  That the Amendment of the British Wool Marketing Scheme 1950, as amended, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.
  This amendment of the British Wool Marketing Scheme is needed to make good a defect in the arrangements which the Scheme provides for appeals by producers against the valuation of their wool.
  I think that I should, first, explain very briefly how the marketing arrangements under the Scheme work. Practically all producers of wool are required to be registered with the British Wool Marketing Board and must sell their wool to it. The Board arranges for the wool to be assembled, graded and prepared for sale by merchants who are appointed as the Board's agents; the Board then sells the wool at public auctions. Producers are paid by the Board by grades, the price of each grade being related to the overall guaranteed price determined by the Government at the Annual Price Review. The producer hears from the Board, normally within a week after grading, the total valuation of all his wool, and is entitled to appeal, within 10 days of receiving the valuation notice, to the appeal tribunal, which has the task of considering the valuation and may direct it to be altered. These, very briefly, are the arrangements provided for at present under the Scheme.
  I should now like to deal with the change that we are proposing. The defect in the Scheme as it stands is that it does not give the producer a formal right to require that his wool should be available for inspection by the appeal tribunal; this, clearly, is important, as in the absence of the wool which is the subject of an appeal, the appeal clearly has less value than it might have. The purpose of the Amendment is to remedy this defect.
  There is, however, a difficulty here which follows from the conditions of operation at the Board's grading depots.
  1718
  What happens is that a producer's clip is handled very rapidly by expert graders, each fleece being graded and thrown into a skep or basket for a particular grade. There are usually a number of grades in each clip, sometimes as many as 30. As the skeps are filled, they are emptied into bins or piles, where the wool becomes mixed with other producers' wool of the same grade.
  This is necessary to save space and permit the bulking of the graded wool without congestion of the premises. All this means that it would be quite impracticable to try to solve the problem I have described by requiring that each producer's wool be kept separate by grades for two or three weeks until his right of appeal against his valuation has expired.
  The solution we propose is that producers should be given the formal right on request to have their wool kept separate at the grading stage. This would formalise the current practice of the Wool Board, which has recognised this difficulty for some time and has been prepared to grant this as a concession to producers.
  The Amendment is based on a proposal which the Board submitted to Ministers, but which has been modified in certain respects with the Board's consent as the result of a public inquiry into an objection made by a producer. The effect of the Amendment is that a producer has a right to have his wool kept separate after grading, under certain conditions. In the first place he must attend the grading in person, or through a representative, and the Board is required, if the producer so requests, to give him a reasonable opportunity to attend.
  Secondly, the producer must request the grader, during or immediately after the grading process and before the wool is dispersed to bins or piles, to have the wool kept separate. This means that any producer who is not prepared to rely on the grading carried out by the Board's agent, and wants to make sure of being able to get a second expert opinion, will be entitled, as soon as the grading begins, to demand the segregation of all or part of his wool. Unless he cancels his request, the wool will then be kept separate until the time limit for

  1719
  an appeal against the Board's valuation has expired—that is, until 10 days after he has received notice of the valuation, or until his appeal, if he decided to make one, has been heard.
  Finally, the Amendment provides that if a producer does not take advantage of this right and subsequently appeals against the Board's valuation, the appeal tribunal may decide the value of his wool upon such evidence as it may deem proper.
  This proposed arrangement seems to be fair. There have been very few appeals against valuations—the average has been less than six per year for the last ten years—but I am sure that this Amendment will bring about an improvement in the appeal arrangements. As I have said, it gives every producer a definite right to have his wool kept separate, provided he is prepared to fulfil certain quite reasonable conditions.
  10.34 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Stodart: If I understand it aright—and perhaps the Minister will confirm this—the producer has always been able to appeal if he gave notice within 10 days of receiving his valuation, no matter whether or not he attended the grading. I think that that has been a statutory right. What has not been statutory, but which has been practised in recent years, has been that a producer who attended the grading could ask for his wool to be kept separate pending an appeal, and this was done.
  It is this which has now become statutory. It is quite obviously right that producers should be able to appeal if they think that their grading has not been done to their satisfaction. On the other hand, it is apparent that any appeal would lack much of its substance unless the wool was available, on its own, for separate inspection by the appeal panel. It is here, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, that one runs up against severe physical difficulties, because wool is extremely bulky stuff and there is not the space to keep it in any wool-brokers' establishment without creating a very large pile-up. If ever there was a case for a compromise this is it, and the hon. Gentleman has spelled out a pretty fair case for the compromise.
  1720
  It is desirable that more people should see their clip graded because if they did it is possible that the quality of presentation might improve as a result of seeing the faults in the grading. That might serve to offset that quite disgraceful cut which the Government imposed upon sheep breeders in the recent Price Review. It might go some way to providing a solution to that. If the consequence of more attendances at the wool brokers meant more appeals, which would mean the setting aside of all these individual clips, then this could be extremely awkward, because the brokers to whom I send my wool grade 2½ million lbs. every year and 80 per cent. of that is graded during the months of July and August. Into this wool brokerage comes wool from half-bred, black-face, and Cheviot flocks, all at that time. In wool grading there are 19 grades of blackface, 17 grades of Cheviot and 23 of half-bred, making 59 in all, to be handled at any one time.
  As the hon. Gentleman has said, each fleece takes only seconds to grade and even a very modest number of appeals could cause considerable havoc. It is interesting and significant that this firm of brokers has never yet been asked to put any wool aside by way of appeal. This seems to be in line with the figures given by the hon. Gentleman, that there are six appeals per annum from over 130,000 producers. One does not, therefore, need to be too gloomy about the physical difficulties that may be encountered.
  As far as I can make out, the general procedure is that the first stage is that the wool leaves the farms and goes to the brokers. They send an acknowledgment to the farmer which gives the gross weight of each bale and a total net weight. The brokers grade the wool, I imagine within the next few days. This is important. They then send a sheet to the headquarters of the Wool Board, in Bradford, giving the grades and the weights in each grade and the deductions which have been made for various faults. The Board inserts on this sheet, or an identical one, the price per 1b. and the gross value of each grade and posts that to the producer, with a cheque. I notice that last year I received my acknowledgment from the brokers for the receipt of my wool on 26th July, and that my valuation and

  1721
  cheque arrived on 12th August, 16 days later.
  I have just one reservation. Presumably, the broker keeps a duplicate of what he sends to the Board—that is, the grades and the weights and the deductions. I wonder whether it might be to the general satisfaction if the broker were to keep a third copy and post that to the producer. I wonder whether or not that figure which the hon. Gentleman quoted of six days is really a true one, and whether the producer does get his cheque within six days of the grading being done. Perhaps he will confirm that. I have a suspicion that it could be a matter of 10 days or a fortnight. I wonder if it might not be a good plan if the producer could get his duplicate immediately of the grades, the weights and the deductions, and he could then, if he wished, look at the Schedule and work out the valuation and thus anticipate the notice which comes from the Wool Board, possibly 10 days later.
  That is the only reservation I have. In general, I welcome this, and I repeat, if people can be induced to make sure of their clips being graded it may well do the industry a lot of good, in that people will tend to take more trouble about their actual presentation.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome this Amendment of the Wool Marketing Scheme not only because I think it a good move, but because it will be of great benefit to many producers, particularly in the South-West—and, after all, the South-West has one of the largest sheep populations in the country. I welcome it because it is designed to improve arrangements for appeals by producers against valuations of their wool.
  I believe that this is an improvement, and that it is only right and proper that we should be constantly seeking to improve our marketing schemes and methods of marketing. No marketing board must stand still. Every endeavour must be made to facilitate the marketing of wool. Producers, wool buyers, and, indeed, the Wool Board itself, must be on the alert these days, when the wool industry races great competition. I believe that this Amendment will help in
  1722
  the marketing and smooth functioning of this most important industry.
  It is not only an improvement, but it is a safeguard to the producer, I believe. Surely that is always necessary. Marketing boards, because of their size and strength, can, if they wish, wield the big stick. I do not believe that they usually do in practice, but it is right, surely, that every safeguard to the producer should be put into practice. It is not only a safeguard, but, of course, it is a little encouragement, too, to the sheep farmer these days. Goodness knows, he has had little encouragement lately, especially in the last two Price Reviews, when he has had 2d. a 1b. cut off his wool. This will at least help him obtain the best price he can get.
  The effect of the Amendment will be that the farmer, and the tribunal hearing his appeal, and, of course, the Board, will be very careful that they leave nothing to chance and that a fair and right solution is found. I hope that producers will take advantage of these facilities, and, indeed, inspect their wool as it is graded. We do not want the wool sheds cluttered with farmers inspecting all the time, but I am certain that the fact they can watch the wool being graded will be of great benefit to them. Surely, as my hon. Friend said, this is the way to learn and to try to improve the quality of the clip. One should listen to the grader as he points out the various factors which down-grade the quality of wool.
  Having said this in favour of the wool producer, it is important to look at the other side of the picture. I want to pay a tribute to the wool merchants for all that they do for the farming community. I hope that the Amendment will not be abused by the producers, that they will act reasonably, that they will keep to the procedure, not delaying the inspection longer than is necessary, and that they will act promptly, because surely this is in their own interests. Delays mean loss of money and extra expense—and the expenses of the Board are constantly rising. I believe that there will be another 1d. knocked off the clip this year because of the increased costs. We want nothing more which would increase those costs because it is the farmer who suffers in the long run.

  1723
  I hope that all concerned will co-operate to the full to make a success of this great industry because, unless we do, we may find ourselves in serious difficulties due to the very fierce competition which the wool industry is up against. I hope that there will be this co-operation, and I welcome the Amendment wholeheartedly.
  10.47 p.m.
  Mr. Joseph Hiley: It is not often that the House hears the voice of a spinner of wool, but I do not think it necessary for me to declare an interest because I shall not be particularly critical about the Amendment.
  I listened with envy to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) explaining that the producer of wool usually received his cheque in about 16 days. Those of us who have to go to the great expense of financing purchases of wool would consider ourselves extremely lucky if we could get our money back in anything like that time.
  Not only must the producers of wool improve the marketing of that very important product; at the same time, they should never lose sight of the fact that they should produce wool in a way which would cause us who manipulate the wool far fewer difficulties than we have at present.
  I hope that the Board will not have too many people taking advantage of the provisions of the Amendment because if they do, then I fear that there may be many difficulties for the Board. But I am satisfied, particularly from the experience of recent years, that that is not likely to happen.
  May I ask the Minister one question? Does the Board itself embark on any marketing activities either as a Board or through some other interest which it may have acquired? There is a feeling in some wool circles that that has happened and it is a source of great disquiet to the wool trade. I should be pleased to know from the Minister whether that is the position.
  10.49 p.m.
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) in welcoming the Amendment, but I
  1724
  should like to sound a note of caution to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I agree with my hon. Friend who, in welcoming the Scheme, called attention to the importance which it might represent for the wool producer in terms of encouraging him in the presentation of his wool to the broker and thus perhaps obtain for him the possibility of a marginally better return.
  I hope, however, that the welcome given to the Amendment will not be interpreted by the Parliamentary Secretary as being a mark of favour for his wool and other agricultural policies. In my constituency the wool producers are in a very bad way indeed. We have had a period of rising costs, falling returns, restricted credit and now, on top of all this, the requirement of the Government that hill farmers, as well as other farmers, should make an interest-free loan to the Government for a period of some months.
  I welcome the Amendment as far as it goes, but I hope that the Minister recognises that very urgent action is required, particularly for hill farmers, if this great industry is to survive in future.
  10.51 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Monro: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). This is an important matter for Scotland and I am glad to see that the Minister of State has taken his seat on the Front Bench.
  At no time in the history of farming this century have the farmers of Scotland felt more badly treated by any Government. I do not want to cast reflections on the Scheme because it is of great advantage to hill farmers. However, considering the activities of the wool brokers for many years, it is unfortunate that the producers should have been saddled with the cost of the inquiry, which, basically, was totally unnecessary. With those remarks, and with the strong wish that the Government will take some action to help the financial position of farmers, I support the Amendment.
  10.52 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: As my hon. Friends have said, we are discussing the Amendment against the scandalous background of the reduction in the guaranteed prices of wool. This

  1725
  has covered a period during which we have suffered a disastrous reduction in the hill sheep subsidy. I know all about it having been guaranteed for five years, but it has been reduced by 5s. and, in some cases, by 7s.
  We agree that the Amendment is a small step forward for the better presentation of our wool. We wool producers spend our whole lives reading before we can get the price schedule right. We have exhortation from the Wool Board to present our wool in a better manner. I am glad that the Minister of State is in his place, because one of the Department of Agriculture farms in Scotland is still using bloom dip. It is incredible that this should be happening in this day and age. The Government urge us to produce better wool and they are doing everything possible to make it more difficult for us to present our wool in a better manner.
  I had hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite would say something about the work of the Sheep Development Association. After all, one of the easiest things to do is to put a bit more wool on sheep. Some of the sheep owned by the Department of Agriculture in Scotland are bare on the belly and behind the ears. Half a pound of wool is worth quite a lot of money, even to the Government.
  We have had a welcome opportunity tonight to air some of the difficulties facing wool producers. Those difficulties have not been made any easier this year. Although we have the right to argue about the grading of our wool, that does not alter the fact that we are being paid a great deal less for our wool and our sheep.
  10.55 p.m.
  Mr. John Mackie: With permission, I speak again in order to reply to the points which have been made. This is the old story. We bring forward these Motions and the opportunity is taken by the Opposition to use any stick to have a crack at us. The leniency with which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, deal with them is to be commended when they tend so much to get out of order.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said that there has always been this right of appeal, but that has not been so valuable because the wool could not be inspected. Having
  1726
  been mixed, it cannot be inspected and so the appeal is not so attractive. Farmers should sometimes inspect the wool. That would give them ideas on how to present it and to get a better price. I agree with the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) that we do not want to see wool sheds cluttered up with farmers hindering the business. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West said that there were in all 59 different grades. If a farmer is changing his broker or had dissatisfaction a year before, that would be a good reason for him to attend. I would not advise him to go too often and have the wool separated.
  The hon. Member questioned my figure when I said that within a week after grading the figures were sent. It is normal within a week and the farmer is entitled to appeal within 10 days, but that is not of great value if the wool is not kept separate. I will take note of the suggestion that a duplicate should be sent to the farmer straightaway. These procedures are carried out roughly within 16 to 18 days.
  The hon. Member for Torrington welcomed the improvement in the marketing and the safeguard which these Amendments provide. He took the opportunity to suggest that sheep farmers had not been encouraged and that the very small cut in the wool was depressing. I return to the crack someone made about the begging bowl. People will not face the fact that sheep stocks in the country are increasing. People do not go on producing something which does not pay. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West should face the facts. The same kind of thing happened over the annual general meeting of the N.F.U. in Scotland. It was said that cattle yards were empty all over the country, but returns came out in the next week showing that there was an increase in cattle stocks.
  Mr. Stodart rose—
  Mr. Mackie: The hon. Member does not like his toes trodden on. I am making my points and I will not give way. The hon. Member should accept the points I am making.
  The hon. Member for Torrington paid tribute to the merchants and brokers and that was well deserved. We were happy

  1727
  to hear the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) put in his word as a spinner. He asked whether the Board had trading rights. It asked for trading rights on the basis that it could not do the job properly unless it had them and was in the business. The Board does its job well and for that reason it has trading rights. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) uttered a word of caution, but I am not sure whether it was caution on what I was saying or as a mark of favour. The Amendment is purely and simply for the purpose of improving the marketing scheme, which is not a reason for debating the whole agricultural policy. His caution must be taken as a mark of favour or not, as hon. Members wish.
  The hon. Member referred to Perthshire farmers and the Selective Employment Tax but, as they are all self-employed, they will not have to pay the tax.
  Mr. Stodart rose—
  Mr. MacArthur rose—
  Mr. Mackie: I said that I would not give way, and I stick to that.
  Mr. MacArthur: Completely irresponsible.
  Mr. Mackie: It is not irresponsible. A tremendous number of the farmers are self-employed and will not pay the tax. A number of them may have a shepherd, but a tremendous number are self-employed and will not have to pay the tax. As the hon. Member must know, most sheep farmers in Scotland are self-employed. They are in his area.
  The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) said that we had cut the hill sheep subsidy, and he made a debating point of it. We have not cut it. The hon. Member cannot make that point, because we stabilised it in 1965 at a figure about 8s. or 9s. above the average of the previous five years, and we increased it by 1s. last March.
  1728
  I have not given way, because this is not a debate on agricultural policy, although hon. Members opposite have tried to turn it into one. This is a debate on a Scheme relating to the Wool Board. I have simply replied to the points brought up by hon. Members opposite. I take it that the House will now accept the Amendment that the Wool Board wish.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Amendment of the British Wool Marketing Scheme 1950, as amended, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.

  SARAWAK AND SABAH (GIFTS)
  11.1 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert Bowden): I beg to move,
  That Mr. Tom Driberg, Mr. Marcus Lipton. Mr. Ray Mawby and Mr. Anthony Royle have leave of absence to present, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the Council Negri of Sarawak and a Mace to the Legislative Assembly of Sabah.
  The House will recall that earlier in the year it approved the presentation of a Speaker's Chair to the Council Negri of Sarawak and of a mace to the Legislative Assembly of Sabah. The Motion gives leave of absence to the delegation which is to present the gifts. The House may wish to know that the composition of the delegation to perform these pleasant duties has been arranged in consultation with Mr. Speaker and will be accompanied by Mr. S. C. Hawtrey, Clerk of the Journals.
  Question put and agreed to.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
  Mr. William Hamling discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services); Mrs. Gwyneth Dun-woody added.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  WHITEHALL (REDEVELOPMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
  11.3 p.m.
  Mrs. Joyce Butler: On the first really spring-like day this year I was walking down Whitehall when I realised with a sudden shock that the incomparable vista of that street was to be completely destroyed by the Whitehall Plan of Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Buchanan, because the pleasant sweep of Whitehall depends on the right widths of the street, on the delightful facade of the buildings on either side, and on the opening out of the street into Parliament Square with its view of the Houses of Parliament and the other buildings on the other side of the Square.
  This was a personal feeling which I still have about the plan. A great many experts—planners, architects, traffic engineers, and others with specialised knowledge—have expressed doubts about some aspects of the plan and have given very cogent arguments for a reappraisal of some of the aspects of the Whitehall Plan as a whole. There has been no opportunity, and so far we have been promised no opportunity, of any kind of public inquiry into the plan as a whole and the policies that lie behind it. One of the most important aspects of the plan about which there is a good deal of concern among the public and the experts is the fact that it will concentrate at the southern end of Whitehall an additional 10,000 civil servants working in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster.
  It is right to ask whether this is good policy in the first place, or whether it would not be better to disperse civil servants further afield, or even to consider the suggestion which has been made many times—and I was one of the first to make it many years ago—of a new administrative centre right away from London, in the north of England or in some other part of the country.
  These may be far-flung considerations, but they are very relevant to the Whitehall Plan and to this concept of making the area into an administrative centre, centring on this building. It is important
  1730
  that when the Government accept a plan which concentrates office development in this way it should be subject to some kind of public scrutiny. Otherwise, it would appear that the Government are riding roughshod over their own declared policy of dispersing office population from the centre of London. There is also the important question of the offices in other parts of London that are to be vacated by these incoming civil servants. We have had no indication of how their re-letting as offices is to be prevented, if it is to be prevented at all.
  These are important policy considerations. The removal of traffic from the Parliament Square precinct, to make it into a pedestrian precinct, will have very serious repercussions on other parts of Central London. The Greater London Council has made it clear that it is concerned about the effect this may have on traffic south of the river. It will obviously have some very serious effects on traffic coming across Lambeth Bridge, and traffic to the west of the Parliament Square area. It has been recognised that it will affect traffic in Trafalgar Square, but the repercussions of this removal of traffic will be very widespread.
  It will be very interesting to see how the Greater London Council's review of the traffic situation, and the road problem in Central London, lines up with the suggestions that have been made in the Whitehall Plan, and one would expect some opportunity for discussing this particular aspect of the plan. It is unwise to deal with these matters piecemeal, and it would seem that the present inquiry, which we welcome, that is being held into the Broad Sanctuary site is uncovering, as it goes on day by day, the difficulty of dealing with that part of the scheme before we deal with the scheme as a whole—and deal with it in public, with an opportunity for expert opinion to be expressed.
  There is also the problem of the cost. When it is recognised that the riverside tunnel would cost at least £10 million; that the enlargement of the Lambeth Bridge would cost about £4 million; and that the cross route would cost from £40 million to £50 million; the estimate of the former Minister of an initial cost for the whole scheme of £100 million appears to be rather on the small side—large though it is.

