Sitting of 8 July 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LEVER PARK BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.
PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
WITHAM NAVIGATION COMPANY BILL [Lords]
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time and committed.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Joint Stock Banks (Overdraft Levels)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek statutory power to enforce his policy upon the joint stock banks with regard to overdraft levels.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): No, Sir.
    Mr. Ridley: Would not it be better if the Chancellor took power before telling other people what to do? Would not it also be easier for the banks if there were not two or three separate Departments, as at present, telling them to do contradictory things, as the Ministry of Agriculture did the other day?
    Mr. Diamond: There are powers, but it is far better to act on voluntary cooperation. As to giving instructions, instructions are given only by the bank.

    Money Supply
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the present policy of the Government on the supply of money.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I have nothing to add to what I said in my Budget speech and in the debate on the Letter of Intent.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the article in Economic Trends is a very inadequate picture on which to base fundamental economic change, and that the D.C.E., as explained in that article, represents only one small part of the domestic credit expansion? Will he further recall that it was shown by the answer to a Question which I put to him that there are several hundred million pounds which ought to be part of domestic credit expansion and which are not part of it? Will he, therefore, consider reviewing the whole basis, because it seems to be tending towards an economic joke designed only to humour the I.M.F.?
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not agree with that. I would not agree that any of these concepts is wholly satisfactory, but I think that the D.C.E. is probably the best measurement that we are able to get of domestic credit expansion, or of the money supply, without it being affected by the quirks of what happens in our overseas account.
    Sir G. Nabarro: As his target for aggregation of bank lending has now been achieved, and the total of hire-purchase debt is evidently stabilised, will the Chancellor now confirm that he has no further predatory intentions in regard to money supply?
    Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman very much likes five-syllable words, and I do not quite understand what he means by "aggregation" in this context. Does he mean the level of bank lending?
    Sir G. Nabarro: The total.
    Mr. Jenkins: If he means the total, it has not been achieved; it is at present about 1 per cent. over.
    Mr. Barnett: Has the Chancellor calculated the effect on unemployment, investment and growth of every £100 million which he takes out of domestic credit expansion, and how long it takes to become effective? If the answer is "Don't know", is not that all the more reason why he should be extremely cautious in his use of domestic credit expansion?
    Mr. Jenkins: No, because I think that this moves in the right direction. I do not believe that absolute precision is given to any of these matters.
    Mr. Alison: Does the Chancellor expect that the Government this year will be a net purchaser of gilt-edged from the non-bank private sector?
    Mr. Jenkins: There would be no purpose in my making a forecast of that. I indicated our policy on gilt-edged in the debate on the Letter of Intent, and I have nothing to add to that.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Are there any studies which show that there is a direct relationship in this country, as opposed to America, between the growth of the money supply and the pattern of inflation, unemployment and the growth of the national product?
    Mr. Jenkins: The article published in Economic Trends, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read, stated that this gave us an up-to-date indication, nothing more than an indication, of what was happening in the economy on most of those fronts.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has now made of the out-turn of the balance of payments in 1969.
    Mr. Speedasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he estimates a balance of payments surplus of £500 million will have been achieved in the preceding 12 months.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 23rd and 25th June.—[Vol. 785, c. 1001–10 and 1521–34.]
    Mr. Sheldon: While I understand that the Chancellor's reply was fairly recent and I do not wish to press him further on the precise levels expected this year, may I ask him to say something about the likely out-turn upon investment, and its effect as predicated from the figures that he has put forward on the balance of payments?
    Mr. Jenkins: I would not wish to revise the view of the course of investment which I gave in my Budget Statement. This took account of the possibility of