  1731
  Who is to be responsible for the financial side of this traffic re-arrangement? The Greater London Council has made it quite clear that it could not meet this enormous cost in relation to all its other roadworks. If it is to be the Government's responsibility, then this should be clearly stated, and there should be an opportunity for discussing it, for quite clearly there is so much involved in this plan.
  I have mentioned just a few points of policy. I have indicated the enormous cost and, looking ahead to the future, one wonders whether all future possibilities have also been taken into consideration. Presumably before the scheme gets under way, it is possible that decisions will have been taken about the use of private motor cars in the Central London area as a whole which might completely change our concept of the traffic-free precinct in Parliament Square, because this might not be necessary.
  There is also the possibility of a change in the method of transport. All kinds of transport changes are being proposed. Have these been taken into consideration? There is the cost of taking buses out of this area and rerouteing them. Many people think that in any event that is undesirable. There are many aspects that need decision.
  Unfortunately, because this is a Government plan which the Government have accepted, they are above the normal planning processes. They will not be subject to public inquiry as any other planning authority would be. They did not need to consult, and they did not consult, the appropriate planning authorities, the Greater London Council and the Westminster City Council, before they decided to accept the plan.
  Since the plan was first put before the public, however, and since it was welcomed, as I am sure we all welcome it, for its scope and imagination, some of these difficulties have been put forward and it has become increasingly clearer that a number of questions must be answered and a number of policy points need to be debated.
  Since we have a new Minister and, one would hope, a new look at the Ministry, I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who
  1732
  is to reply to this debate on behalf of the Minister, will be able to indicate that the Ministry has had second thoughts about this matter and will make arrangements for what I call a full public inquiry, which would be the forum to discuss the policy aspects of the whole Whitehall Plan before it proceeds further.
  The area, the implications and the policies are of such great public importance that I very much hope that my hon. Friend will be able to indicate that the Ministry has had second thoughts and will do as I suggest, or, at least, will consider doing this and, emerging from the present limited inquiry, will proceed to something much larger where the whole country can see and hear the issues debated and the people can feel that they are part of the decisions which are being made.
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: The Opposition regard the future of Whitehall as a matter of great national importance. That was why the Martin-Buchanan Report was commissioned in April, 1964. This is also a matter of tremendous national interest. Indeed, there was even a television programme entitled "A pity about the Abbey", which some hon. Members will have seen.
  The limited public inquiry now taking place will, no doubt, be of considerable value, although we take the view that it would be as well to explore the whole matter in this House. The Opposition would like to have a full debate on the whole matter as soon as possible. I hope that the Government will be able to arrange this. Certainly, as a result of the present inquiry, there will be many points which we shall have to explore, and many hon. Members will wish to take part. My hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), who is present tonight, would, no doubt, have valuable views on this matter, which affects his constituency particularly, but he could hardly deploy them in the limited time available to us tonight.
  Many vital aspects concerning the future of Whitehall are still matters for debate. Even though the prime consideration for the future of the Foreign Office must surely be the efficient working

  1733
  of a great Department of State, there may still be found to be ways by which the best of this group of buildings can be preserved for the future.
  The Martin-Buchanan Report suggests that the Brydon Treasury buildings should be swept away, and this, surely, is a matter for debate. We would be interested to know the Government's view about this. The Middlesex Guildhall, another fine and interesting building in this area, has a doubtful future, and we should like a chance to debate this matter. At present we see the new House of Commons building across the road in Bridge Street to be the responsibility of a Commonwealth architect, the Government offices in Parliament Street and Bridge Street to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Works, and the Brydon building, its future hanging in the balance. None of this ties up with Martin-Buchanan, so there is plenty here to discuss and for the House to debate.
  Then, surely, there is the question of the traffic which is probably of greater public interest than any of the debates over the future of the buildings. Here, surely, a start could be made straight away to get rid of some of the through traffic. We take the view that the suggestion of the road along the Embankment passing the river front of the Palace of Westminster is one of the best proposals of the Martin-Buchanan Report, although we should be slow to do damage to the appearance and amenities of this building. We should like to see an exploration into the possibilities of lowering this road well below the bed of the river so that the terrace of the House of Commons is not affected and the enjoyment of the public adversely disturbed.
  Therefore, although we must be cautious in this matter, the fullest possible investigation will obviously produce the best results. We should like a debate in the House and the widest possible inquiry to be made outside.
  11.16 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. James Boyden): I appreciate very much indeed the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) gave me notice of the points that she intended to raise and
  1734
  the very pleasant manner in which she has raised them tonight.
  One of the remarkable things about the Martin-Buchanan Plan for Whitehall is the very large consensus of agreement which exists about its general objectives. It is an imaginative concept. Perhaps what is not quite so well appreciated is the expertise which is being used and developed in working to achieve the general objectives. I think everybody in the House would agree with that.
  I do not think Marston Moor for Parliament is on. The Prime Minister a few days ago gave a rather firm answer on that and, great as is my enthusiasm for the North, I do not think that in my present position I have any right to say anything about it. We must confine ourselves to the relatively narrow field of the Martin-Buchanan proposals.
  I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friend about the lack of opportunity for public discussion. There has been a great deal of discussion on the general objectives for some time. In the London Development Plan of 1962, which is now part of the initial development plan for Greater London, the area between Trafalgar Square, Smith Square, St. James's Park and the river is zoned as a Government and Commonwealth precinct. The written statement expresses the intention
  "… to preserve the traditional character of the area and to secure, so far as development control permits, that development should be principally for Crown, Government and Commonwealth uses, ecclesiastical uses, clubs and uses ancillary to those uses."
  The G.L.C. in its observations, I think on 3rd May, gave a fairly strong endorsement to the general objectives. It said on page 3:
  "The uses within this area"—
  that is, the area of Parliament Square and Whitehall—
  "and the immediate surroundings are associated with three main activities—State occasions, Government use and public and tourist use. The intention of establishing this area as a precinct free from through vehicular traffic is clearly welcomed on planning and civic design grounds alone"—
  and here comes the slight dissent; I say it is slight, although I do not know whether the G.L.C. thinks it is slight—
  "although in a later section of this report we express doubts about the road proposals to secure this end."

  1735
  I do not disguise the fact that there are a number of detailed proposals involved, but I should have thought that the G.L.C., the Press and the many other interested parties would have thoroughly approved the general objectives. I do not think can be said that there has not been plenty of opportunity for discussing the proposals leading up to the plan and the Martin-Buchanan Plan itself. One can take examples from some of the most important aspects. The question of the new building for Parliament has been discussed on several occasions at length in the House, and some decisions have been taken. Of course, as the House knows, there are discussions going on in the appropriate Committee of the House and with the Ministry of Public Building and Works to work out what we, the clients—if I may put myself in that position—want in relation to a Parliamentary building. This is one of the good and new things—
  Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the House turned down the Holford scheme and the Gothic scheme, if I may so call it. There are doubts about the present scheme, and it does conflict with Martin-Buchanan.
  Mr. Boyden: It is questions of that sort which are being and will be resolved by co-operative discussion. They will be discussed democratically in the Committee which will work in conjunction with the Ministry or Public Building and Works. Our rôle in the matter will be to assist the Committee. We have more facilities for technical consideration than, perhaps, the Committee itself has, in ascertaining what is wanted by Parliament. Obviously, this will be a matter of interest here in the House of Commons, and I think that this particular aspect is an example of something better discussed—I hope that my hon. Friend will agree—in a Parliamentary Committee and on the Floor of the House, if necessary, rather than by public inquiry.
  The same applies to the Foreign Office. The previous Government took a firm decision to pull the Foreign Office down, and the present Government have confirmed that decision. Naturally, the bodies concerned with planning will be consulted about the building. My hon.
  1736
  Friend suggested that the Government were not consulting planning authorities as others would, but I feel that she should, perhaps, reconsider that view. It is the general policy of Government Departments to consult, and in this case there has been no difference.
  There have been very many proposals as to how to deal with the Foreign Office. On each occasion there has been a shift or a new idea has come up. The latest proposal of the preservationists is to leave the frontage overlooking the Park. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) reiterated the decision of the previous Government, and I must say that, as far as I am personally concerned, I am very much in favour of it.
  There was a debate in the other place on 22nd December, and the Government spokesman again reaffirmed the decision to pull down the Foreign Office, for a variety of reasons. I shall not give those reasons now. One thing I liked in that debate was the contribution by Lord Caccia, who ought to know about the Foreign Office, having spent a long time in it. The noble Lord told a story of an American ambassador who used to come to the Foreign Office, and he was heard to remark to the lift man, "I would have you know that in my country trees grow faster than your elevator moves". That was the situation in 1929. I do not know whether the lifts have been improved in speed, but the generally poor conditions in the Foreign Office have persisted since those days, with only slight modifications. Firm decisions have been taken on this, and although I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have another look at the situation, we see no reason at all why there should be any further general discussion about it at the moment.
  In general decisions are delayed by a public inquiry. In planning inquiries, people who have a vested interest, an interest which they are perfectly entitled to, come along to air their views. They defend their narrow point, very often with the assistance of expensive counsel to put the case. A matter such as this, however, is a matter of high policy for the Government and Parliament to decide, is really not appropriate for further public discussion of the sort to which, I think, my hon. Friend referred.

  1737
  The two councils—Westminster City Council and the G.L.C.—were sent copies of the plan on 20th July, and the Town Clerk of the City of Westminster replied when he had the plan:
  "I expect that the City Council will share the Government's views on the proposals."
  I have suggested that the G.L.C., although it has some detailed criticisms—most of which will be discussed with it—generally approves of the plan.
  Traffic plans are under intensive consideration in the Ministry of Transport and the G.L.C. A feasibility study is going on into the tunnel under the river. These are very much matters of technical appraisement, but they are of concern to the citizens of London, the citizens of Great Britain and, for that matter, citizens of the world. The solutions should he studied technically and be discussed by the people who have particular democratic responsibility for them and not in terms of a public inquiry going over the whole ground.
  My hon. Friend raised the question of office accommodation and of concentration of 10,000 civil servants in the Whitehall area.
  Mrs. Joyce Butler: An additional 10,000.
  Mr. Boyden: Yes; 10,000 more. So far the outline plans do not propose to concentrate quite that number. Ten thousand is the absolute maximum. In any case, the architects have not even started planning buildings. The actual numbers will he discussed in the light of the clients' brief which is being prepared—for the Foreign Office, the Parliament building and the Government office. The architects will then be able to work on the plans.
  Settling the problem seems less a matter of public inquiry than a matter of Government policy, debatable in the House of Commons, taking into account the Board of Trade policy for offices and so on. My Department has an interest here. We like to build new offices on Crown property because it is the cheapest way of doing it. We also like to get civil servants out of London because that is cheaper. There are considerable pressures on us not to concentrate civil servants too much in the centre of London. But, of course, it may be
  1738
  more economical and efficient and in no way against the policy of the Greater London Council or the City of Westminster to have a bigger concentration immediately in Whitehall and a thinner concentration in other parts.
  My point is that this is part of Government dispersal policy, of Government office policy, and is better resolved by discussion between Government Departments, in this House, and by consultation with such bodies as the Greater London Council. The detailed points which they raise are the traffic difficulties, those which my hon. Friend made—which will all be considered carefully. Indeed, they are under active discussion at the moment. The other road proposals, which stem from the proposals for the narrower area which we are discussing, are also under consideration by the traffic authorities.
  I wanted to say a word about such inquiries as could be helpful to the process of general planning as distinct from an overall public inquiry. My hon. Friend referred to the one which concluded yesterday, on the Broad Sanctuary area. There was a similar public discussion in 1961 about the Bridge Street and Richmond Terrace area.
  Both these public inquiries are the normal planning inquiries, the purpose of which is to give the ordinary citizen—the property owner—an opportunity of putting his case to an inspector of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who then reports to the Minister. There are areas within the area covered by the plan where it would be useful and proper for an inquiry to be held—for example, the area behind Westminster Central Hall, the area along the line of Great Peter Street taking in part of the Victoria Tower Gardens. I do not know whether my hon. Friend would react violently to a development across Victoria Tower Gardens; it would probably ruin the view.
  All this is a long way off, but these are the sorts of area which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West had in mind when he agreed to the inquiry which has just taken place, and made suggestions for other inquiries of a similar sort. The Civic Trust came to see the Minister some time ago on the question of a general inquiry. In the

  1739
  discussions that followed the Civic Trust and the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) accepted the general indication that these narrow inquiries, involving private property and private views, and which went into the periphery of the scheme, were the suitable inquiries. They were prepared to forgo the idea of a general public inquiry which my hon. Friend has raised tonight.
  The matter has been discussed for a long time and there is general agreement about the plan. The Martin-Buchanan Plan is an excellent general concept for the development of the area. There will be the fullest co-operation, discussion and technical collaboration on all points, to get the very best conspectus of view on
  1740
  the situation. On the question of individual planning inquiries, my right hon. Friend the previous Minister has said that these will take place, and I see no reason to think that the new Minister will in any way dissent from that view. I hope that what I have said will go some way towards satisfying my hon. Friend. I thank her very much for raising the subject.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

BOARD OF TRADE
  Travel Agents
  Travel Agents
  Cotton Textiles (Imports)
  Cotton Textiles (Imports)
  Light Industry (Dorset)
  Light Industry (Dorset)
  Dutch Carrots (Imports)
  Dutch Carrots (Imports)
  Electric Razors (Advertisements)
  Electric Razors (Advertisements)
  Development Areas (Selective Employment Tax)
  Development Areas (Selective Employment Tax)
  Hotel Development (North East)
  Hotel Development (North East)
  Carbon Black (Imports)
  Carbon Black (Imports)
  Industrial Development, Ashford (Refusal)
  Industrial Development, Ashford (Refusal)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Overseas Sales)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Overseas Sales)
  Developed Countries (Investments)
  Developed Countries (Investments)
  Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement (Tax Concessions)
  Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement (Tax Concessions)
  Market Research (Surveys)
  Market Research (Surveys)
  Brussels International Fair
  Brussels International Fair
  Industrial Expansion (Aberdeen)
  Industrial Expansion (Aberdeen)
  British Films (Quotas)
  British Films (Quotas)
SHIPPING
  Dry Cargo Fleet
  Dry Cargo Fleet
  Geddes Committee (Report)
  Geddes Committee (Report)
  Merchant Ships (Orders)
  Merchant Ships (Orders)
  Trade Exhibitions
  Trade Exhibitions
  Seamen's Strike (Foreign Ships)
  Seamen's Strike (Foreign Ships)
WALES
  Medical College
  Medical College
  Derelict Land (Grants)
  Derelict Land (Grants)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Comprehensive Scheme (Brent and Ealing)
  Comprehensive Scheme (Brent and Ealing)
  Teachers, Newham (Housing)
  Teachers, Newham (Housing)
  Universities (Nursing Courses)
  Universities (Nursing Courses)
  Open University (Enrolments)
  Open University (Enrolments)
  11-Plus Selection
  11-Plus Selection
  Humberston County Junior School, Lindsey
  Humberston County Junior School, Lindsey
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Child Immigrants (Bar)
  Child Immigrants (Bar)
  Immigration Officers (Instructions)
  Immigration Officers (Instructions)
  Committee on Legal Aid in Criminal Proceedings (Report)
  Committee on Legal Aid in Criminal Proceedings (Report)
  Unlicensed Vehicle
  Unlicensed Vehicle
  Law of Evidence (Questioning by Police)
  Law of Evidence (Questioning by Police)
  Automatic Cut-Off Petrol Nozzles
  Automatic Cut-Off Petrol Nozzles
  Minicabs
  Minicabs
  Criminal Courts (Dock)
  Criminal Courts (Dock)
  Pinewood Hospital, Wokingham
  Pinewood Hospital, Wokingham
  Police (Pay and Conditions of Service)
  Police (Pay and Conditions of Service)
  Offences (Use of Firearms)
  Offences (Use of Firearms)
  Murders
  Murders
  Compulsory Fingerprinting
  Compulsory Fingerprinting
  Commonwealth Immigration Act (Restrictions)
  Commonwealth Immigration Act (Restrictions)
  Latey Committee (Free Church Federal Council's Proposals)
  Latey Committee (Free Church Federal Council's Proposals)
  Metropolis (Evasions of the Law)
  Metropolis (Evasions of the Law)
  Police Action (Carnaby Street)
  Police Action (Carnaby Street)
  Homosexual Reform (Legislation)
  Homosexual Reform (Legislation)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Seamen's Strike (Price Increases)
  Seamen's Strike (Price Increases)
SCOTLAND
  Trawl Nets (Recommendation of North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission)
  Trawl Nets (Recommendation of North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (United Kingdom Contribution)
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (United Kingdom Contribution)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Tyres (Imports from Japan)
  Tyres (Imports from Japan)
  Southern Foundries Limited
  Southern Foundries Limited
  Selective Employment Tax (Manufacturing Industry)
  Selective Employment Tax (Manufacturing Industry)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL
  NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL
  ATLANTIC NUCLEAR FORCE
  ATLANTIC NUCLEAR FORCE
  TREATY OF ROME
  TREATY OF ROME
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  THE PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  THE PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  CHINESE NUCLEAR TEST (RADIOACTIVE FALL-OUT)
  CHINESE NUCLEAR TEST (RADIOACTIVE FALL-OUT)
  INCOME TAX CASES
  INCOME TAX CASES
NEW HEBRIDES
  Anglo-French Talks
  Anglo-French Talks
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Phantom Aircraft
  Phantom Aircraft
  Home Defence Force, Northern Ireland
  Home Defence Force, Northern Ireland
  Drill Halls, Northern Ireland
  Drill Halls, Northern Ireland
HOSPITALS
  Young Chronic Sick (South-Western Regional Hospital Board)
  Young Chronic Sick (South-Western Regional Hospital Board)
  Stroud Hospital (Casualty Department)
  Stroud Hospital (Casualty Department)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Waiting List (Wellingborough)
  Waiting List (Wellingborough)
POST OFFICE
  Commemorative Stamp (House of Keys)
  Commemorative Stamp (House of Keys)
GAS
  Large Diameter Steel Pipes
  Large Diameter Steel Pipes
  North Sea Supplies (Price)
  North Sea Supplies (Price)
ROADS
  Greystones Road and Tees-side Parkway Scheme
  Greystones Road and Tees-side Parkway Scheme
  Newcastle-Edinburgh Motorway
  Newcastle-Edinburgh Motorway
  A1 (Newcastle-upon-Tyne By-Pass)
  A1 (Newcastle-upon-Tyne By-Pass)
  A41 (Road Markings)
  A41 (Road Markings)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Works Loan Board (Interest Payments)
  Public Works Loan Board (Interest Payments)
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Members of Parliament (Stationery)
  Members of Parliament (Stationery)
  Corporation Tax (Close Companies)
  Corporation Tax (Close Companies)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

DEVELOPMENT AREAS AND CREDIT RESTRICTIONS
3.6 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: 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 their intention that credit restrictions for development should apply in the development areas in the same way as in other parts of the country, in particular where the development proposed is for manufacturing and housing.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Governor of the Bank of England has provided some guidance to the lending institutions which asks them to pay full regard to the aims of Her Majesty's Government on regional development. The guidance also asks for the highest priority to be given to credit facilities for exports and for productive investment in manufacturing industry.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether there is to be any difference at all between the development areas and other parts of the county; that is to say, is there to be any priority at all given for manufacturing in a development area over that in another part of the country?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the lending institutions were asked to have special regard to the aims of Her Majesty's Government in regional development. To
1082
the best of my knowledge the institutions are carrying out that request. The noble Lord may be interested to know that during the twelve months to mid-February, 1966, bank advances to the manufacturing industry rose by £250 million; but they fell by £70 million for what we have regarded as the less essential borrowers. Unfortunately, there are no details as between regional areas and the rest of the country, but all the indications are that the banks are paying special regard to the need for regional development.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether agriculture is included in the list of industries to whom favourable consideration should be given as import savers?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I could not answer specifically so far as the institutions providing lending facilities are concerned. But the noble Earl will no doubt be aware of the considerable support that the Exchequer is giving to agriculture, and also of the new Agriculture Bill which will shortly be introduced in another place.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, from the first answer which the noble Lord gave, suggesting there will be ample credit in development areas, is it to be understood that this applies also to any requirements of the municipal and other public authorities with regard to housing? Because it is believed, and it is apparently the case, that in some development areas the development of factories is running ahead of that of housing facilities. May I ask for an assurance that there will be no difficulty in that line?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not think that in my original Answer I said there would be ample facilities. The term "ample" is, I supose, a rather wide one. In regard to house building, in the requests regarding lending that we made to the institutions we asked that they should not be pressed upon those who require loans in buying owner-occupied houses. But we asked that there should be a restriction on finance for building and property development even within the regions.

BRITISH SHIPPING AND NORTH VIETNAMESE TRADE
3.9 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are considering the necessary legislation to prohibit British flag vessels taking part in North Vietnam trade.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not, in the circumstances existing, consider that legislation would be appropriate.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply which I welcome very much. I assume that that Answer would apply also to Cuba. Is it to be deduced that the Government now realise the uselessness of all these trade restrictions, such as embargoes and sanctions and others, and that they are unfruitful? Will the noble Lord answer my point about Cuba?

RECRUITMENT TO ARMED FORCES
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government with regard to recruitment to the Armed Forces:

(a) What from the latest figures available is the cost per recruit obtained.

(b) What is the present strength of numbers of the Armed Forces presently engaged on such recruitment duties.]

THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the average cost per recruit obtained in 1965–66 was £192. Some 1,500 of all ranks are engaged on recruitment duties.

SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TAX AND CHARITIES
3.10 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: 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 revenue they expect to raise by the application of the selective employment tax to those employed in charities and what arrangements they have in mind for assisting the charities to maintain their services to the community.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I must say that I am disappointed that the noble Lord is not sitting on the front Bench because I wanted to congratulate him and welcome him to what is sometimes regarded as the unholy alliance of the Whips. But having said that, may I say that I regret that I cannot add to what I said on this matter on Tuesday.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for those gracious remarks, which almost, but not completely, disarmed me, may I go on to say that although what he said—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply which does not go beyond what he said on Tuesday, and while welcoming it as a step forward since the First Secretary of State's last remarks on this matter some ten days ago, and while hoping still that we may hear a complete repentence in due course, may I go on to ask him three further questions? First, how is it that when the Government were working out this selective employment tax and considering exemptions—for example, the central Government, the Armed Services, the schools, the National Health Service, the Post Office, local government and the water boards—they overlooked this large sector of the social services comprising the charities? Secondly, now that they have been made aware of the problems of the charities, when may we expect to have the benefit of the Government's conclusions in this matter? Thirdly, is the noble Lord aware that if the Labour Party are not careful,

1085
if they are not quick, they will brand themselves as a Party which, as soon as they received a mandate from the electorate, embarked on a fiscal policy that will have the direct effect of reducing Voluntary Service Overseas, cutting help for the refugees—meaning that fewer children are adopted—cutting back the efficiency of the lifeboat service, and so on? I cannot believe that is what they want to see.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, but, in view of the manner in which he put his supplementary question, I cannot suggest that he would set a very good example as a Whip to the noble Lords opposite. In the first place, we did not overlook the position of the charities. As to when we may expect a statement, may I correct the noble Lord? What I said on Tuesday, as he will see if he reads very carefully what I said, was not that it was a step forward. It was very much in line with what the Chief Secretary said some time ago. But any news, good or bad, will obviously be included in the Ministry of Labour Bill when it is introduced in another place. In regard to branding ourselves—well, I suppose that is a matter of opinion.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, when considering this matter will the Government consider the relationship between administrative expenses and the amount of money that actually goes to the various charities?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would suggest that that is rather a wider aspect of the subject that is before us.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, in view of the wonderful work charities do in this country, would the Minister indicate the type of charity at which this tax is aimed? That is a straightforward question, and I should like a straightforward answer.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the answer is, "No".
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is it the opinion of the Government that the charities are hoarding labour, and that it would be in the national interest that people employed in charities should be forced by this tax to go into industry and make "one-armed bandits"?
LORD WADE: My Lords, if, as I understand is the case, farmers are to be called on to pay this tax and will then have it reimbursed, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will suggest to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should adopt a similar policy towards charities; or, better still, save the time of officials by exempting charities altogether?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Answer!
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am quite prepared to answer, but I think that I dealt with this subject pretty fully on Tuesday. I take all the points that have been made, and, as I said on Tuesday, I will see that they are submitted to my right honourable friend. But I think I should point out, quite fairly and frankly, that I am not, nor is any other Minister in this House, a Minister within the orbit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the finance houses. All we can do here is to take the notes. I think it would be wrong for us to be pressed as some noble Lords think that we should be pressed.

WESTMINSTER ABBEY ANNIVERSARY SERVICE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I make a Statement on Business? The Westminster Abbey authorities have suggested that during the 900th Anniversary of the Abbey there should be a Service attended by Members, officers and staff of the two Houses of Parliament. The Government are anxious to meet their wishes in this respect, and it is therefore proposed that the House of Lords should go, as a House, to Westminster Abbey at 12 noon on Wednesday, June 29, to attend such a Service. It is understood that the House of Commons will also attend, and a similar Statement is being made in that House this afternoon.
On the day of the Service your Lordships' House will meet for Prayers at 11 a.m., and will then adjourn during pleasure to enable Peers to take their places in the Abbey. Shortly before 12 noon the Lord Chancellor's procession will leave the Chamber for the Abbey. Details of arrangements will be circulated later. After the Service the House will return, and the Sitting will be resumed at 2.30 p.m.

THE WHITSUN RECESS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it may also be for the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships of the proposed dates for the Whitsun Recess. Subject to the progress of Business, the House will adjourn on Thursday, May 26, and reassemble on Tuesday, June 14.

GAMBLING
3.20 p.m.
TILE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER TILE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER rose to call attention to the state of gambling in this country; and to move for Papers. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, it is some considerable time since your Lordships' House had the opportunity of considering gambling. Since this is a subject which ought to be scrutinised from time to time, I have ventured to table the Motion which stands in my name. The subject is one, I am well aware, which is apt to rouse strong emotions, and in introducing this debate it will be my object to avoid, so far as possible, any remarks which may increase the heat or appear to suggest a moralising of the situation. I hope that we may examine the facts dispassionately and see whether it seems desirable that the law which controls gambling should be modified in any way. It is a vast subject, and if I were to attempt to cover the whole field I should strain the patience of your Lordships to breaking point. So I must be selective, and leave it to other speakers to raise specific points which I may have omitted and which they would wish to have discussed.
May I then first place before your Lordships the figures which are involved in gambling in this country? The only agency which assesses them each year is the Churches' Council on Gambling, a body of which I had at one time the honour to be chairman. It has just published its estimate of the amounts of money involved in 1965. In general terms, it calculates that the turnover in gambling, apart from gaming clubs and gaming machines, was £915 million. This figure was made up by £610 million on horse-racing; £125 million on greyhound racing, £100 million on football pools, a rough estimate of £35 million on bingo in commercial clubs, and a further £45
1088
million on fixed-odds football betting. Premium Bonds and other forms of gambling, such as funfairs.
This figure of £915 million represents a rise of £10 million on the previous year, and a rise of £155 million over the figure for 1961, in which year the new legislation became effective. If we add the sums involved in gaming clubs, the figure is well over £1,000 million a year. It should be noted that this is the turnover for these forms of gambling, and does not represent the amount of new money which passes between the gambler and the gambling agent. The figure for turnover, however, does serve a useful purpose in reminding us of the volume of gambling and, therefore, of the manpower, equipment and time which must be employed to meet it.
I would ask your Lordships to consider first the end to which this very large sum of money is directed. It provides a service for those who wish to gamble. It gives a measure of interest to those who enjoy the element and excitement implicit in gambling. Certain forms of gambling, such as bingo, provide fellowship for lonely people, who fill in the time which cannot otherwise he occupied. Much of it is pretty harmless, and most of it is within the law. But gambling has now become a major industry in this country. It is not content merely to provide a service for those who want to gamble: it is actively occupied in creating a larger gambling public, in persuading people to become gamblers who would not otherwise be so; and it is using all the devices of mass persuasion to achieve this objective.
The industry has its School of Turf Accountancy; it has its trade periodicals; it has its exhibitions of gambling equipment, and so on. The number of betting shops has risen from 13,340 in 1962 to 15,638 in 1965. And all this outpouring of effort and money is on an enterprise which is fundamentally sterile. It adds nothing to culture; it is entirely uncreative; it contributes nothing to productivity or to the national economy, save in the cut which the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes from the Revenue.
It is dangerous to try to estimate what may be the general effect of this volume of gambling on those intangible matters I of national morale. It is certainly putting

1089
temptation in people's way and is contributing to the increase in the number of those who are becoming compulsive gamblers. It is opposed to the general trend of social reform, for the practice of gambling is likely to exercise the imagination and the emotions in a way clean contrary to that required for the popular support of broad economic and social aims which have been set before the country by successive Governments. Nine hundred and fifteen million pounds is a lot of money to be involved in an activity which makes no contribution to the betterment of society and, so I would believe, to its happiness. The intention of the 1960 Act was to contain the situation and to prevent excess. The results of that legislation have been far from this intention. Therefore, in general terms, I would suggest that the situation needs very careful scrutiny.
There are three specific aspects of the gambling situation to which I would call the attention of your Lordships. The first is a matter which has been of recent concern—namely, gambling on the results of a General Election. From the publicity which was given to this activity, both in 1964 and in 1966, it is clear that this is now big business. Some bets may have been designed as a kind of insurance against the consequences of one victory or the other; some may have been to make money; and others were a mild "flutter". I have no evidence that publication of the odds in any way affected the manner in which people voted. But I do suggest to your Lordships that this is not a desirable form of gambling. It detracts from the dignity of Parliament; it introduces a cheapening and frivolous element into the electing of Members of Parliament, which is essentially a serious business. It is unwholesome, and I hope it will be stopped.
I should like to say a word or two about bingo. I imagine that most of your Lordships have taken part in this occupation under one or other of its many names—bingo, tombola or housey—housey. It is one of the forms of gambling permitted in the Royal Navy, and provided an innocuous way of passing time during those wearisome hours of boredom which are such a feature of war time. Incidentally, it was only the other day that I realised that I have for
1090
a considerable time in my life taken part in a form of bingo more often than I realised, for in my home one of the games permitted on Sundays was Biblical lotto, and I have now discovered that this was nothing more nor less than bingo. It did, however, have the valuable consequence of teaching me the names of the Kings of Israel and the minor prophets. To-day, of course, bingo is a legal game; and however dreary a way of passing the time most of us may think it to be, it undoubtedly provides companionship, and in the case of the more modest efforts the prizes are not so great as to cause any major social disruption. This, however, is not so true of the very large games being organised by commercial clubs on a national level. The promoters of this type of bingo are out to make money, and therefore the situation is potentially dangerous.
Participation in the game appears to be pretty steady. There is evidence, however, that bingo players are being encouraged to move towards a more sophisticated form of gambling. Last year the Craywood Club (1965) Company was established to provide small gaming clubs to which patrons would be attracted after bingo sessions. The Essoldo group, which has bingo clubs in fifteen large cinemas, has developed its own form of gambling called "square deal roulette". It looks as if the comparatively innocent gambling involved in bingo is being used to lead the customers on to other forms of gambling in which more money will be involved, with greater gains and losses.
This brings me to the most serious aspect of the problem, which is the rise of the casino-type gambling clubs. The difficulty in discussing these clubs lies in the fact that no one knows how many there are or the extent of the money involved. There was an inquiry under Section 2 of the Finance Act 1963, which reported in February, 1964, but the information given in the report is very tenuous, and there is no estimate of the money involved. In any case, the situation has developed considerably in the last two years. These clubs are operating without any control at all, yet one has only to read the newspapers to learn of their plush comforts and to realise that they are probably not doing too badly.
The most recent establishment of this kind is the Playboy Club, of London, which advertises as one of its attractions
"the plush black, red and gold setting of the Playboy's Penthouse Casino. Here is a casino designed for a fun flutter. Stakes start at 2s. 6d. and are deliberately kept minimal at all of the games members have asked us to provide—black jack, American dice, roulette and chemin de fer".
It goes on:
"Even though the Playboy Casino atmosphere is gay and exciting, the standards of gaming are high enough to satisfy the most serious player, as all games are under the supervision of a management team from Crockford's—one name in gaming that is in itself an absolute assurance of integrity."
Noble Lords will no doubt note the protestations that this casino will be run honestly. Many noble Lords have no doubt been invited to join this club, including the right reverend Prelates who sit on these Benches. One could wish that such optimism could have been put to a more profitable use.
There is no doubt that there are a very large number of casino-type gaming clubs in the country and that in many of them very large sums of money indeed are changing hands and, so my information goes, a number of people have lost money which they could ill afford. The point I wish to bring to your Lordships' notice is not so much the vulgar ostentation which all this involves, but that the establishment of these clubs is clean contrary to the intention of Parliament when the Betting and Gaming Act 1960 was framed. At that time Parliament had no intention of interfering with private practice, and was prepared to sanction a charge being made in a club for the use of a room in which members could take part in gaming for money. But it intended to prevent the commercial exploitation of casino-type gambling. The Royal Commission had stated that the law should
"prevent persons being induced to play for high stakes for the profit of the promoter."
They said that this could best be achieved
"by the prohibition …of those types of gaming in which the organiser has a direct financial interest in the stakes."
Therefore, on the advice of the Royal Commission, Parliament made it illegal for any cut to be taken from the stakes, for the house to hold a position of
1092
advantage in the play, and for any charge to be made to take part in the gambling.
Parliament did, however, make this provision to meet the needs of bona fide clubs: if gaming formed an activity of the club, it was permitted to make a charge, being a sum determined before the gaming began. However, the intention of the Government was well expressed by the noble and learned Lord who then sat on the Woolsack, when he said:
"…it is the aim of the Bill to free private gaming for pleasure from restriction, but at the same time to make unlawful any practice by which large profits might he made from the commercial exploitation of gambling."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Vol. 223, col. 1132; 23/5/60.]
The Government of that day was warned that this provision, unless it was defined explicitly, would open the door to the very thing that Parliament intended to prohibit. But in the Committee stage of the Bill the Minister in charge stated:
"Those who are concerned with the commercial exploitation of gambling would not think it worth while to impose a sufficiently high charge to get a profit."
No doubt the Government had in mind sessions of play lasting an afternoon or an evening, and that the charge would have to be so high as to price the gaming out of existence. But instead, clubs have devised means whereby sessions could begin and end at frequent intervals, and a worthwhile charge be made for each. Here, I must assure your Lordships, I speak from hearsay rather than from personal knowledge. As regards chemin de fer, the law is powerless. It takes about half an hour to exhaust a shoe, and in the case of Mills v. MacKinnon the law has held that each shoe may constitute a separate session for which a charge may be made. I understand that charges of £1. £2, £5 or even £10 in the salon privée may be charged.
With regard to roulette, it is difficult to see how it can be played legally in this country, and the situation bristles with difficulty. If, as on the Continent, the bank has the sole benefit of the zero, then it is at an advantage vis-à-vis the other players and, therefore, illegal in that form. There is not an obvious break in the play which may mark the beginning or the end of the session, and the

1093
law has held that it is illegal to make a charge for each throw, or to put up a notice to say that there will be a fresh session every so many minutes. One can suppose that the players could be invited to take the bank, but the sums involved are such as to preclude most participants. And in the case of Kelland v. Raymond, Mr. Justice Paull expressed the opinion that if the club, in the person of the croupier, holds the bank in a game of roulette, the club is in fact taking part in the game, which is illegal, since the club cannot be a member of itself or a guest of one of its own members.
I quote these instances, my Lords, to illustrate how unsatisfactory is the present situation. Even more so is the fact that there is no register of these gaming clubs, no inspection of their practice, or of their books. No one knows how many there are or what is going on in them. A gaming club may have only gaming machines with no more than a sixpenny stake, or it may have an unlimited number of tables of a variety of games with unlimited stakes. We in this country are apt to think that the Continent is the place where you can go and get a good gamble and taste the experience of being rather daring. We do not appreciate that on the Continent gambling is very strictly controlled by the Government; the number of casinos is limited, and every detail of the gaming is watched with meticulous care. I am told that in France there are in fact only 156 casinos, and compared with those countries on the Continent which have had long experience in running gaming clubs and have evolved their controls as essential if trouble is to be avoided, the laxity of control in this country is hardly credible.
There is one further point I would stress. The Royal Commission stated as one of the principles that as much information as is practicable should be made available to the public about the extent of gambling and, wherever possible, the conduct of various forms of gambling. It said that it attached importance to the third principle because it was believed that gambling was more likely to be kept within reasonable bounds by the development of public opinion than by restrictive legislation. Very little information has been available about the state of gambling in this country, and I hope that now there
1094
is going to be a 2½ per cent. tax on bookmakers it will be possible for the Customs and Excise to provide information of the way in which things are going in this country.
I would press the Government to introduce amending legislation to enforce the intentions of Parliament in framing the most recent Statutes. It should prevent the commercial exploitation of gaming by setting a limit upon the charge which may be made to partake in each session of the gaming, and this should be determined by regulation from time to time. It should set a limit to the number of sessions which may be held in any period of 24 hours. Such amendment should lead to the fulfilment of the original intentions of Parliament. Should this prove to be impracticable then I should hope that all gaming places would be licensed and the nature of the proceedings and the apparatus used be subject to scrupulous inspection, and some means devised to implement the advice of the Royal Commission that excess should be discouraged or prevented.
I have never felt that there was any great moral danger in the mild flutter, the occasional ticket in a sweepstake, the odd shilling with a friend on the result of a match. The pity is that commercialised gambling has taken the fun and enjoyment out of what might be quite an innocuous entertainment. No amount of legislation will prevent a fool and his money from being parted, but at least the law can, and should, provide some protection against those who seek to exploit human weakness for material gain. We do what we can to limit the opportunities for the dope addict and the alcoholic to get what he craves for; should the law not also do what it can to protect the compulsive gambler?
My Lords, I undertook at the beginning of my speech not to moralise, and I think I have avoided the temptation to do so, but in closing I would ask you to allow me to record an opinion. It is this: that large-scale gambling tends to corrode everything that it touches and to make unclean what could and should be healthy. The doping of horses and greyhounds and the rigging of matches is directly attributable to the gambling element. Indeed, it seems that whenever any great social evil is uncovered, the element

1095
of gambling will be found there. One remembers the words of Saul Kane in John Masefield's poem The Everlasting Mercy.
"They'd backed me. See, O Lord, the sin
Done for the things there's money in!"
The vast increase of gambling in the last few years has no doubt been due to the advent of the affluent society, with more money and shorter working hours. That process will doubtless continue and the opportunities will increase. Already the promoters of gambling are getting ready. Mr. Timothy Holland said on the Independent Television a year ago:
"There is a tremendous future in gambling… People are not equipped to cope with their leisure… When in 20 or 30 years' time they find they only have to work a 20-hour week, what are they going to do with their time?… I say they are going to gamble."
It is for Parliament to say how far gambling shall be permitted and what are the necessary restraints upon it. I hope the Government will act before the situation again gets out of hand and it is too late for control. I beg to move for Papers.
3.45 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful to the right reverend Prelate for raising this subject, if I may say so with respect, in a very moderate manner and in a manner full of common sense. It is important that it should be raised now, partly because, as the right reverend Prelate said, it is getting—if it has not got —out of hand, and we ought to take a careful look at it, and partly because it is a good opportunity to discuss the taxation which is proposed on betting and which has now been announced. It is also important that it should be raised now because I think I am right in saying that Her Majesty's Government have said that they intend to introduce legislation in due course to amend the present Act, which I think needs amendment. I am not going to follow the right reverend Prelate in quite such general terms, because I want, to start with, to deal with certain facts of gambling as it is at present, including the taxation aspect, and in the second part of what I am going to say to deal entirely with casinos and gaming clubs and my suggestions for their control, because I think we are all agreed that control does not really exist now, and control must exist.
1096
As your Lordships know, the present Betting and Gaming Act was passed, although of course against certain opposition, with support from all sides of both Houses, and, if I may put it slightly differently from the way in which the right reverend Prelate put it, I think the main object of the legislation was to bring such gambling as there was, or might be, into the open. There were gaming clubs before the Act, but they were hidden away in what one might term "dark corners", and there were street bookies. There was plenty of gaming and gambling, all of it illegal, and one of the main intentions of the Act was, as far as possible, to bring it into the open and thereby enable some form of control to be set up. Up to a point we have succeeded in those objects, but it has now been found that the controls are not sufficient, and so we get, as we know, so-called gaming clubs: some of them are real gaming clubs, some are within the law, and some are still outside the law. Many of them have led in certain cases to protection rackets, strong-arm chuckers-out and all the unpleasantness which should be controllable.
As the right reverend Prelate has said, it is a vast subject and I do not want to deal with the main topics of it but only with one or two. I am not going to deal with the question which is always debated —whether on the racecourse there should be only the Tote or whether there should be bookies as well. It would not be appropriate for me to do so because I might be considered biased. I was at one time on the Tote Board and for a short time even a director of Tote Investors, Ltd. Although I am going to talk about tax later, I should like to bring in the question of the new betting tax in regard to one small point. If, as I hope is not the case, the new betting tax promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes forward in its present form, the 2½ per cent. tax on the stakes will have to be paid by the punter when he bets with the Tote. Automatically that tax is passed on to the winning punter because it is deducted from the pool. It is not envisaged, so far as one sees at the moment, that it should be mandatory on a bookmaker to pass the tax on to a winning punter. He does not have to. It would be very difficult to pass it on to a losing punter. If you are going to have bookies and the Tote it is right that they should

1097
conduct their business on level terms. I suggest that this point should be looked at. Bookies paying out to a winning punter should make him pay the tax. There is another point in this. The large bookies in competition with their smaller brethren will probably be quite prepared to pay the tax, and their profits are such that it will not worry them. It may put the small bookie almost out of business if he pays it all without passing any tax on to the punter. This means that the very small bookie may go underground again. I would suggest it should be mandatory for bookies, the same as it is for the Tote, to pass the 2½ per cent. tax on to the winning punter.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, 2½ per cent. of what? If a man puts £1 down and wins £5, does he pay 2½ per cent. on £5 or £1?
LORD DERWENT: If the noble Lord looks at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he will realise that it is on the stake. I think that is correct. I am glad the noble Lord brought it up.
I do not want to say much about betting shops. They of course have had the one desired effect of getting the street bookie off the streets. Whether there are too many of them might he looked at. Perhaps the hours of opening should be looked at again. There are arguments both for and against making them shut at 2 o'clock or the time of the first race and not open during subsequent races. I believe many betting shops would like to shut at the time of the first race. It is a matter which should be looked at.
There is a matter that can be dealt with without legislation. I think it would be an excellent idea if a circular could go from the appropriate Ministry to the planning authorities. There are quite a lot of cases where betting shops have become a local public nuisance, not because of the way they are conducted but because of their actual site. I think it has been too easy for betting shops to be allowed by planning authorities. The situation ought to be watched very carefully, and I would suggest that Her Majesty's Government might warn planning authorities that because of the number of people going in and out at certain
1098
hours they can be a local nuisance because of their situation.
LORD COHEN OF BRIGHTON: My Lords, may I intervene? As a member of a planning committee, I can say that we are very worried about these betting shops. We have been told over and over again that we have no power once the magistrates have granted permission; we have no power to prevent them or control them in any way.
LORD DERWENT: I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting me right on that. I am sure he is right. I am merely asking if the Government cannot see whether something can be done about this very real problem.
I should like to come to the proposed taxation. On March 1 the Chancellor of the Exchequer went into details in another place in the debate on the economic situation. Perhaps I might add here that I am not a gambler myself. I like an occasional bet on a horse, but I am not a gambler, but because I disapprove but because it bores me. I therefore have no axe to grind as to one form of tax or another. On March 1, the Chancellor said, among other things:
"I have come to the conclusion that, while in the case of betting a tax on stakes is feasible, this is not so in the case of gaming. In this field, I prefer a system of annual licence duties as the practical approach."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 725, col. 1123.]
I am absolutely convinced that if the Chancellor wants a tax that will raise money and be easy to collect, he has his intentions exactly back to front. A tax on stakes on betting has been tried before. It was far too expensive to collect. There are endless possibilities of evasion and a large number of bets go "on the back of the book", as it is called, particularly some of the bigger ones. This was found to be the case last time.
I do not know whether your Lordships realise that when we had this tax on stakes 28 per cent. of the betting tax collected was paid by one firm of bookmakers who kept their books propertly. That is a fantastic figure. They certainly did not do 28 per cent. of the betting business of the country. In my view the proper way to tax bookmakers is on their premises, and premises should include a stand on the rails at a race meeting. It is an easy tax to collect and extremely

1099
difficult to evade, and that, I believe, is the proper, cheap, and successful way of collecting that tax. My right honourable friend Mr. Iain Macleod in the other place paraphrased the problem rather well. He said that it is a sensible idea to tax "one-armed bandits" but it is not a very sensible idea to try and tax the sixpences put into them. The same, in my view, applies to bookmakers.
As regards bingo, I think the tax on premises must be right. I do not see how else you are going to tax it. And the figures are about right. The Chancellor said:
"For bingo the annual rate of licence duty will be £100 where the rateable value is not above £1,000. The duty will be £1,000 where the rateable value exceeds £1,000." [Col. 1124.]
I think that is about right because the bigger the bingo hall the more money in it, and it does not sound out of line.
Up till now I believe and hope I have had the support of my noble friends on these Benches. From now on I am going to give my own views on certain matters. I do not say that because I think noble Lords behind will not agree—I know that some of them know what I am going to say and in fact do agree—but the matter has not been fully discussed, so I do not want to commit my Party to my views. These are my views. For the rest of my speech I want to speak about casinos and gaming clubs. I think the wording of the Chancellor when he was discussing these matters was to some extent in shorthand, but when I refer to casinos I mean places where the general public can go, and when I refer to gaming clubs I mean places where you have to be a club member in order to be admitted.
I believe that in the case of casinos and gaming clubs there should be a tax on stakes; that is much more profitable for the Government, as has been found in France. Really the proposed tax on the rateable value of gaming clubs is one of the craziest ideas even this Government have thought of. The Chancellor said:
"For casino gaming, the duty will be £500 where the rateable value is not above £1,000, and the duty will be £5,000 where the rateable value is between £1,000 and £3,000. Where the rateable value is above £3.000 the duty payable will be £50,000 a year."—(Col 1124.)
1100
Let us take as an example in the West End of London two gambling clubs about the same size. The first club, singularly fortunate, has a rateable value of £2,995 and every room in the premises is used for some form of gambling. Because its rateable value is just under the £3,000 limit it is going to pay £5,000 in tax. Round the corner is the second club, with much the same number of rooms; but it is largely a social club and has a restaurant, library, drawing rooms, sitting rooms, and so on, and two rooms set aside for gaming. This unfortunate club has a rateable value of £3,005, so its gaming tax is going to be £50,000. What an absurd situation: £10 difference in rateable value, £45,000 difference in tax, and the club that does the most gambling pays the smaller tax.
That cannot be right. To me it is absolutely crazy. It is going to encourage establishments solely for the use of gaming. It is going to encourage gaming in inferior premises. It is going to have the effect of being most unfair to certain cities or seaside resorts which desire to encourage a major development, and want to have under the same roof a restaurant, dancing, a theatre, a bingo hall and a few small rooms for some sort of gaming. They would have to pay tax according to the rateable value of all those premises, so the development would not take place.
This is not a difficult matter. We have an absolute blueprint in France where the stakes which are placed in gambling clubs or casinos are taxed. May I briefly say something about the French system? It is perfectly simple, but it has a tight control, which is what we are looking for. I might say that, under the French system, the Government, the municipality (as we call it: the local authority), and the concessionaire who runs the place, all make a nice fat lot of money; and in France the rules which are most important, are exactly the same for casinos as for gambling clubs. There is no difference in the rules. When a concessionaire wants to apply for a concession he goes to the municipality and says, "Would you like me to open?"—it may be a gambling club; it may be a casino. The municipality cannot move without the permission of the Ministry of the Interior (equivalent to the Home Office), and frequently the Ministry of

1101
the Interior refuse, on perfectly good grounds, either because there is another casino close by and a second one is not necessary, or because the locality has enough gaming clubs and more are not necessary. They say, No; and that is the end of it.
If they agree, and the municipality grants the concession, it has been found most satisfactory not to charge the concessionaire cash for his concession. It may be done in that way, but the concessionaire is usually made to undertake a not too profitable development for the benefit of the locality. We have one such development nearer home, in the Isle of Man. The new concessionaire was told by the Government of the Isle of Man to build a 100-room hotel which is needed in the Isle of Man. Such an hotel would not make enough profit to induce a hotel company to build it, but the Government there made the new concessionaire for the casino build the hotel. The concessionaire hopes that the hotel will just about pay its way, though he is not going to make a large profit out of it. But he will be getting his concession, the casino, and the locality will get the benefit of the hotel. In France, this sort of arrangement often results in a new golf course or something like that being provided. But there can be a cash charge to the concessionaire.
The rules of gambling, and the conduct of casinos or gaming clubs in France are laid down by the Ministry of the Interior, even to the extent in any particular casino or club, of what form of gambling shall take place. Some of your Lordships will know that in small casinos in some of the French seaside towns, if you wish to gamble you have to resort to playing boule, which is not too exciting. That is controlled not by the municipality but by the Ministry of the Interior.
When it comes to the real controls, there are tight rules about how things should be conducted. Any serious breach of the rules results in one or both of two things: either the concessionaire loses his concession without compensation and/or (and this is by far the most stringent sanction) the premises may be disqualified for ever. Your Lordships know perfectly well that a prosecution against a club here means that it opens
1102
the same night, ostensibly under different management, but the same fellow is behind it. This happens time and again. The Ministry of the Interior in France have power, and uses it, if there are serious breaches of the rules, to disqualify the premises for ever for gambling. This means that in France the gambling clubs and casinos obey the rules. That is what we want here.
Another rule is that there must be an entrance fee. To a club this is a membership fee, and to enter the casino you have to pay, probably about 10s. It is found with people who do not normally gamble, but who may be tempted inside, and may then lose their heads, that often, if they have to bother to take out 10s., they do not go in. That is a fact that has been proved to the satisfaction of the French. So there must be an entrance fee. Then 5 per cent. of every stake is deducted. I will not go into the safeguards—they are perfectly simple. But various safeguards are undertaken. There are Government inspectors who go around the clubs. Some of your Lordships may not have realised it, but you may have seen, in some casinos, a little desk or cubby-hole in a corner, with a man tearing up pieces of paper and writing down figures He is employed by the Government, not by the casino. He sits there all night, and he sees that the place is properly run. This 5 per cent. is divided in certain proportions between the Government, the municipality and the concessionaire. The figures vary a little in proportion, according to the locality. These proportions, again, are settled by the Ministry of the Interior.
The next and most vital point is this. If you do not want people to lose more money than they can afford, no credit is allowed in any circumstances. There is no signing of a chit. The counters or chips must be bought, either for cash or by cheque, before they are handed over. To present a "dud" cheque is a criminal offence. Normally 28 days is given to clear a cheque. If a man loses too much, he may sell some stocks or shares, or do something. But if the cheque is not met at the end of the period a criminal offence is committed, and the man will probably go to prison. In addition, at the end of the period, the concessionaire is bound in law to prosecute. If he does not, he loses

1103
his concession. So he is bound to take action.
As your Lordships know here it is difficult for a gambling club to collect what is owed. Sometimes it takes months to do so. Knowing that, in the last resort, they will not have to pay—or at least not for a long time—some people gamble for more than they can pay. The French rule stops that. If we are to have gambling clubs, we must have that sort of system here. The situation will become worse every day if we do not have proper control; and this means limiting the number of clubs and casinos. The Government in France take a direct interest in the enforcement of law, as well as a profit, by way of tax. I am sure that that is the way these things ought to be handled, and not, I repeat, by this crazy idea, and this appallingly unfair system of trying to get your money back by taxing the rateable value. That does not make sense. Other ideas will be put forward by your Lordships this afternoon. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will listen to them. If they do, they may then, for a change, get their new legislation right.
4.10 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in thanking the right reverend Prelate for introducing this debate to-day and for doing so with such moderation and, at the same time, with such conviction. I think this is one of many occasions when your Lordships' House is able to provide a forum for a valuable debate. I should like to make it clear at the outset that anything I have to say represents an expression of my own personal opinion.
I start with the basic principle that money, whether it be a coin or a piece of paper, represents the right to call upon the services of my fellow human beings —and I am using "services" in a much wider sense than that used by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Personally I cannot find any moral grounds on which I could justify gambling with that right; but it is only a personal view and I would not presume or attempt to force it on others. It is a matter of personal judgment. There is another sound principle, namely, that in a free society individuals
1104
should have the greatest possible amount of liberty to act as they think fit and to spend their money as they think fit. Certainly any attempt at the prohibition of gambling would be no more successful than was the prohibition of the taking of alcohol in the United States.
I agree with the words which were uttered by the right reverend Prelate. Gambling is indulged in (or, if you prefer it, enjoyed) for a variety of reasons. For some, life is rather dull and they appreciate the excitement of gambling. For others, it is just the conventional thing to do. A friendly bet is part and parcel of normal life, and to refuse to take part may seem unsociable. I think it was Mark Twain who said,
"Be good and you will be lonely",
I do not accept that as a conclusive argument for not being good, but I take the point.
To-day, however, we are considering not the occasional friendly bet, but something very much more serious. We are considering large-scale commercial exploitation of the desire to get something for nothing. I think this is a matter for concern for the community as a whole, and the question is whether it should be encouraged or discouraged. The right reverend Prelate has given us some figures, and I would suggest that, if anything, they are an underestimate. I have been very anxious to get accurate information, and I have had some correspondence with the Secretary of the Horserace Totalisator Board. I received a letter from him the day before yesterday, in which he pointed out the difficulty of obtaining accurate information. He wrote me as follows:
"An article appeared in the Sporting Life on 6th April, 1966. Based on the figures quoted in the article, and using a mean figure of average weekly turnover within each of the brackets quoted, we calculate the turnover for licensed betting offices alone to be £797 million per annum. This would, of course, include betting turnover on other mediums of betting, e.g., greyhound racing, but betting on horse racing would undoubtedly provide by far the greatest part of the betting office turnover.
"You will see that the figure for the number of licensed betting offices quoted in the article is 11,585. The latest official figure for the number of cash betting office licences granted, as at 1st June, 1965, for the whole of England, Scotland and Wales, is 15,638."
I do not want to trouble your Lordships with complicated calculations, but my estimate is as follows. Excluding gaming

1105
in clubs and gaming machines, the total turnover on gambling is over £1,000 million per annum. Therefore I think that we have here a social problem. The increase in gambling could well affect the ability of the nation to face the challenge of the years that lie ahead.
The right reverend Prelate has referred to the remarks of Mr. Timothy Holland and his forecast for the future. I am always chary of proposing restrictive legislation, but I think we have to consider whether the kind of future that Mr. Timothy Holland forecasts is one that we should welcome and whether we should encourage that to come to pass. When the Betting and Gaming Act 1960 was passed, it was recognised that there were a number of anomalies, and I think many people felt that the working man should be put on an equal footing with those who could afford to bet legally on credit by telephone. But I consider that the time has now come when there should be a review of the effects of both the Betting and Gaming Act 1960 and the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963; and I understand that legislation is under consideration. For example, is the proliferation of betting offices really necessary? Is it the result of genuine demand; or have some of the betting offices been opened in order to create a demand? There is an important distinction. I shall be interested to know what is the policy of the Government on this matter.
In the figures of turnover which I quoted, I did not include gaming in clubs. The subject of clubs has already been dealt with quite fully in this debate, and I do not propose to discuss the subject of clubs at length. I understand the noble Earl the Leader of the House is going to deal with clubs, and I shall listen to what he has to say with great interest. I have only one specific question to put to him, and it is this. Is any action being taken to deal with protection rackets? Clubs in London are still being smashed up and customers assaulted. The blackmailing of club proprietors used to be related to illegal gambling and the threats of exposure. I understand that the approach is now more subtle. By the use of threats of violence the racketeers gain a concession to run all the gaming in the club and take all the proceeds. What steps, if any, are being taken to ensure that this
1106
does not happen? Is anything being done to check racketeers?
May I turn to an entirely different aspect of gambling, one which was briefly touched upon by the right reverend Prelate? We have a comparatively new phenomenon in our political life in the publicity given to betting on Elections. This raises some interesting constitutional issues, and possibly some dangers. At the last two General Elections a great deal of attention was paid in the Press and on the radio and television to opinion polls and betting odds. I am not discussing the subject of opinion polls. There are some who would like to forbid opinion polls during an Election campaign. I am not convinced that that is necessary, and, in any case, it is not relevant to this debate, but I think that the combination of opinion polls and the daily publication of betting odds has created a new problem. It has tended to turn a General Election into a kind of glorified horse race—with this difference: in a horse race, if I put my bet on a horse and thereby gain a stake financially in that horse's success, I cannot then go along to a polling booth and vote for that horse to win.
I do not wish to say anything derogatory of another place; I will try to be as objective as I can; but perhaps this is an appropriate time to raise this subject, with an Election behind us, with a somewhat calmer atmosphere and another General Election possibly quite a long way off. Certainly, there have been very substantial increases in betting on Elections, both on Parties and on individual candidates. First, there was the General Election of 1964, where I think betting was featured for the first time on television, and there was a still greater increase in betting at the last Election which was extended to individual constituencies.
According to the Sunday Times of March 13 this year, on the day after announcing the decision to take bets on individual constituencies Ladbroke's took £100,000 on marginal constituencies, and the total turnover on betting at the last Election was approximately £21 million. I understand that at first much of the money came from the Stock Exchange, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say from those who had investments and who feared that the price might fall

1107
if the Labour Government was returned. They therefore bet on Labour to win, in order to hedge against possible losses on their shares. But smaller bets followed from individual electors.
I think the general interest raised by the publication of betting odds has created a somewhat new situation, because the elector has a direct financial interest in a particular candidate getting in, in order that he may win his bet. Again, I do riot wish to be unfair or to minimise the intelligence and good sense of electors, but I think there is at least a problem here to be considered, and we are entitled to ask: where will it lead? The publicity in the Press and on television is, of course, the crux of the matter, and the time may come—I hope it will not—when the Party which wins will be the one with the greatest skill in influencing betting odds in marginal constituencies by the careful placing of bets. In that case, of course, the posters and the conventional propaganda will be comparatively unimportant. I am somewhat inhibited in providing evidence, because I do not wish to say anything which would be a breach of etiquette, or to refer specifically to Members of another place, but I think anyone who examines this will find that there is some evidence for the view that some candidates believe that their success was partly due to friends coming forward and betting large sums on them to win, and so altering the odds.
I do not think the bookmakers are entirely happy about this. According to a report in the Press, Hill's at first
"adamantly refused to bet on elections or any other political matters".
But later it was reported in the Daily Mirror on October 8, 1964, that Hill's were advertising as follows:
"In response to public demand we now offer the following odds…"
There was an article in the Sunday Telegraph on April 3 this year, written by Ian Sproat, in which he said:
"Although William Hill believes it is morally wrong to bet on issues of national importance, the company will, if no laws are passed by the next Government forbidding it, go on taking bets on general elections— We have to stay in business'."
The question is: What can be done about it? I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prevent private bets
1108
on particular Parties or candidates. But if the publication of betting odds during an Election campaign were not permitted, the whole matter would cease to be of any serious constitutional importance. I suggest that the Government might consult with representative bodies of opinion, to consider whether anything should be done, and perhaps also institute an inquiry to ascertain whether there is a need for legislation, and consider what practical difficulties would be involved in any such legislation. I understand that this is not on the agenda of the Speaker's Conference, and therefore, I hope I am right in raising it to-day.
In conclusion, if I may return to the general theme of my remarks, I think we have here a major social problem. There are, in fact, some unfortunate people who are compulsive gamblers. They just cannot stop, and often they bring very real tragedy to their families. It is no use lecturing them on the folly of it all; that is absolutely useless. The compulsive gambler is similar to the compulsive alcoholic. Therefore I should like to pay a word of praise and of gratitude to a body known as Gamblers Anonymous, who are trying to tackle the problem sympathetically and to help those who are suffering from what can only be regarded as a disease. But the fact that this exists seems to me to provide evidence that we are considering this afternoon not just a harmless pastime, but a serious social problem which the community cannot afford to ignore.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I make one correction and a protest? He stated that a large part of the gambling on the Election results came from the Stock Exchange. I was a member of the Stock Exchange for nearly 40 years, and no reputable firm ever had anything to do with gambling on the Election results. I think I am right in saying that the Stock Exchange Committee have passed rules to that effect. The fact that the public sometimes put their money to use in the Stock Exchange and sometimes in gambling on Election results has nothing whatever to do with the Stock Exchange, and these are two entirely separate problems.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I am very much obliged for that information. I did add that perhaps it would be more

1109
correct to say "investors". I can give the noble Earl the source from which I obtained my information. But I am greatly indebted to him for the correction which he has now given.
4.27 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I am sure that we are all truly grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for raising this grave question in the House to-day in his impressive speech. If I may say so, he has shown just the right degree of knowledge of betting. He is deeply versed in the social aspects of it, without any suggestion that he has misspent his youth, and we have all listened to him with very great interest. Although he has referred to gambling in general, I intend in this speech to confine myself almost entirely to the problem of the gaming clubs, leaving my noble friend Lord Stonham—who, of course, is a Home Office Minister—to deal with other aspects of gambling which have been, or may be, raised in the debate. I will cover, if I may, some of the points raised in the interesting speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, but others of their points will be replied to by Lord Stonham.
First, a very few words about gambling in general. Mr. Alan Wykes, in his learned and fascinating work on the subject, points out that the word "gambling" derives from the Anglo-Saxon "gamenian"—to sport or play (I hope I have pronounced that word correctly: there may be some old student of Eng.Lit. of Oxford University who would pronounce it better). But that is where the word starts. He stresses the fact that gambling involves us in unnecessary risk taking. The Reverend Gordon Moody, Secretary of the Churches' Council on Gambling, whose recent Report is just as absorbing as Mr. Wykes' treatise, describes a gamble more elaborately. According to the Reverend Gordon Moody, a gamble is a redistribution of wealth on the basis of an artifically created risk involving gain without service rendered for one party at the loss of another party on an appeal to chance. That is a fairly comprehensive definition.
Sir Winston Churchill once said that the history of the human race
1110
is war, which did not prevent him and the rest of us from trying to abolish war. Gambling, I suppose, can be said to have been at least as endemic as war down the centuries, but that does not diminish our ardour in trying to bring it under control. We find traces of gambling in ancient Egypt and ancient China. There was a certain amount of gambling in Greece, though much more among the Oriental peoples, apart from the ancient Hebrews, who were not at all keen on gambling; and the Teutons gambled a great deal in different centuries. Many eminent men have been gamblers, from Henry VIII, who, according to tradition, lost the bells of St. Paul's Church in a game of dice, to Dostoievsky, who ruined himself and his wife through his gambling mania and, we are told, fed like a leech on the masochistic pleasure which gambling gave him. So many very foolish people have gone in for gambling, and some great geniuses.
Mr. Wykes singles out eight reasons for excessive gambling, which I offer in his presentation: first, the acquisition of unearned money—i.e., a form of greed; secondly, social cachet—or, more bleakly, snobbery; thirdly, sexual compensation; fourthly, masochism; fifthly, boredom: the refuge of an empty mind: sixthly, intellectual exercise; seventh, the desire to prove one's superiority to the forces of chance; and, eighth, inexplicable excitement. Those are the eight reasons which Mr. Wykes has arrived at after a very profound study of the whole history and philosophy of gambling, and it is up to noble Lords to add any others which occur to them from their experience.
But neither as a Minister nor as an individual do I wish this afternoon to pronounce on gambling in general. A social survey carried out for the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, 1949 to 1951, suggested that at least four out of five adults in all walks of life in Britain have taken part at some time or other in some form of gambling, including trivial forms such as raffles, whist drives, private sweepstakes and an annual "flutter" on the Derby or Grand National—and I gathered that the right reverend Prelate did not object to the milder forms of "flutter". But the Royal Commission concentrated its attention on

1111
the dangers of what it called "immoderate gambling", which was also the approach of other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Wade; and it is from that angle that I approach the Motion before us.
My Lords, I do not wish to dispute the figures of commercial turnover which have been produced by the Churches' Council on Gambling and quoted to us this afternoon. As the right reverend Prelate would agree, there is necessarily an element of speculation in them. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, I think, thought they were rather an understatement; but I would say, on my information, that they are not very wide of the mark. What is particularly significant about these figures, which will have occurred to anybody who has read the Churches' Report, is that they omit any estimate of the amount of money which passes in the gaming clubs. That item does not occur in the statistics. That is an indication—and an alarming one—of the uncontrolled and unforeseen growth of the gaming industry, to which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, directed most of his attention.
During the last five years there has been a truly remarkable development of organised gaming in this country. Whatever views noble Lords may hold on the ethics of gaming, there is no doubt that the rapid spread of gaming clubs in London and in the large towns in the provinces has created a most serious social problem. Even the most libertarian among us—and this House, I suppose, is becoming increasingly libertarian —would hesitate to choose Las Vegas as the model for gaming here; and yet I believe we are closer to the system of Las Vegas (if it can be called a system) than we are to that of, for example, the French and continental casinos, which were dealt with quite fully by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent.
My Lords, I do not believe that any of us would pretend—and certainly the Government would not pretend this—that the provisions on gaming which were introduced in the Betting and Gaming Act 1960, and consolidated in the 1963 Act, have worked in any way as Parliament intended. I think it is common ground that they have not worked out as was hoped or expected. The object of those provisions, broadly speaking, at any
1112
rate, was to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, 1949 to 1951. The Royal Commission based themselves on the principle that there should be as little interference as possible with individual liberty to take part in gaming; hut, as the right reverend Prelate has pointed out, the Royal Commission went on to say, in paragraph 412 of their Report, which we regard as the very kernel of the matter—and I am now quoting the Royal Commission Report:
"the main object of the criminal law should be to prevent persons being induced to play for high stakes for the profits of the promoter."
It is now manifest to all of us that gaming is to-day being commercially exploited on a wide scale and on an ever-increasing scale, and to the very considerable profit of the promoters; and to commercial exploitation we have seen added one by one all the abuses that naturally follow. I do not for a moment say that there are not a number of gaming clubs which are honestly and decently conducted, but there are others which do not scruple to play on every form of human weakness and cupidity and rapacity, and to resort, when it suits their purposes, to forms of pressure, amounting at times to intimidation.
If I may, I will leave to my noble friend Lord Stonham the particular question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in that connection, but I accept the fact of the problem which arises here. The large amounts of ready cash tend to attract a dubious clientele—not, of course, everywhere, since, as I repeat, many of the clubs are highly respectable; but this respectability is far from universal. And the increasing competition between clubs, particularly during the last year—and quite recently there has been a very rapid expansion—has led, as one would expect, to the growth of so-called "protection" (it is a horrible use of the word "protection") and other rackets. This is emphatically, as all the previous speakers have said, the time to take stock and consider where this new and surprising development is leading us.
But first, my Lords, what exactly has gone wrong? Quite simply, the safeguards inserted in the law have proved insufficient and capable of widespread evasion. Those safeguards were of two main kinds. First, there is the general provision, now

1113
contained in Section 32 of the 1963 Act, that for gaming to be lawful the chances in the game must be equally favourable to all the players—and the players were intended to include the banker where there was one. That was the first safeguard. Secondly, there is the provision in Section 36, which applies particularly to clubs, that the only charge made to take part in gaming should be a single charge consisting of a fixed sum of money determined before gaming begins. Parliament intended by these means to confine the profits of club proprietors to one charge for a whole session of play; and, while they did not prescribe any maximum, Parliament believed, not unreasonably, that few people would be prepared to pay any very high sum for gaming before it had begun and before they had been caught up in the heat of play. So those were the two safeguards—what I might call the rule of equal opportunity, and this rule of one charge for a whole session of play.
My Lords, this system—the system as foreseen, on the whole, by Parliament—is the one on which the bingo clubs operate. A single and usually modest charge is made to take part in the play, and thereafter all the money that is hazarded is returned in prizes among the players, the management taking nothing. I should hesitate to say that when Parliament passed the Act of 1960 it foresaw this tremendous development of bingo, but I would think it right to tell the House that bingo has, generally speaking, been conducted according to the principle which Parliament had in mind. There may be differing views about bingo; some may think it a very boring way to spend one's time, but at any rate it does not give rise to the aggravated abuses that I have been describing and which other speakers have rightly dwelt on and denounced. Therefore I do not propose to say any more this afternoon about bingo.
My Lords the most serious developments have been in the exploitation of what have been loosely called the "casino games"—I mean games such as chemin de fer, black jack, craps and roulette. Almost as soon as the 1960 Act became law, the club proprietors sought means to evade its restrictions; and plainly with considerable success. First of all, there is the weakness that the Act does not
1114
define the period of play for which the initial charge must be made. Certain forms of roulette were attempted which involve the almost impudent expedient of making a charge for every spin at roulette; but the courts put a stop to that. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is rather an expert on this aspect of the matter—at any rate that is my information. As the noble Lord told us, the courts have sanctioned a separate charge for each shoe at chemin de fer, on the ground that completion of a shoe constitutes a natural break in the gaming. A shoe takes only about half-an-hour; and charges up to £5 and £10 have been made for each shoe. There is clearly here a considerable profit for the proprietors in a way unforeseen by those who introduced the Act.
But there is more: the recurrent table charges made in the course of the play exploit the natural human weakness not to break off when gaming is fully under way; and so all sorts of pressures and crafty inducements are brought to bear to lead the gambler to continue. There is every incentive for the proprietor to fix the stakes at the highest figure at which people can be induced to play.
There has been another development which is particularly associated with roulette and which has defeated the other safeguards. Your Lordships will be aware that in the games of roulette as played on the Continent there is a definite and acknowledged advantage to the bank. Precisely. But, without going into the complexities, this ranges from about 1·4 per cent. of the stake money on the so-called "even money chances" to about 2·75 per cent. on the single number chances. Of course, with high stakes, and with each spin averaging about two minutes, the opportunities for profit to the bank are very considerable. Now it is almost invariably the house that provides the bank—some people would say that in their experience it is invariably so. But, at any rate, one might say that it is almost invariably the house that provides the bank. The condition that the chances of the game must be equally favourable to all the players, which was, of course, essential in the thinking of the Act, has been got round by the expedient of "offering" the bank, in one form or another, to the players; but in the reasonably safe expectation that none will be

1115
prepared to run the very considerable short-term risk of accepting the offer. The bank tends, therefore, nearly always to remain with the house and the long-term profits accumulate.
In saying this I am aware of the recent decision of the High Court in the case of Kursaal Casino Limited v. Crickett which was broadly to the effect that whether offering the bank complies with the law depends not simply on form but on reality. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that in the light of this ruling the legality of the present practice, or subterfuge, of "offering" the bank is very dubious. But the precise practical import of the judgment still remains to be worked out, and other cases are pending on which I must not comment. In any case, our somewhat bitter experience is that as soon as the courts check one form of evasion the proprietors are ready with another, which it may take many weeks or months to challenge effectively. It is an undoubted weakness that all the restrictions are statutory, so that any defect discovered can be corrected only by fresh legislation; so in each case the proprietors get a head start before the law can start after them and catch up.
My Lords, there are many aspects to this problem, but one in particular deserves mention. This is the provision, which dates from the Gaming Act 1710, which makes gaming debts irrecoverable in the courts. Gaming on credit is more than a convenience: it is a strong inducement to excess. To the unscrupulous proprietor it is an attraction, but the problem of recovering the debts remains. Your Lordships will realise how a situation of this kind can lead to intimidation or blackmail, ranging from the subtle to the downright crude. The giving of credit in these circumstances contributes to the unhealthy atmosphere surrounding so much of the gaming in this country to-day. Your Lordships will note how I have carefully phrased the words without pointing out the precise solution of the problem.
This is necessarily a sketchy and incomplete description of the circumstances which exist to-day in the gaming world. We shall all agree, I hope, in this House —and, broadly, in the country—that the situation cries out for remedy. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that we
1116
must have control and that control does not exist to-day. I am less certain that we shall all agree on the remedies that ought to be applied. The right reverend Prelate and other speakers will perhaps forgive me this afternoon if I confine myself to indicating the general attitude of the Government, leaving more precise proposals to emerge in the light of this and other debates.
As a generalisation there are two very different approaches which have been suggested to this very grave problem. The first approach takes as its model the casino system as it has developed on the Continent and particularly in France. This was the line followed by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent—and I gather that he was speaking at that stage primarily for himself—and it is a view held by a number of those who have given much thought to these questions. He himself described the system, but perhaps the House will forgive me if I risk a certain amount of repetition and go over some of the points again. This system, which might be called the Continental system, involves a tight and meticulous control over all gaming establishments, none of which may open without express governmental authorisation, given subject to the most detailed safeguards and conditions. These conditions, as the noble Lord explained, deal with the premises, the character of the promoters and staff, the games to be played, the rules of play, the admission charges, the stakes, the hours, the inspection, the accounting, the tips, and a lot of other things, including in some cases even the clothes of the croupiers—in not allowing them to have any pockets.
The object is clearly to ensure, with the benefit of more than sixty years' experience, that so far as is humanly possible the gaming is honestly, decently and openly conducted in proper surroundings and to ensure the elimination of criminal elements. There is no place in the Continental system for the sort of squalid clubs that have tended to proliferate—with increasing speed, I am ashamed to say —in our larger cities in the last year or two. But the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, advocates this kind of system and made no secret of any of these aspects. But this system is by its very nature a centrally-controlled cartel and it is one in which the municipalities and the State itself have a very considerable financial

1117
interest. That would not appeal to everybody; it would not appeal to quite a number of people here; but it is a fact which needs to be weighed for good or for ill.
The system is in no way intended to limit profits. Indeed, the profits are in most part derived directly from the stakes, either by odds in favour of the bank or from a percentage of the winnings, and the authorisations normally proceed by fixing a minimum stake and then allowing a maximum of one thousand times that amount. It is a system essentially designed and, for the most part, restricted to the spas and holiday resorts for foreign visitors and holidaymakers, not for the ordinary man in the street. In this country gaming has developed and is now firmly rooted in London and in the large industrial towns, and these are points of contrast, but I am trying to set out the attractive and the less attractive features of the Continental system.
My Lords, the other approach, which may be called the approach from the other end, is based somewhat on the analogy of bingo, the bingo clubs here. While not ruling out commercial gaming altogether, this system would restrict it or would return it more closely to the original intentions of the law, reinforced however by defining the length of the session for which a charge might be made, and by fixing a maximum charge at a figure to rule out all inordinate profits. There are many people who would favour this course. I think that the right reverend Prelate himself is disposed to favour it. But certainly in the form propounded by the right reverend Prelate, with no more than three sessions in any period of 24 hours, and a maximum charge for a session limited to £1 or thereabouts, the effect would be quite clearly to kill the fashionable and expensive gaming clubs, that is the casino-type clubs, altogether. That may not be the objective, but I am sure that would be the result of a system if operated on the lines advocated by the right reverend Prelate.
There is, of course, a question here of judgment. Some would say there is a place in our country for the expensive club with high stakes if it is honestly run and without the worst forms of inducement to excess or to blatant profiteering, just as there is a place for the bingo hall.
1118
To others, as I realise, the "high-gloss" clubs are particularly objectionable since they not only themselves involve large and spectacular profits but they may act as trend-setters; they may influence the general thought of the country towards commercial gaming. But it can be argued (and I am not trying to pronounce a final opinion on this side of it now) that if you try to drive out one evil another will always arise. It can be argued that if club proprietors are not allowed to fleece the rich, they will concentrate on fleecing the poor; that their prevailing incentive will be the desire to persuade more people to gamble more often; in other words, they will be driven to exploit the mass market. There are those who are nervous that if we manage to bring these "high-gloss" clubs to an end, we should see that the last state would be worse than the first. I do not want to say anything final on that this afternoon, but I must record that point of view.
My Lords, I have purposely simplified these alternatives. Obviously there are many variants and many differences of degree and (I say this, offering my own opinion which is not, I think, out of line with the Government approach) it should not be impossible to find a middle way. I do not say that one has to have one solution or the other. I would myself feel that a middle way can be found. But all the proposals put forward tend to start from one end or the other; from one of these approaches or the other, according to individual conviction, temperament or interest. My concern to-day is not to attempt a final judgment but to illustrate the great complexity of this subject, not only technically, but in what matters more to most of us, the field of social and moral values.
All I have said applies only to the commercial clubs, but it must never be forgotten that up and down the country there are many genuine members' clubs which provide modest facilities for gaming as an ancillary to their other objects, and not primarily for motives of gain. Yet at the moment the same law applies to those members' clubs as to the casinos or bingo halls. Clearly in any amendment to the law we must make sure that the interests of the members' clubs are properly considered. It would be quite absurd and unnecessary to attempt to

1119
apply to them any rigorous system of control such as might be thought fitting and applicable to the commercial establishments where such great profits tend to be made.
My Lords, it is manifest that there must be a tightening of the law for commercial gaming clubs of all kinds. That seems to me beyond all argument at the present time. As your Lordships know, the Government are now conducting a thorough and searching review of the whole subject and, while I am not in a position to-day to announce their decisions (indeed it would hardly be courteous to the House to do so in advance of this debate), there are certain general principles to which I would rather hope that all of us can subscribe. I would mention three only. One, gaming, wherever it takes place, must be seen to be honestly conducted, in decent conditions and under proper public supervision, so as to reduce, if it cannot entirely eliminate, the criminal activities which have increasingly come to be associated with it. Second, whatever profit is left in gaming should not be in a form which gives positive encouragement to the club proprietors to exploit human improvidence, weakness and other failings. Third, the law must be sufficiently flexible to enable new abuses which show themselves to be stamped out firmly and promptly. I do not myself see (and I speak deliberately here, after proper consultation) how these objects can be achieved without the introduction of some system of licensing or registration, or both.
I fully understand, indeed I share, the widespread anxiety to see that the present defective laws are replaced as soon as possible. The situation in which we now find ourselves illustrates, if anything has ever illustrated, the dangers of hasty and improvised legislation, however well-intentioned. The Government are determined that we shall not find ourselves in that particular awkwardness again. And we are determined that any legislation that is now introduced should not only be based on sound moral principles, which was certainly the case in motive before, but be capable of effective enforcement, not only in theory but in practice.
1120
Your Lordships will have noticed I think that I have said nothing this afternoon about the gaming tax proposed by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement, on which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, had some not altogether flattering comments to offer. But this question of gaming is a matter in which I believe that the fiscal and the social considerations should be kept apart, so far as that is possible—and it is not perhaps completely possible. But in the view of the Government it is the social considerations that are predominant. We must form our national policy for gambling or gaming on social grounds and then adjust our taxation system accordingly. Parliament must be free to decide how gaming should best be controlled in the interests of the community, leaving future fiscal policy to be adjusted to that. If something were in fact immoral, for example, in our view, we should not support it on the ground that it brought in a lot of money to the Exchequer. I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be fully equal to the task of finding or adapting taxes to fit whatever social policy is produced.
It is, as I said earlier, my Lords, a diagnosis that I am offering to-day, not a prescription of remedies. That is not to imply that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has not a number of ideas of his own as to the form that the remedies should take. In fact he has done a great deal of work on the subject already, and his ideas are fairly well-defined. But I should not like to leave the House with the impression that the Government approached this subject with a closed mind or have reached the point where they are not susceptible to argument. They are anxious, before committing themselves on this highly involved subject, to obtain the fullest possible consensus of moderate and informed opinion. It is for that reason that we particularly welcome this debate. I can assure the House that the suggestions that have already been put forward, and those that will be put forward, will be carefully studied, and I hope it will not be long before we can find a proper remedy to the evils which we all acknowledge. I would once again say how grateful we are to the right reverend Prelate for introducing this debate.
5.1 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has made a significant and helpful contribution to our debate, and I know that his words will be carefully studied. I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him and continue the debate on the question of clubs. In order to save your Lordships' time, I wish to devote myself to one point, and one point only, and that is the question of the Tote monopoly and the bookmakers. At the beginning of his speech the noble Earl, Lord Longford, reminded us that the Ancient Hebrews had little use for gambling. That goes for this one, too. I think the biggest bet that I have ever had in my life was £5 on New College to bump Corpus before the bend on the first night of Eights Week. I am happy to say that I won my bet, and more particularly happy since the captain of the New College boat was none other than the present Lord Bishop of Chester.
The right reverend Prelate, in the course of his extremely appreciative speech, regaled us with some of the advantages of those who will visit the gambling rooms of the new Playboy Club. I, too, have received an invitation to join the Playboy Club, together, I believe, with most of the Bishops and Archbishops in this House, not to mention my Uncle Charlie, who has been dead for four years. I have a desire to join the club, though not, I am afraid, because of its gambling facilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, reminded us that you cannot abolish gambling, it being part of human nature. But I agree with him that we have allowed the argument to run away with us, and the present extent of gambling has now become a serious social matter. In my speech I wish to address myself solely to horse racing. In horse racing we are undoubtedly getting the worst of all worlds. There is financial legislation before Parliament dealing with the question of betting. I do not know how carefully your Lordships have looked at the relevant clauses in the Finance Bill—Clause 14 and so on. I am quite certain that the proposals will not work, and I do not think that the experts think it will work either.
I always used to think that the highlight of legislative farce was reached in
1122
the ill-fated Shops Bill, which your Lordships may remember took 34 lines to lay down the principle that only a Mohammedan or a practising Jew could operate as a barber in Scotland on Sunday. But here we have in Clause 14(6) this remarkable statement concerning this betting tax:
"'Premises' includes any place whatsoever, and any means of transport".
That I must remember as I drive home in my premises this evening.
We never did very well with the fixed odds betting tax last year. I believe that this tax will result in a great increase of illegal betting. I believe that the accumulator type of bet will add to the difficulties, and in fact I am sure it will not work. I do not believe that the Government think it will work either. It suddenly occurred to me that this may be an idea on their part to get everybody to say that it is not going to work, and then to say: "Right. This is a good excuse for introducing the monopoly of the Tote". If they think that, then I will give them first prize for low cunning, and I will wholeheartedly support them in one of the few intelligent ideas that they have ever proposed. What is more, I think that about 95 per cent. of owners and trainers would agree with them.
There are two reasons why I think it will be to the benefit of the country if we have a Tote monopoly. The first is that I think it would benefit the racing industry generally, which is of great national importance for the country's prestige and for the economy. We know that racing is now in a difficult position, and, so far as I can understand, there is little hope of improvement in present circumstances. The prestige of British bloodstock is seriously declining. This is bad for the economy, and it is bad for the country. We who used to be supreme in this field are now running a bad third to France and the U.S.A., and we shall soon be running fourth with Japan overtaking us, too.
Why is this? You have only to look at the situation in France to see why there they are continually beating us with their bloodstock. They have attracted many of the leading owners in this country to France. The Aga Khan went first, and his grandson has decided to stay there. Many other owners here are

1123
transferring their interests to France. This is bad for us. Why are they doing it? It is simply because of the Tote monopoly in France. In 1965 the French Government took over £50 million out of gambling in France. That ought to make noble Lords opposite lick their lips with anticipation. And the racing industry there took £30 million. Here in Britain the bookies have contributed £2 ½ million, which is less than one half of one per cent. of the annual turnover of £500 million. In consequence, the French prizes are infinitely greater, and there is much more incentive all round. To take one example, Paddy Prendergast, who was our top trainer in 1965, won £73,000 in stake money. That was well below the trainer who came tenth in France.
Prize money in France continues to break all records. This is good for the industry; it is good for the racegoer, who gets much better facilities, with modern devices, starting gates, computers and so on, and for the general comforts around the racecourse, which are singularly lacking on many of our own. There is also money for breeding, training and for paying the salaries of the people who earn their living in the trade.
Here in this country, as I have said, the sport is obviously in a bad way. The attendance figures are well down on the 1950's, though I understand that there has been a slight recovery of late. And the row that is going on over Aintree is a portent of what will happen in the future. The amenities of many of our racecourses are dreadful, despite the announcement made by the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, on Tuesday, that we may hope for better things in the future. It will be a long time before they can match the amenities of racecourses in other countries. Charges for admission are too high, and although the Levy Board have increased prize money recently and certain commercial sponsors have entered the field, it is still not enough to sustain the industry, and is still "chicken feed" when compared with our foreign rivals. I am told that the overall deficit to owners is running at about £4 million per annum. As a result, trainers and owners are having to bet. This is bad for the sport and bad for the punter. Soon racing will be a
1124
sport only for the very rich men. That is also a bad thing. And now, to make matters worse, the employment tax comes as an added burden. So I think that for the British racing industry the Tote monopoly would clearly be of immense advantage.
There is another completely different advantage. We all realise that there has been a great increase in doping and fraud here, and it has become almost a national scandal. Despite the vigorous counter-action taken by the racing authorities it is occupying far too much police time. It is causing great anxiety in the whole of the industry and is bad for everybody. I am not going to suggest for one moment that the bookies are all crooks—that would be an entirely wrong thing to say. They are no more crooked and no more honest than the butcher, the baker or the candlestick-maker—not that I know many candlestick-makers. But that is not the argument. The argument is that crooks must use the bookie system; that is the basis of the whole trouble. The Tote monopoly would, as it has in other countries, kill the whole of this fraud practically stone dead. The Tote is disinterested in the things which attract the crooks. The present system is siphoning off enormous sums of money which should be giving benefit to the industry and to the supporters of the industry. It is going into the wrong hands.
What is the argument against it? There are two points, and two points only, that I ever heard advanced. First, there is the fact that the bookies add to the gaiety, of the scene; they are part of the racecourse world. I find they nearly always have too good a pitch and they get in the way. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. Secondly, the bookie provides better odds for the punter. This may be so, but I am doubtful whether it is always true. By and large, the bookie system is killing one of our most valuable industries. I do not stand up and lightheartedly propose a scheme that will do away with the livelihood of a great many decent people. What I suggest is that the 16,000 betting shops should be as soon as possible turned into Totes, and the staff of those betting shops should be taken on by a Tote organisation. It could be nationalised. I never thought the day would come when I should stand up in your Lordships' House and propose the nationalisation of anything, but

1125
that is what I am now doing. Bookies and their staff should be properly compensated. I think they should close at 1 o'clock (I think ante-post betting is always an invitation to crime), and this will get many more people on to the racecourse, where they should be.
I think we should grant no more licences to bookmakers. Nearly all civilised countries have abolished the bookmaker, at least off the course and unless more money comes into the racing industry for the general good of all branches of the industry, instead of going to the bookies, then the industry will die. The Government are losing revenue at the moment. I suggest a way in which they could recoup themselves by taking an enormous amount more revenue out of betting. That money—all these enormous sums mentioned this afternoon—can now be put to much better use. I should like to know from the Government what their reaction is to this suggestion. It is not a new point, but it is a difficult one. But something has to be done.
Legislation on other points is now proposed. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to take Clauses 11 and 14 out of the Finance Bill. For technical reasons that is not an easy thing to do in your Lordships' House. I hope they will not suggest that it should be done by Private Members' legislation, because that, with the present state of the political majorities, would take a long time. Not that that would deter me, because the last Bill I got on to the Statute Book took me eleven years, and by the time it was finally on the Statute Book the only part of the original Bill which still remained was my name on the back, "Mancroft", and the price, 4d. I am prepared to have a shot at it if needs be, but I would much rather hear the Government spokesman at the end of this debate say that they are prepared to reject those clauses in the Finance Bill, or introduce my proposals in the new Gambling Bill which is now under consideration. I am willing to bet that 95 per cent. of the racing fraternity, with the exception of course of the bookies, will be on my side. If I have to take that bet, I should like to bet with the Tote rather than with the bookies.
5.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate for intro-
1126
ducing this Motion. I should also like to say that I heartily agree with everything he has said. We have, of course, far too much gambling in this country now. But at the same time, I should like to say that the Conservative Government were quite right in bringing in the Betting and Gaming Act in 1960. We could not possibly foresee the great increase in gambling, and particularly the amazing mushrooming of these gaming clubs throughout all our great cities.
With reference to what my noble friend Lord Mancroft has just said, I heartily agree with him. As a very small and poor owner, I should like to say that he is, of course, quite right in everything he said regarding the Tote monopoly. But I do not want to be too hard on bookmakers, because I have quite a soft spot for them. They have always been very nice to me, and they have sometimes waited quite a considerable time. But I think that without a doubt we should have a Tote monopoly in this country for the health of racing. It would bring a tremendous amount of money into racing, and it would also bring a great amount of revenue to the Government. It would also stop (I do not want to suggest that bookmakers do it: I do not think the majority of them do) a great deal of the doping to stop favourites which goes on, because obviously on the Tote you do not know which horse will be favourite. I do not want to appear hypocritical, because I gamble. I gamble on horses. I try to gamble within my means, and I personally do not think gambling is a vice if you gamble within your means. I do not gamble at cards or roulette in casinos.
The great cause for concern in this country, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, is the increase in the number of betting shops. I think he said that they have increased from 13,000 since the Act was passed to over 16,000 now. If any of your Lordships are up early in the morning, as I am sure the majority of you are, and you pass a betting shop before nine o'clock, you will see the queues outside. It is a very unhealthy thing in our national life.
I should like to quote two Americans who made a survey of English betting shops two or three years ago. One of the facts that they found was that the turnover increased in ratio to a rise in

1127
unemployment. They reported to the New York State Assembly in 1964:
"The great bulk of increased turnover has come"—
they are, of course, talking about betting shops—
"from those in the lowest strata—contributing to an unhealthy and largely unproductive shift of wealth, via betting, away from lower income families."
The Annual Review of the Churches' Council on Gambling quotes an inspector of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children as saying:
"Too many are spending their National Assistance on the horses instead of on their families …many men come out of the National Assistance or dole office and have to pass a betting shop on the way home. The temptation is too much in many cases."
Of course, the question is: what is to be done? My noble friend Lord Mancroft made the same suggestion as I have thought of. Why not nationalise the betting shops? If you like, put them under the Tote. If you nationalise them, you will at least have one nationalised industry which makes a profit, so why not do so? The other great advantage of nationalising them is that it would do away with the protection racket. I fear that we have a bit of Chicago creeping into England, and that is an extremely dangerous trend. In the past two or three years we have had one or two rather suspicious suicides. I think this is a real danger in this country. There might not be much harm in these gambling clubs—and I am talking now of the small casinos and gambling clubs that have sprung tip like mushrooms everywhere—if they were run according to the law, but the trouble is that there appears to be no inspection of them and they are not licensed.
I think inspectors should go round to see that they are being managed according to the 1960 Act, but this is not done at all. We have hundreds of clubs where the games are heavily loaded against the players. No doubt some of the larger casinos, such as Crockford's, are properly run, and they may well be a help to the country from the point of view of the tourist trade: they may bring in hard currency. But the point is that if we are going to have these casinos we really must see that they are run properly and that they accord with the law.
1128
To turn to bingo, I personally think it is a highly unproductive form of occupation. On the other hand, as I think the right reverend Prelate said, there are many people in this country who are lonely and it is an opportunity for a social "come-together" for them. But it is a great pity that we cannot try to create some more productive social "come-together ". There is one thing about football pools that I have never been able to understand. A man wins £300,000 on the football pools; he has only put a few crosses on a coupon, which necessitates no effort at all. Why does he not have to pay the capital gains tax? A man spends his whole life building up a small business, and if he then sells it he has to pay 30 per cent. capital gains tax. It seems to me to be highly illogical that a man can win £300,000 without any effort and does not have to pay tax at all.
Gambling is here to stay and we must ensure that it is carried on according to the law. I cannot repeat this too often. All these gambling casinos and clubs must be licensed and inspected. I should like to support my noble friend Lord Derwent in what he said about the French casinos. We ought to try to regulate our casinos as is done in France. My noble friend Lord Derwent said it was quite impossible to tax the bookmakers on the bets, and they could only be taxed on the premises, but in Eire they are taxed on the basis of winnings. Perhaps it is easier to tax the premises, but the other system seems to work all right in Eire, and the larger part of the tax goes to racing. As I said previously, it is really preferable to have a Tote monopoly.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, would go a little further with this. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, a question on the subject of taxing winnings, which presumably means both the stake and the amount won, and I did not get an answer which was clear to me. As I understand it, the tax is a turnover tax, which should be on all the money staked. If you tax only the winnings, then you get a tax only on part of the total money, because the bookmaker gets his profit and expenses.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I was only speaking from my knowledge of what happens in Eire. I may be wrong, but I frequently go to Eire and my understanding of the situation is that the punter pays a tax on his stake and his winnings, but if he places a losing bet he does not pay any tax. I have always understood that to be the position.
I should just like to add that I find myself in the extraordinary position of having agreed with every speaker in the debate so far. We all appear to agree that there is far too much gambling, and I can only hope that we shall be able to do something to regulate it and to ensure that people are not lured into gambling. It is probably impossible to do anything about the completely dedicated gamblers, but I think one could prevent people who have not gambled before from being drawn into it.
5.28 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, perhaps I might begin by clearing up the point between the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and my noble friend Lord Stonham, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. With regard to the payment of the betting tax, the position in the Republic of Ireland, to which the noble Viscount referred, is that by law 2 ½ per cent. is payable on all money actually staked. There is a differential in that if you have a bet in a betting shop the tax is higher than if you have a bet on the course, and I think that is a good system. The bookmakers have found that it is difficult to pay the 2 ½ per cent. tax on stakes, partly because it is a fiddling little sum and they are very busy laying the odds at the time the punter is placing the bet, and therefore by arrangement they deduct a 5 per cent. tax from winnings, which includes the stakes, and since more or less half the money goes out in winnings this comes to approximately the same thing. If I stake £1 on a horse at 4 to 1 and I am fortunate in that the horse comes home, instead of collecting £5 I collect £4 15s.
The system has these advantages. First, no one likes paying tax, but one likes it a lot less if one has just had a winning bet than if one is just placing a bet and is going to lose. Secondly, there
1130
is much less accounting involved; and, thirdly, the bookie has a nice slack period after each race when no bets are being laid, so it is more convenient for calculating the amount of tax he has to deduct, than if he has to take 6d. out of every pound at a time when he is laying bets as fast as he can.
I know we are all extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate for introducing to-day this very important and controversial subject, which is also a very topical one, with the Epsom Derby Meeting this day week. I do not think there would have been even the attendance we see had the debate been on the Wednesday. I have listened with the deepest interest to the right reverend Prelate's remarks; and even though they did not, perhaps, have the benefit of personal experience, I felt that the research was admirable. I fear that practically all my knowledge is based on experience; indeed, I listened with some alarm to the indictment of bookmakers by the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, because I can claim to have been a bookmaker myself though at rather an early age. To be precise, I was 16 at the time and pursuing my studies at that educational academy which is so conveniently placed for Windsor Races and only slightly less so for Ascot.
I had over 100 clients in the school, and as some of them were members of the sixth form, others were members of "Pop", and others again were future Members of your Lordships' House it gave an aura of respectability to the proceedings. I was for me a very unfortunate experience, partly because it was a losing book—I think I must be the only bookmaker who ever lost money on his gambling. Also it led to a very painful meeting with the Headmaster after a maid had discovered me counting the stake money for the day, which amounted to the enormous sum of £17 l0s 0d. However, unfortunate as that experience was, I fear that I was hooked by gambling at an early age and have gambled much too often ever since, in almost every possible game. So my own knowledge is not only empirical but has also been exceedingly expensive—and expensive of a kind not, unfortunately, accented as a charge on one's income by the Inland Revenue.
I intend to confine my remarks mainly to gaming, as did my noble friend Lord Longford. I feel, when one reads the

1131
present Act, which I think is a very bad one, it is hard to tell what Parliament intended and what games, if any, it wished to legalise. Before considering Parliament's intention, as opposed to what the effects of the Act have been, I think it is important to draw particular attention to the fact, which has not yet been made clear, that the so-called casino games fall into two quite separate basic categories. There are those in which members play simply among themselves, and where the croupier employed by the casino is merely a spectator and referee. The casino provides the cards and the chips, and regulates any gambling disputes and so on.
The most important game falling into this category is of course chemin de fer; also poker and bridge, though they are of much smaller importance. On chemin de fer, therefore, the casino or the gambling club makes its money (and let us face it, a casino has to make money one way or another) either, as in Britain, by charging the members who play, or else, as in France and Monaco and most Continental countries, by deducting a percentage when the bank wins. Then there is a quite separate category of casino games in which the casino hopes to make its profit—and here, of course, it is not certain that it will make a profit, although in the long run that is bound to happen—offering odds against a certain eventuality which are somewhat under the mathematical odds in that case. I will go into the details in a few minutes. Into this second category, where the casino makes its money in that way. fall all the other so-called casino games: roulette, boule, trente-et-quarante, black jack, craps and baccarat aux 2 tableaux.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, concerning the principles followed in the French Casino, he mentioned that this tax was deducted from all casino games, but I believe, from my personal recollection—I have not been able to check it—that the tax is deducted only in the case of games falling into the first category where the gamblers play among themselves. It is not deducted in roulette or in any of the true casino games. Also it may be of interest that the French Casino does rather as the Irish bookmaker does: it takes 5 per cent., but only from winning banks at
1132
the chemin de fer table, so that if the bank loses no tax is deducted. It is 5 per cent. out of the winning bank, which means an average 2 ½ per cent. on all stakes.
I believe that the Act of 1960 definitely intended to make games in the second category illegal. The chances are not equal to all the players, because, of course, the banker has the mathematical advantage, and not all the money put down as stakes is paid back to the punters as winnings, which is another proviso in the Act. On the other hand, it seems definitely to legalise games in the first category (that, to all intents and purposes, means "chemmy"), provided that the house derives its revenue by charging members to play, instead of following the custom followed in France.
Here I would comment for a moment on my noble friend Lord Longford's suggestion that it was intended that only a single charge should be made on entering the gaming club. That may well have been the case but, if so, it would involve very great difficulties, because of course, at any club or casino some people want to go in for half an hour, some want to spend the evening there, some want to play for very low stakes, and some want to play for very high stakes. It would be very difficult indeed to find a charge payable on entry which would be acceptable to the small gambler and which would enable the man who wants to spend the evening there, gambling for high stakes, to get a game of the dimensions he is looking for.
The present custom is to charge shoe money—that is, to charge a certain sum for each shoe as played—and the amount charged in shoe money will vary according to the maximum bank that is allowed. Figures of £1, £5 and £10 have been mentioned in the course of the debate, but perhaps your Lordships are not quite aware of the scale which gambling has reached in London at the present time. I can tell your Lordships that there is at least one table in London where the shoe money is £100 a shoe there are nine players at a table, so the fortunate club in this case is receiving £900 every thirty or forty minutes in shoe money. This particular table usually has a minimum bank of £1,000, and as for the maximum, the sky is the

1133
limit. However, I personally do not feel that shoe money is offensive. I do not think it is a bad principle. As we have been told the Courts have ruled that it is legal under the Act.
I have been speaking so far of what I assumed; was Parliament's intention when this legislation was drafted. I can speak with much greater certainty of what the effect of the legislation has been. It is, quite simply, that every recognised gambling game, whether they are games played at Las Vegas or the games played in Monte Carlo or Le Touquet, with the possible exception of some of the obscure games played in Hong Kong and Macao, are now played in London—which, of course, long ago surpassed Monte Carlo for volume of betting and variety of games, and also for the facilities provided by the clubs, when one thinks of that awful old Casino at Monte Carlo, and imagines the marvellous food and excellent entertainment we have in London.
Indeed, London must now be strongly challenging Las Vegas as the world's premier gambling city. Large numbers of American gamblers are being flown over from New York, Chicago and Texas, with all expenses paid by the gambling clubs, so that they can have a week's free gambling in London. Of course, it is not free in fact. It is a most expensive week. But it pays the gambling club well to fly these gentlemen over from Dallas. They find it is better to fly to London than to go to the former centre of Las Vegas.
This position, the fact that all these games are being played, has been achieved owing to the fiction which has been invented by the clubs that any member may take the bank in roulette, craps, black jack and so on. Because he can take the bank it is said that the chances in the game are equal to all players. We have already had reference, by my noble friend Lord Longford, to the Kursaal Casino case, which your Lordships will remember was held to be illegal because, although the bank was offered—it was technically offered, but it is practically never taken up—to any member who liked to take it, it was found that all members could not afford to do so if they had so desired.
It is, without exception, always the case at roulette or any other casino game,
1134
that not every player present can afford to take the bank. Even at the smallest roulette game you must have £100 in your pocket to take the bank. At a big roulette game in the Victoria Sporting Club, or the Olympic Casino Club or Crockford's, you have to have £5,000 in your pocket to take the bank. In fact, they will not let you take it unless you have £5,000 in your pocket. It is absolute nonsense to pretend that the one or two small people sitting on the table who are willing to lose a couple of quid, or are wondering whether to have 10s. on an égalit é, are in a position to take the bank. This is so not only with roulette but with every other game except chemin de fer yet, for some reason, all these games are still being played completely openly in London and everywhere else in the country. The chances in the game may be equal but, like the animals in Animal Farm, some are "much more equal than others".
That, I think, is the present highly unsatisfactory position. I feel that it is absolutely essential, as has already been suggested all over the House, that amending legislation should be introduced in the light of the experience that has been gained in this country. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, seemed to indicate that all gaming, as we now know it, should cease. The right reverend Prelate seemed to feel, too, that all gambling clubs and casinos should cease to operate. If I were to ask myself whether I agreed with this, I must say that I should find it difficult to reply because my own feelings about gambling are of extreme ambivalence. On the one hand, I love gambling from time to time, and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, said, the one important thing is to keep within what you can afford. Unfortunately, I often do not keep within what I can afford. I admit that I am a compulsive gambler. Therefore, in many ways I want gambling to continue. On the other hand, I am only too aware of the completely disintegrating effect that gambling can have on a man, has had on me, and how it can destroy all worthwhile standards, not to mention the money that one can lose.
Here perhaps I may be permitted one true anecdote, which I think may also give noble Lords some idea of the scale of gambling in London at the present

1135
time. On a recent occasion a gentleman whom I will refer to as Mr. X was playing "chemmy" until two or three in the morning. He won £70,000. He went home with his cheque and went to bed. Unfortunately, he could not go to sleep for thinking about what he might have won had he stayed a little longer. He went back to the club, cashed his cheque, walked to the "chemmy" table and saw that a banco of £40,000 was being offered on the turn of one card. He took the lot and lost. The banker then put up another banco of £40,000. Mr. X could not resist, he banco'd it again and he lost a second time. The banker then put up the same sum on a third occasion, and Mr. X banco'd it a third time and lost a third time. So he had succeeded in losing £120,000 in approximately three minutes, and instead of being £70,000 up he was £50,000 down. He then went home and went to bed, but I cannot say whether he slept or not. That is the kind of scale of gambling in London to-day, although of course that illustration is a little exceptional.
Despite that little tale, I do not myself feel that all gambling should be illegal; but I think that the time has come for amending legislation. I think that it should be based on completely different principles. In particular, I do not think that ipso facto there is anything wrong in the games just because the house is the banker. The mathematical advantage in favour of the house may in fact be less at roulette than it is at "chemmy"; it depends entirely on the player. If some old darling sits down at a chetmin de fer table, a big table, and pays shoe money of £10 and then only stakes £1 every five minutes when the shoe comes round to her, the house stands to make much more out of her at chemin de fer than it would in the long run at roulette.
What does matter is whether a game is basically a fair one—nobody wants to legalise the three card trick or crown and anchor—and whether the particular game is played fairly. I do not mean by this that there is any risk of a crooked roulette wheel or of loaded dice; I really do not think that sort of thing happens any more. I mean whether the odds in that particular game are unfairly or overly weighted in favour of the house.
1136
To determine this it is necessary to consider each game separately and the way in which it is played, because some games are played differently in different clubs. I do not see any reason why an Act should not specify, by name, instead of resorting to vague, legal language, the games which can be played, and should not lay down, perhaps in a Schedule, the particular rules under which that game ought to be played.
Perhaps I may give one or two examples. Roulette is a very fair game if played according to Monte Carlo rules. My noble friend Lord Longford seemed to think that the percentage in favour of the bank was exceedingly excessive. If that is the case, he really ought to go along to one of the clubs to-night and take the bank for an hour or two and have that excessive percentage in his favour. I know he used to be a very successful banker in the City, and he might be equally successful at the gaming table; but, on the other hand, he might find that 1 ·4 per cent. on the égalit és and 2 ·8 for the numbers is not a big margin to work on, even if you do not have overheads to come out of it.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if I might interrupt the noble Lord to say one thing, it is this. When I was chairman of a bank in another sense, I had the money of the shareholders and the depositors behind me. On this occasion I should have only my private fortune and I could not face it.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Perhaps I could find the noble Earl a small game at a dingy little club somewhere which would be within his resources. But I do not feel that 1 ·4 per cent, is a lot, particularly when many clubs are giving free champagne and caviar all night. It is a good tip for anyone who wants a free dinner. A lot of people are doing it. You can go along and have all you want "on the house". That is all coming out of the 1.4 per cent.
Another point I wanted to make is that, in betting on horse racing, on average the bookmaker wins approximately 10 per cent.—it varies—of the stakes, and on the football pools it is around 40 per cent. of the stake money which does not go to the punter. Therefore, the 1 ·4 per cent, at roulette in fact makes it into a very fair game, and I can tell the

1137
House that there is only one casino game at which they can get better odds, and that is trente et quarante, where it is about 1 ·2 per cent., but it is such an excessively boring game that practically nobody ever plays it. Then with roulette one has to remember that it is much less fair, it is twice as unfair, if there are two zeros on the wheel; and some clubs have two zeros and still only pay out at 35 to 1; or if, in addition to getting a point under the odds, table money is payable, because then the casino is getting its "cut" in the two different ways. My noble friend mentioned me by name, and he was talking about the payment of table money before each spin. I have never heard of table money being paid before each spin at a roulette game. I think it would be difficult. I cannot imagine everybody forking out half-a-crown each time before the wheel is spun, There may be some "clip joints" where this occurs, but the general practice is to pay a certain sum for each session of twenty minutes or half-an-hour.
It is true that the French—we keep referring to the French—consider that roulette has something especially pernicious about it, and they severely limit the casinos in which it may be played; moreover, the local residents are not allowed to play. if you are a Nicois you may not play at the municipal casino at Nice; if you are a Monagasque you have to play at the casino in Cannes. They try to keep it to the tourist trade. Curiously enough, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, mentioned, the horrible game of boule is allowed almost universally in France, although the odds at boule are in fact far less favourable to the punter than they are at roulette. In boule there are nine numbers, so the mathematical odds are 8 to 1, and you get paid at 7 to 1. This compares with getting 8 to 1 at roulette on a carre when the actual odds, of course, are 8 ¼ to 1. However, despite the fact that the odds are much less favourable to the punter, or perhaps because they are, the game of horde is permitted all over France. But I cannot see that roulette is especially pernicious. My own weakness happens to be chemin de fer. I can play that all night on occasions, and that is the one game which is indisputably legal.
May we just consider for a moment the great American game of craps. It is
1138
interesting to note that this too was outlawed by the French, I believe under Louis Quatorze because of its pernicious nature. It was then known as "Hazard" and was introduced into the United States by French mercenaries in New Orleans. "Craps" is a corruption of the French word crapauds. Craps is a very fair game by my standards, but only if you confine your bets to win and lose pools where the percentage in favour of the house is less than 5 per cent. But other bets on the craps table are very much less fair. For instance, the mathematical odds against throwing a seven are 5 to 1, but the odds which the casino gives are 4 to 1. That means that 20 per cent, of all money staked on average goes to the house. Similarly, the odds against throwing a two or twelve are 35 to 1, and the house normally pays odds of 30 to 1 against your performing this little miracle. So in this case 18 per cent. of all money staked on twos and twelves by the law of averages ends up with the casino. It is much the same with the other "side bets", as they are called, on "hardways", "Big 6", "craps", and "the field".
Let us turn to black jack for a moment. It is a very special case, because it is actually a game in which skill is involved. The odds at black jack actually favour the punter, if he has a memory like an elephant and a mind like a computer; he not only has to know whether or not to draw a second or subsequent card—that is basically elementary — but also has to remember all the cards that have been played in the game up until then. This is possible to do, and there are several university professors in the United States who are making a steady income by going around the casinos playing black jack—and several are paid large sums of money to keep away from the casino. However, it is exceedingly unfair in those clubs where the punter loses if his hand is equal to the banker's. This alters the whole odds grossly in the bank's favour. It is also, of course, a fact that many black jack players are extremely unskilled. I have seen someone stand on a 12 when the banker already has a 10, which, of course, is insane. With "chemmy" you cannot do that, because the draw is obligatory with very few exceptions. But with black jack you can always decide

1139
whether or not to draw, and if you make a mistake you are absolutely certain to lose in the long run.
Finally, I would refer to the whole question of credit and, in particular, to the cashing of cheques. This is about the most pernicious feature of the casinos, and I strongly agree with those noble Lords who have spoken against the ease with which cheques may be drawn in most clubs. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, suggested that this was encouraged by proprietors, but I think they have very mixed feelings about cashing cheques, because so many of them are "bouncers". I was told by one club proprietor that over 10 per cent. of all cheques he received "bounced" the first time they were presented, if not on subsequent occasions, and the managements have to spend most of the following day going round members' banks to cash cheques. If the banks are out of town, they have to send telegrams to the managers to find out whether funds are available. I think that many of them would welcome legislation which made it less easy to cash cheques.
If this were the case, I know that, so far as I am concerned, I should have to decide, in all sobriety and several hours in advance, just how much I was prepared to lose. I would cash a cheque for whatever that sum was and take it with me; and if I lost it I should then have to leave. But at present, if I can just ask for £100 or £200 or even, on one terrible occasion, £300 and get it without the smallest formality, I am very likely to do that. I am very likely indeed to lose more than I can afford, although this does not happen every time I play. I agree that a law such as I have mentioned would be difficult to enforce, but at least it would reduce the freedom with which cheque books are bandied about in clubs at the present time. I think it would be a very great advantage if, in some way or other, this practice could be restricted. I think it only remains for me to hope that noble Lords have a "Right Noble" Derby on Wednesday.
6.3 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, the law does not say that such-and-such a game is lawful. What the law does, in fact, say is that such-and-such a game is not unlawful, provided that it complies with
1140
certain rules. The first rule is that the chances in the game are equally favourable to all the players, or that the game is so conducted that the chances therein are equally favourable to all the players. After all, if it is a game that has a banker all the players must have an equal opportunity of being banker. In a recent case, a game of roulette was being conducted on certain premises. The evidence disclosed that the bank's chances were slightly more favourable than those of the players, and that the players were allowed to take the bank only alternately with the management. That was a contravention of the Act.
There is a way of overcoming that difficulty, which I will tell your Lordships as a dead secret. Suppose that I am the proprietor of a casino, and a game is being played where the bank's chances are more favourable than those of the players. I appoint four of my bosom friends to be inspectors in the casino. The inspectors wear ordinary mufti, mix with all the other players and do not know me. That is the essential part of the secret: that the inspectors do not know me. Then some game is played where there is a bank. Let us say that seven people sit down to play that game, and among those seven players are the four inspectors. Everyone has an equal chance to take the bank; indeed, the bank is taken in turn by all the seven players. No one knows, but the management has scored by having four of its friends among the players. This is the kind of secret that I must not reveal, as I may be putting ideas into your Lordships' heads.
The second rule which must be complied with is that all the money put down as stakes must be disposed of as winnings to the winner; that is to say, there must be no "cut" on the stakes for the benefit of the organiser. The third rule is that there should be no payment for the right to take part in gaming, subject to certain modifications in respect of clubs, to which I will refer later.
I need do no more than merely refer to some of the games that are played in this country. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has given us a very classical account of most of these games. First of all, there is bingo. There are two types of bingo—English and American. Some of your Lordships may remember that in the Army there is a game

1141
called housey-housey. English bingo is the immediate successor to housey-housey. Then there is a famous game called "kalooki," which is sometimes known as American rummy. Then there are baccarat, chemin de fer, roulette, black jack and dice. The American type of dice is known as "crappie."
Some of the betting may be of a very high order. Take the case of baccarat. I do not know whether your Lordships have ever played baccarat, but it is a very old game and was played in France in the days of Louis XIV. You may go into a casino where baccarat is being played. The minimum stake may be £1 and the maximum stake £600 à cheval—and à cheval means on each horse. In baccarat the banker, who is the dealer, stands in the centre, with a table on his right and a table on his left. Metaphorically speaking, each table is a horse, and therefore £600 à cheval means that you place £300 on the horse on my right and £300 on the horse on my left. It would be interesting to know what are the winnings in such a case, especially if one is the winner.
Now let us come to the most controversial point of all—namely, whether any payment can be required for a person to take part in gaming. No such payment may be required except in the case of a club. In the case of a club, there may be an annual subscription for membership of the club, and it is also permitted to charge a fixed sum of money determined before the gaming began. What is a club? I do not know, and I will tell your Lordships why. There is no definition in law of a club. That is just as well. There is the club for which a person is duly proposed and seconded by a member of the club, and then his name is put on a list where it remains for a time—perhaps a year or more—before he may be duly elected to the club. At the other end of the scale, there is the sort of arrangement whereby a person is proposed by the cloakroom attendant, seconded by the head waiter, pays one guinea and is duly elected a member for life. So there is a great variety of clubs. Let us call a spade a spade, and not a sociological shovel. A great number of these places in London that are called clubs are no more clubs than my hat.
There may be all manner of establishments which call themselves clubs. The
1142
Government should look at Section 36 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, and see whether it is possible or practicable to introduce some meaning into the word "club". What are known as "casinos", I presume, are generally carried on under the name of clubs. I speak subject to correction, but I understand that taxation by way of licence duty on the rateable value of the premises in which the gaming takes place is going to be introduced. When that happens, I understand that the term "casino gaming" is going to be defined. This should be very helpful and may further assist the authorities in ascertaining the precise premises where gaming is carried on, and in determining what constitutes a club where gaming takes place.
Now what is the answer? Do not try to abolish gaming. If you try to abolish gaming, you will have exactly the same results as we had in another part of the world when we tried to abolish alcoholic drinks: you will only make it worse. What you must do is to try to regulate gaming. In the first place, try to define some of the principal requirements of a genuine club, and arrange for all such clubs and their premises to be registered. It will then be possible for such clubs to be entered, inspected and supervised. There are many other suggestions that I am only too keen to hear.
6.12 p.m.
Loan ST. JUST: My Lords, I am approaching this subject in the way of a somewhat interested party. I must admit to your Lordships that I enjoy an occasional gamble. This afternoon we have heard many points raised, both for and against legalised gambling, and I should like to draw attention to one or two points concerning the whole problem facing gambling in private clubs. Later, I will come to the problem of putting a tax on gambling.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned that in certain cases at the present time there is a fee on roulette. After the Gaming Act came in, this was the case. Players paid £1 to play roulette for half an-hour or an hour. But the difficulty about this was that none of the clubs who ran the roulette tables were quite certain how the situation under zero worked. In fact, when it originally came in, if zero came up, the money remained there and the ball was spun again. Now zero is

1143
classified in the way it is on the Continent: you play on zero, or a combination of zero, one, two, three; and you normally do not have to place or pay any money when you play the game. It is true that if you enter chemin de fer you obviously pay a shoe deposit every time you play a shoe at the table.
My Lords, I think there is no doubt that the British as a race are rather gamblers at heart—and I do not think it is a very unhealthy thing. They will always gamble on something, whether it is horse racing, the dogs or in casinos. The second point I wish to raise, which has already been mentioned, is that it is far better to have gambling legalised than to have private games being played illegally behind closed doors. That is bound to cause troube. The third point is that in the good clubs in this country games such as roulette and chemin de fer are run scrupulously fairly. I think this is a very important point: there is no nonsense that goes on. Most of the people concerned in it are highly trained people, and the game is run dead honest. One is always hearing about the trouble in America of the games being "fiddled", but with the exception of a few clubs, I think that in this country this is not so.
There is another point, and a very important one, which perhaps can be looked into when the law is amended. There is no doubt that in the good clubs many players who go to play roulette or chemin de fer want to play on credit. A great deal has been said this afternoon in your Lordships' House about the question of credit. I think it is important that, before they start to play, players should have to put a limit on the amount they are going to allow themselves to play with. This limit should be held to by the casino. Then if, after a few hours, the player is getting slightly worried, or fuddled with what has been going on, and says, "I will now have another £100", the casino official refuses, telling him: "No, you will not have another £100. You set yourself this limit, and this is your limit for the evening". If such a system could be introduced into all private clubs, I think it would make a great deal of difference.
There is another point that has come up just lately, at any rate in the club I occasionally go to for a small "flutter".
1144
Now that the club has applied for a new licence to sell drinks, they have refused to allow their players to drink while playing. I think that this argument is two-sided, though in principle it probably is a fairly good idea. When people are playing, they cannot drink but have to go out to the bar. The clubs, I think, are against this. They feel that they can trust their players, and take the view: "Why should they not be allowed to have a drink at the same time?"
The main difficulty in the whole of this problem is how to get at the rather seedy, sordid clubs, where the actual games may be run correctly but where tough people are liable to congregate together and where fights such as we read about in the papers do break out. The problem of these clubs is a major one. There will always he clubs that are well run and, rather like night-clubs, those which are of a rather indifferent nature. I personally feel that one of the ways of dealing with this is to set a standard as high as possible and to keep a watchful eye on these clubs, especially those that sink below the standard. What has already been stated in this debate is, I think, very true: it is essential that there should be registration and inspection of all these clubs.
I feel that the responsibility of watching this problem falls rather hard on the police, with all the work they have to do, and I wonder whether the Government would consider appointing some inspectors to keep an eye on these clubs, if one could get them registered. These inspectors could be highly trained and could look into the situation. Some of these rather indifferent clubs have some amazing ways of getting round the problem of keeping the game legal, and if there is a specialist on the job he can look into it and, if there is any trouble, report the situation to the police.
I agree wholeheartedly with what my noble friend Lord Derwent said about the question of taxation of these private clubs. I am certain that the Continental system of taxing is the right one. Players pay an entrance fee, and, if a person runs a bank at chemin de fer, that is taxed, and the tax expert is sitting there beside the croupier to keep an eye on him, to see that he tears off the ticket at the appropriate moment.

1145
This, I think, is probably the easiest way to bring a taxing system into operation. On the Continent they understand it; they have done it for a long time, and I believe it would not be difficult to operate here. From what I can gather from various people I have talked to in the clubs, they are quite ready to abide by such a system.
My Lords, one hears—and I think it is true—that London is now becoming possibly one of the gaming centres of the world. This city of ours has taken many things in its stride, and I think it can take this in its stride. I do not think there is any fear of London ever becoming a second Las Vegas in any form. As I say, if this whole situation can be kept under control, and if inspectors are allowed to go round and keep the thing in its proper perspective, all may be well. Before I end, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that I may not be able to remain for his winding-up speech. This is a rule which I rarely break; but unfortunately I have an appointment later this evening and I may have to leave.
My Lords, we shall always hear of the disasters that take place at gambling, such as that of the weak-charactered young man who loses too much money, possibly trying to impress some girl friend. It is rather the same with the compulsive gambler. We shall always hear about him. It is a disaster; but it is true. It is like the compulsive drinker. But if the gambling houses were completely closed down throughout the country, then the compulsive gambler would gamble somewhere—not necessarily always at the gambling table, but possibly on the racecourse, and so on. And so long as the clubs play a scrupulously fair game and persuade their members to allow themselves to be limited on credit before they start to play, I do not think the evils of gambling are so very high. In fact, in many cases I think it allows perfectly respectable people a form of outlet for a few hours in the evening which does not do them any harm at all.
6.20 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, the statistics of this question have been adequately dealt with by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester, and the technicalities have also
1146
been dealt with by other Members of this House. But I must confess I have learned a great deal, especially from the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. As a result of what he said I shall avoid black jack, and if I play craps I shall never stake on twos or twelves. But, that being so, I will not weary your Lordships with repetition; I will claim the privilege of a superannuated academic and get back to the first principles of liberty in relation to the State which I think lie at the back of this whole problem.
If your Lordships want to think about liberty, the best thing you can do is to return to that great "liberty boy", John Stuart Mill. And if you read his Treatise on Liberty you will find on page one, chapter one, paragraph one, that he refers to:
"the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual…a question seldom stated…but which profoundly influences the practical controversies of the age…and is likely soon to make itself recognised as the vital question of the future…"
He goes on:
"In the stage of progress into which the more civilised portions of the species have now entered, it presents itself under new conditions and requires a different and more fundamental treatment."
It does.
I think we should all agree with the first principle, which some noble Lords have already mentioned, that, as Mill said, in a free society, adult, sane individuals must be left to mould their own destinies and express their own tastes as they feel fit. He put it very well when he said:
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forebear because it will be better for him to do so…These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him…but not for compelling him. The only part of the conduct of anyone for which he is answerable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is of right, absolute. Over himself. over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
That is surely the philosophy behind the Bill introduced recently into your

1147
Lordships' House by the noble Earl, Lord Arran. It is the philosophy which conditions our attitude to drunkenness. I might get drunk in my own house; I might drink myself to death; but if I inconvenience and disturb others by being drunk and disorderly or drunk and incapable in the streets, then I am within reach of the coercion of the law. It conditions our attitude towards smoking. I may rot my lungs by cigarette addiction; that is my business. But there are certain places where I may not smoke because it inconveniences others. It may be that this principle is not altogether observed. One must sometimes be a little pragmatic. We are not allowed even in our own homes to dope ourselves with dangerous drugs or to acquire and play with unlicensed firearms. In certain respects we must be a little pragmatic.
But that is not the whole story, because Mill goes on to draw this conclusion:
"If people must be allowed, in whatever concerns only themselves, to act as seems best to themselves, at their own peril, they must equally be free to consult with one another about what is fit to be so done… Whatever it is permitted to do, it must be permitted to advise to do…"
So you may be permitted to bet and to smoke; but you also must be permitted to go to your friends and say that smoking is good for the nerves, that betting is good for morale because it is a sport. But Mill hesitates—and so, I think, must we. He says:
"The question is doubtful only when the instigator derives a personal benefit from his advice; when he makes it his occupation for subsistence or pecuniary gain, to promote what society and the State consider to be an evil…Ought this to be interferred with or not? Fornication, for example, must be tolerated and so must gambling; but should a person be free to be a pimp or keep a gambling house?"
And here he hesitates. He argues both sides and he comes down on the side of restraint, as I hope we shall do in the case of gambling. Where the interests of the persuaders are not disinterested, where they have a direct personal interest on the side the State believes to be wrong, and where they "confessedly promote it for personal interests only", he thinks—and I think; and I hope your Lordships think—that restraint is possible. Mill thinks in terms of gaming houses and brothels run for profit. To-day, as he
1148
foresaw in the quotation with which I began, the problem:
"presents itself under new conditions and requires different and more fundamental treatment."
My Lords, what are those new condiditions of which he could not have been conscious in the 1880s? The first—and it has been referred to already in this House this afternoon—is the spectacular spread of purchasing power over practically the whole population and, more particularly, among the younger age groups—which makes, of course, the whole population a rich market for what you might call remunerative persuasion. The second, in connection with that, is the formidable increase which we have seen in the last twenty years, both in volume and technique, of persuasion by advertisement. I think the most pathetic figure of our present gambling boom is perhaps not the man who ruins himself. I think the most pathetic figure was shown us recently on a B.B.C. documentary television programme of a gambling house in Manchester. It was the figure of a girl, a nice girl—I cannot remember whether she was a croupier or a hostess—who said to the interviewer: "I cannot bear to see men coming in on a Friday night with their wage packets and putting it all on the table" Then she added, sadly, "But it is my job to persuade them to do it." No human being should be put into the position of that girl.
Never, I think, in history has the exploitation of our meaner and baser instincts been so profitable as it is to-day under these two new conditions which Mill did not see. Unfortunately, in the 1960 Bill the late Conservative Government let loose a devil. I am prepared to believe that it was a matter of inadvertence amounting to guilelessness rather than malice aforethought. I do not believe, as was the case when an earlier Government ignored the recommendations of the Ninth Royal Commission on Gambling in the thirties, that it was a question of well-organised financially interested pressure groups. I do not think it was—perhaps I am wrong. Anyway, they let loose not so much a devil as an unholy trinity of devils—bingo clubs, betting offices, casinos. And I sincerely hope that the Government now in power will put hooks in the noses of those devils.
6.31 p.m.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have spoken earlier in thanking the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chester, for introducing this debate this afternoon, which he did so moderately, so fairly and so well. I have no interest to declare in this matter, but I must admit that in the years between the two wars I used to own and ride a few steeplechase horses of my own, most of which were sadly indifferent, and some rather better ones belonging to other people. From time to time I used to have a bet, whenever I thought that the circumstances were sufficiently favourable. The results, fortunately, were not entirely catastrophic, but I was not then, nor am I now, a gambler.
Almost everything else which I wanted to say this afternoon has been said already, very much more ably. But, as I see it, there are clearly two points of view, either of which one is entitled to take. One approves of gambling, or one does not. I read in an article in the Daily Mail on May 17 last something to the effect that the word "gambling" has become so overloaded with moral overtones that it is difficult to talk sensibly about it, and that the prohibition of gambling is socially destructive, although laissez-faire is almost equally damaging. This seems good sense to me.
It is clear to me that gambling has become too easy, and we all know that it has vastly increased in volume. I do not think that the rate of increase could have been forecast when betting shops and casinos were made legal. This increase in the volume of gambling can stem from many things. For example, one has always been told how taxation produces high gambling. More money and more leisure may also be contributory, but my own view is that it is largely because gambling has been made too easy. In the days of street betting and the so-called private gambling parties the difficulty of making a book or running a private party must have had a limiting effect. Gambling is not new, and a realistic approach to the matter should be taken. Some people like gambling and derive pleasure from it and nothing is ever going to stop them from gambling. So long as a man or woman is not a compulsive gambler no great harm is done.
1150
I should be the last to criticise the very large number of people who get great enjoyment from their almost daily small bets, although experience has led me to believe that their chances of being on the right side at the end of the year are very remote indeed. Nevertheless, I am well aware of the damage and unhappiness which inevitably result when a gambler gambles beyond his means. There is no easy solution to this problem because it is impossible to legislate against human folly, although it may be prudent to make human folly more difficult. I am strongly in favour of a tax on gambling. That must be right. All our simple pleasures are taxed and this tax would be no harder to bear than some others. But I doubt that the method of collection, as outlined in the Budget, as I understand it, is the correct one.
My noble friend Lord Derwent spoke on this point very clearly and well and I am in full agreement with what he said. But I would suggest to your Lordships that it might be worth considering the system which is used in Ireland which would seem to have something to recommend it. As I understand it, briefly, the system works like this. All betting slips in shops carry Revenue stamps and the same returns must be made both to the Revenue and to the Levy Board. The cost of the stamp is taken from the winner, whether it is the bookmaker or the punter. The penalties for evasion are very severe. I believe it is a £500 fine for the first offence and prison for the second. In consequence very little evasion is believed to take place.
On the course itself each book has to be made in triplicate and as soon as the race has started various Government officials go down the line of the bookmakers and remove the top copy of the book. This must have some effect in stopping what in racing circles used to be known as "back of the book" transactions. I think it must work in Ireland because I understand that when they want to have a big bet, the Irish place it in England rather than at home, which would seem to be some evidence.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, that is perfectly true. It happens very frequently, but it is absolutely illegal of course.
LORD ALLERTON: It is illegal?
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, it is illegal under Irish law to place any bet in England, either by telephone or by letter.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I understand that it does happen. Perhaps they come over here to do it.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the Irish Sweep also is illegal in England.
LORD ALLERTON: So I understand. Be that as it may, I suggest that this system might at any rate be considered.
Like my noble friend Lord Mancroft, I am completely in favour of a Tote monopoly, although at the moment this thought would seem to be rather ahead of public opinion, even though there would seem to be much to recommend it. Not only do the Governments profit considerably in those countries where the Totalisator has a monopoly, but so do the public and racing. I am strongly in favour of both Tote and betting generally contributing generously to racing, and I would express the hope that the Government would not be too avaricious. Racing is a big industry; it is a large earner of foreign currency, a considerable source of pleasure to a great many people and, in my view, it is something well worthy of support.
It would seem that to have a Tote monopoly would be rather hard on the bookmakers. But it can be said with some truth that, by and large, bookmakers are a very intelligent body of men, and it is unlikely that they will not be able to find some other equally remunerative employment. I venture to suggest that if a man can make money by making a book, he can probably make money at anything. Furthermore, the Tote has not yet, so far as I know, been mixed up with the doping of racehorses or the other malpractices which seem to be so prevalent now. This is a great deal more than can be said for bookmakers.
Casinos present a more difficult problem. I have no experience of them, and my views are gained only from hearsay. They have without doubt become numerous, not only in London, but throughout the country. Apart from advocating high taxation, I have no suggestion as to how best to deal with them.
1152
although I agree with my noble friend Lord Derwent, who again made such excellent suggestions. For my part, I am unable to see that casinos do any good; in fact, I consider that they do a great deal of harm, and I should be glad to see the end of them. I am well aware that this view is not shared by everybody, but it happens to be my view and I see no harm in stating it.
We have also heard this afternoon about the "protection racket". Quite clearly this has cropped up, and I should imagine that it will continue to crop up more and more. It can only be a question of time before smash-and-grab raids on the cash of these various establishments will take place, too.
I now propose to make the rather controversial suggestion—I hope your Lordships will tolerate it—that, in my view, there is a considerable argument in favour of some form of national sweepstake. The Irish Hospital Sweepstake has done nothing but good. Why should we not have a similar sweepstake here? No one is ever going to get into serious financial difficulty through buying a few tickets for this form of lottery. The amount of money it would bring in would be enormous, and many people would get a great deal of pleasure out of thinking they were going to win. In this way, a large sum of money could become available for charitable purposes. I should prefer to see most of the profit directed towards charity rather than to the Government, especially as charity seems to be having rather a rough time at the moment. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer might find the sum to be so large that he would feel it wrong to leave it completely untouched.
We already have a lottery in the form of Premium Bonds, and this is quite successful. Nobody has ever come to any harm through having Premium Bonds. I had some myself, though I did not come to any good: I got tired of them, and thought the small sum would be better invested in the stock market, which happened to be fairly buoyant at that time. The English people like something with a sporting flavour, and I am sure they would subscribe large sums to a sweepstake on the Grand National and the Derby. The name "Premium Bonds" is rather ponderous and savours of accountancy, and, therefore, does not

1153
make the same appeal. In conclusion, my Lords, I would say it is clear that gambling is here to stay, but let us make the best possible attempt to keep it under reasonable control.
6.46 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are greatly indebted to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for giving us this opportunity to discuss a great and mounting social problem, in which your Lordships are once more giving a lead to public opinion—though I hardly expected reform of the House of Lords to go so far that I should hear two Conservative Peers, the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Massereene and Ferrard, arguing passionately in favour of nationalization—the nationalisation of bookmakers.
I think that every debate in your Lordships' House reveals expert knowledge, and this has been no exception, because there has been deep and extensive knowledge revealed of every game of chance except ludo and snakes and ladders. I think the expertise reached its peak in the maiden speech from these Benches of my noble friend Lord Kilbracken, who revealed, not a misspent youth, but a whole life so far spent in pursuits which he understands to the full and enjoys even more.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: He does other things as well.
LORD STONHAM: I was coming to that, because I was going to say that, with such deep knowledge as my noble friend revealed on this subject, we shall look forward to hearing him again on other subjects on which he also has great knowledge.
My noble friend Lady Stocks, the self-styled superannuated academic, reminded us that John Stuart Mill said all that needs to be said on this subject about 100 years ago. But it now falls to me to express the Government's view on some of the detailed points which have been raised. We have been considering a massive business, with a yearly turnover of more than £1,000 million; that is, more than £50 per family spent every year on nothing—nothing worth while. It is a business, whether the odds are 1·4 per cent., 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., where the dice are so loaded that the
1154
rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Unfortunately (and this was implicit in what the right reverend Prelate said), gambling draws much of its strength from two human weaknesses—greed and gullibility—and in many of its aspects it breeds gangsters.
Because gambling is with most of us an ingrained instinct, it is a weakness that cannot be eradicated by politicians. However, tough Parliament cannot cure it, we can control it; and subject to that important limitation, the Government intend to do so. The right reverend Prelate asked me to say whether the Government intend to act before the situation gets out of hand. We certainly will, although I cannot hold out any prospect of legislation this Session. This may not be a misfortune, because next time we must be sure that our Bill does not, like the 1960 Act, fail to achieve the intentions of its framers. For example, we do not think this would be achieved, as the Churches' Council appears to suggest, by merely limiting the number of sessions in each twenty-four hours and the charge per session, because this would leave untouched other forms of profit, such as through the bank, and, indeed, any profits related to the amounts staked.
Then again, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, advocated the adoption of something like the French casino system, an honestly conducted monopoly, which confers on the proprietors something like a licence to print money. The profits are directly related to the stakes, and they start by prescribing, as my noble Leader pointed out, not maximum, but minimum stakes, with the maximum usually fixed at a thousand times the minimum. True, it is strictly controlled. There are no women employees in the gaming rooms, no "bunnies", with or without pockets, and no gaming on credit. But since the State and municipalities have a large share in the profits, it is in their interests to increase and not decrease the volume of gambling.
Clearly a system of this kind can operate only if there is a small number of casinos; and, as has been pointed out, in the whole of France in 1964 there were only 160 casinos. But what has not been said so far in this debate is that 124 out of that 160 are open only during the holiday season, and except in exceptional

1155
circumstances, no casino is allowed within 100 kilometres of Paris. French casinos are virtually restricted to the spas and holiday resorts, and obviously there would be no place for such a system in the industrial towns and cities which constitute our main problem. Indeed, the French system is one designed mainly for foreign visitors, or for the rich and the leisured. That is why it is understandably favoured by the fashionable London clubs who would, of course, like to share in the monopoly.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he is being a little unfair over this. Why is it not possible to restrict the number of clubs in an industrial area?
LORD STONHAM: I was coming to that in the course of my speech by giving some indication of just how many there are, not only in London, but in other towns in this country.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. I am not interested in how many there are. I am talking about restricting the numbers.
LORD STONHAM: That is precisely the point—and what they are. I am dealing with this question of profits and with the interest of the proprietors in maximising gambling and thereby maximising profits. Her Majesty's Government do not favour a system of high gaming with the State in partnership. In our view, it would be wrong to grant the rich a monopoly of the path to perdition.
Our problem covers gaming clubs that cater for all types of pockets, however well or ill lined, and we must devise a system of control which, whilst avoiding unnecessary interference with individual liberty, at the same time discourages excess and prevents the commercial exploitation of gaming, which I think has been the key point in the debate on all sides of the House. We must have regard to the growing evidence that many gaming clubs are in the hands of criminals, or the associates of criminals, and are used as a rendezvous for criminals and prostitutes. I refer also to the evidence that the offer of long-term credits on gaming debts, though not recoverable at law, leads to various forms of intimidation and blackmail. There is evidence of the growing protection rackets, to which the noble
1156
Lord, Lord Allerton, and other noble Lords referred, which, when the gangs muscle in on one another's territory, has led to violent affrays and death.
With all these things in mind, it seems that the best approach would be to make a clear distinction between genuine members' clubs, where gaming is a purely ancillary feature, and commercial clubs, where gaming is undertaken for profit. Registration would provide a simple system of control for genuine members' clubs, where conditions of management might well be similar to those in the 1961 Licensing Act and, as in that Act, it would not be necessary to grant the police the right of entry to a registered club except on warrant. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, there must be a clear definition of what constitutes that type of club.
For commercial clubs which do not satisfy the conditions for registration, it would seem that a system of licensing would be necessary with fairly strict controls. These controls could deal, for example, with the nature, siting and standards of the premises, and the antecedents of the proprietors and management, with police powers of entry at any time. In our view, this would eradicate the criminality which so often surrounds these clubs. It would be necessary to ensure that no one concerned in the ownership or management, or employed in any capacity by the club, should participate in the gaming. And there would be the highly effective sanction that breach of the conditions of the licence would involve withdrawal of the licence, with the probable disqualification of both the promoter and the premises—a point which would appear to be in favour of the French system.
It also ought to be possible under the licensing system for them to regulate the sources of profit. There is much to be said for severing any direct connection between the amount of profit and the size of stakes. This means taking all advantage out of holding the bank, and limiting the profit to a single sessional charge, the period of which would have to be defined, as the right reverend Prelate suggested; although not necessarily three sessions every 24 hours. In this way, scope would be left both for the expensive clubs and for the more popular

1157
establishments, but with effective safeguards against the worse forms of profiteering and excess.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and other noble Lords, emphasised the need to deal with the abuses connected with gaming on credit. There is a case indeed for forbidding credit altogether, but it would be clearly impossible to insist on all transactions being in cash. In the circumstances, the best course may well be to prohibit all credit, but to allow cheques to be given to buy chips or to obtain money for gambling and, at the same time, to amend the Gaming Act 1710 so as to provide that the passing of cheques for this purpose—but not in settlement of gaming debts or payment of accounts—should be actionable in the civil courts. It seems that a provision of this kind would help, if anything, to reinforce the prohibition of credit, as well as removing or reducing the present inducements to blackmail and intimidation.
With the proliferation of clubs all over the country, the need for such safeguards is very real. The chief constable of one Northern city told me that, prior to the Act, there were three known gaming houses, which were, of course, illegal and were raided regularly. Since the passing of the Act the number has increased to sixteen, but has now stabilised at about ten. This is about what the traffic can bear. On those ten, he comments tersely that three are well conducted, two are run by criminals for criminals, and three more are run by criminals for the general gambling fraternity, but are used for the recirculation of stolen money, receiving stolen goods, and as a meeting place for criminals. One, quaintly named the "Businessmen's Club", is run by a bookmaker for bookmakers. Some have been raided for contraventions of the 1963 Act, and closed. But they reopen under different names and allegedly different owners. If we want to end these illegalities, and the rackets and violence they often breed, we must arm the polic with the necessary powers. If we have the will to fight gangsterdom we must provide the means. In Manchester alone there are 83 licensed clubs, and the police estimate that three-quarters of them have facilities for roulette, chemin de fer, black jack, dice—the lot.
Mention has been made by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken of the volume of
1158
stakes in London and of the proprietors of one place earning £900 per shoe at a sitting. In some of the Manchester clubs the police say that £10,000 and £15,000 changes hands at a single session. Those noble Lords who saw the arresting document on Manchester's gambling and striptease clubs on the B.B.C. television last February, to which my noble friend Lady Stocks referred, will have an indelible impression of the whole atmosphere and of the faces and the demeanour of the gamblers. These places are more than ripe for control.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, asked me directly and particularly what is being done about the protection rackets. The protection racket has been aggravated by the clubs but it is not new. It is not new to the police, and its victims are not confined to the proprietors of businesses of doubtful legality. The racketeers' method is to create trouble where none exists and then to demand money in order to avoid a recurrence, and through fear induced in this way honest people regularly pay protection money to the thugs who act as front men for the chief criminals. Naturally the protection racket flourishes, particularly where gaming takes place, and as gambling has increased so has the protection racket. Unfortunately the police are handicapped in taking action because the victims who pay protection money will not come forward and give evidence. The general attitude of the victims is that they are afraid of reprisals. They have the attitude that it is better to pay the money than to run the risk of having their business premises damaged or their wives and children assaulted.
I want to make it clear that the police not only know completely what is going on but they have full knowledge of the men involved and of their criminal records. I have seen what is being done, but for obvious reasons I cannot discuss it, and unfortunately the police cannot act without evidence. This evidence cannot be obtained unless the victims come forward and then act on police instructions. Yesterday noble Lords may have read in the Press that four men were sent to prison, one for four years, simply because a business man did come forward to the police. I appeal to everyone so concerned to come forward, because it is only in this way that they

1159
can be protected and we can deal with the criminals.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and others have made reference to betting offices, which, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned, numbered some 15,638 on June 1 last year, or about one for every 2,000 adults in the country. Sitting on the Benches opposite when the Betting Act was passed, I forecast that the number would exceed 15,000, and no doubt the noble Lord will remember when he was standing over here and saying I was wrong. There is reason to think that the number is stabilising, although at a slightly higher level than the 15,000 which he then forecast.
The spread of betting offices has been criticised on moral and social grounds, and stricter licensing controls have been urged with the object of curtailing betting. There have been demands for amending legislation to enable local authorities to control the number of offices in their areas and for their planning powers to be modified to that end. However, it is not correct, as my noble friend Lord Cohen of Brighton said in an intervention when the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was speaking, that the planning authorities have no powers at all in this matter. Under the 1963 Act any office requires planning permission. The location of the premises is, of course, an integral factor in planning, and licences can be refused if the premises are unsuitable.
The point about the betting offices is that after many years of the evil of illegal betting Parliament said that this was the way to avoid it—not to stop betting but to avoid the evil of illegal street and "hole and corner" betting; and it has virtually done away with it. If we were again to go back on our tracks one thing would be inevitable: a major return to illegal betting, which we have now abolished. The licensing authorities who have the job of granting licences are doing that job well according to the Act. There have been surprisingly few complaints. In theory one would expect that there would be noise and people crowding about. I have not seen it. Indeed, in the only betting shop I ever see, one in my village, it is so
1160
quiet that, but for the fact that there is a painting of a horse and not a hearse on the front, I should have thought it was an undertaker's premises. Therefore I do not think there is any pressing need to make any changes. But of course we shall watch the numbers. If there were reason for complaint, if there were disturbance or noise, that might well be a reason for refusing the renewal of a licence. Therefore it would cure itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, also commented on the Budget proposals and the bets tax, and he made some stringent comments on the £3,000 above and below and told a very touching story about £50 less and £50 more round the corner, and what it would mean. I have no doubt it is possible for such a case to exist, but I hope he will agree that these are financial matters which would be properly discussed in another place on the Finance Bill.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, that does not stop the noble Lord from putting forward my remarks to the right quarters.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord has read so many Home Office briefs that he knows the precise time to jump up, when I am just going to say those very words; and, of course, that reflects great credit on him. At this particular point I was about to say that I shall see that representations made by the noble Lord and other noble Lords are brought to the notice of my right honourable friend.
I was particularly interested in this point about charging tax on winnings, and I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and indeed the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and I finally got the answer, as might have been expected, from the expert in the House, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. He explained to me that in Ireland the tax is a turnover tax, the same as is proposed in the Finance Bill, and it is charged only on winnings. Obviously, since they only charge it on winnings, the Exchequer must go short, because since the bookmakers make a profit the punters draw less in winnings than the total stakes. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer must go a bit short.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? The point is that the bookmaker takes double the percentage that would otherwise be payable on the original stakes—5 per cent. instead of 2 ½ per cent.—so it comes out the same in the end.
LORD STONHAM: Of course it does not come out the same. If I might quote my noble friend Lord Kilbracken, he said the bookmakers' profits were 10 per cent. Accepting that, the winnings must come out of the other 90 per cent. Even if you just double on the winnings, that cannot be as much as the turnover tax on the whole thing.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, it is not that the winnings come out of the 90 per cent. It is that 90 per cent., on average, of the total stake money goes to pay the winning punters, and the 10 per cent is the bookmaker's profit. Therefore, if the tax is 5 per cent. instead of 2 ½ per cent., it is virtually the same thing.
LORD STONHAM: Then it seems to me that the bookmakers must be making extra profit, but I shall have to work it out on paper. I am too old to have served as a clerk to my noble friend when he was a bookie at Eton, but I can do simple arithmetic, and I will work it out and show it to him before I send it to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester referred to betting on Elections. I think the right reverend Prelate said it was unwholesome, and that it should be stopped; he hoped that the Government would stop it. I think if there is one thing we are agreed on it is that it is quite impossible to stop people gambling. If there were nothing else, they would bet on flies crawling up the wall or raindrops running down the window. The main objection I had to the volume of betting on the last Election was that I consider it somewhat less than honest to bet on a certainty, and at the last Election Labour was certain to win. I would remind your Lordships that a question was put to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on this point, and he answered it, in the shortest way, with a simple negative.
1162
In the context of the betting and gaming laws, a ban on bets on Elections would be a very considerable departure from principle, because the laws purposely leave people free to bet on whatever they please. Also—and this is a major objection—it would appear unenforceable and likely to lead to illegal betting on an even larger scale, an evil which we have always been particularly anxious to avoid. I think the noble Lord, Lord Wade, would take this point. At best it would only prevent the publication of betting trends; it would certainly not stop betting on Elections. The other considerations which the noble Lord raised on this point I think transcend the betting and gaming laws as such, and this debate does not appear an appropriate occasion on which to examine them.
I now come to the points which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I was very sorry to have to leave the Chamber for a short period while the noble Lord was speaking, because, although my noble friend Lord Champion has given me an excellent note of what he said, I think your Lordships will all agree that a Mancroft speech heard is a very different thing from a Mancroft speech read. But I hope that I have the gist of the points he made. He criticised the section of the Finance Bill dealing with betting tax and expressed the view that it was probably unworkable. It is not realty a matter for us. I do not agree. Nor do I agree that it is probably unworkable because the Churchill Act did not work as the bookmakers did not play fair. They were not licensed then, and I think it is much more likely they will try to work this provision this time. They will have to do so.
But the really important thing from the point of view of racing, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, referred, as did the noble Lord, Lord Allerton, was the point that the bloodstock situation looks like being such, the amenities on racecourses being so comparatively poor, and costs going up under the influence of the selective employment tax and so on, that, as The Times said on Tuesday this week, we are in danger of becoming a second, third or fourth grade racing nation. It is true that the prize money in France is much greater than here, but the prize money here has very greatly increased, and only this week the Levy

1163
Board announced the distribution of another £1,700,000 in grants to 35 racecourses, which makes a total in the last two or three years of some £4 ½ million.
The Times, also said in their article that the future looks far from rosy:
"the prosperity of racing is not only linked but geared to the prize money available. If prize money goes up trainers' fees go up. If they do that the price of yearlings does the same. Stud and stallion fees can then be increased with no sense of guilt."
If, happily, the prize money did increase, and the Levy Board was able to pay out more, even if the Board could double or treble its contribution, I have pointed to the inevitable happening: if prize money went up, the cost would go up to the same position. Prize money has greatly increased in recent years, but many owners cannot make it pay; they have to pay for their racing. In that way they are basically no different from the millions of punters throughout the country who also have to pay for their racing, and I think it will have to continue in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Allerton, suggested that one way would be to abolish bookmakers and create a Tote monopoly. I hold no brief for bookmakers, and of course the advantages of a Tote monopoly to the racing industry are obvious. It would certainly provide far greater funds than are obtainable at present through the levy raised on bookmakers and Tote together. That is only one side of the coin. From the punters' viewpoint, there are the usual disadvantages of a monopoly. It may be that the Tote would be capable of offering the great variety of odds on both small and large bets just as the bookmakers do; though I have doubts about 2s. 6d. win and place trebles or up-and-down double the stakes. The point is whether, without competition, the Tote would have any incentive to offer what is now offered by bookmakers.
LORD ALLERTON: With great respect, surely the Totalisator is a mathematical calculation. I do not think competition comes into it.
LORD STONHAM: Of course the Totalisator is a mathematical calculation; indeed it is a machine, and that is why noble Lords are able to claim that it is without sin, whereas bookmakers,
1164
like ourselves, are not free. I was not arguing that. The whole point of the case is that if there were a Tote monopoly, because all the net proceeds from the Tote would then be available to the Levy Board the sum would be greater. I am not denying that, but I am also saying that nevertheless the present system, offering a choice between bookmakers and the Tote, seems to suit the punters very well. They might be reluctant to see the total disappearance of the independent bookmaker. I find it difficult to believe, though I agree with Lord Allerton that bookmakers are intelligent people who would be able easily to find jobs just as profitable elsewhere, that they would accept their abolition with equanimity or become a mere agent of the Tote.
The main argument against a monopoly, in view of ingrained public habits and attitudes, is that it would most probably mean the resurrection of illegal bookmaking on a large scale. It is one of the indisputable achievements of the 1960 Act that it has reduced the evil of street bookmaking to quite modest proportions, and it would be wrong, now that it is virtually no more, to forget just how serious that evil was. On this point I realise what the case is, and how strongly it has been expressed in at least three speeches. I have no wish to take any final line on it. What has been said will be fully and carefully considered. But I must say that the Government would need to feel sure of their ground before they courted the danger of a considerable revival of illegal betting.
I think that I have covered the main points which have been put forward in the debate. I have tried to answer them. If there is anything that I have not covered, then I will certainly write to noble Lords. I think it has been an excellent debate. Certainly it has been most useful to the Government, in view of the wide and knowledgeable expressions of opinion. This is an important subject. We have to preserve the reasonable liberties and freedoms of the people; but, at the same time, when it comes to excesses, when it comes to damage, as my noble friend Lady Stocks said, and above all, when lack of control or no control means an invitation to open-ended crime, then the Government must act.
7.22 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, we have travelled a long journey since we started out on this debate four hours ago, and we have gone into some strange country. I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, both for the kind things they have said and also for the notable contribution which every speaker has made from his own particular point of view. I should like also to add my personal congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for one of the most outstanding "maiden" speeches that I have ever heard, and one which has whetted your Lordships' appetite for future contributions that he will be making from those Benches.
In the course of this debate we have had some moments of amusement and entertainment. But, for my part, I have found it a profoundly depressing experience to hear some of the things we have been told. To think how apparently intelligent people can allow the passage of these vast sums of money to depend upon the flick of a card!To think of this against the background of the appalling poverty of the world! It cannot but surely create a great deal of bitterness when one hears some of the things that have been recounted in this debate. Of course, I am not for the total suppression of gambling. I know that would be utterly impracticable, and would lead to even greater trouble. But I believe that this situation needs bold action and strong control, and therefore I have attempted to put before the House one or two alternatives—to examine whether it is possible to go back to the 1960 situation and to block the gap in the Act which has produced this unsatisfactory state of affairs; or, if that cannot be done, then to see how this situation can otherwise be controlled. Possibly, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, a combination of the two is required.
1166
However, I am glad, as I am sure other noble Lords are, to hear that the Government propose to take action. I hope that they will consult with those who have had wide experience in these matters, such as those who know the situation on the Continent. If any of us who are interested in this matter, especially those who come from the Churches' Council on Gambling, which has a wide knowledge of all the effects, can be of any help to the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary, we shall be only too glad to give what advice and aid we can. I only hope that the Government will not wait too long. I know the dangers of rushed legislation. None of us wishes for that. At the same time, these situations can easily consolidate themselves, and when we try to reform we are told that the situation has gone too far and that it is impossible to do anything about it. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will be able to put before us their proposals for dealing with this serious situation quite soon. It is with that hope that I beg leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TRANSPORT USERS' CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES BILL [H.L.]
7.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable Transport Users' Consultative Committees to consider all aspects, including financial, relevant to any railway closure and to report thereon to the Minister of Transport. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.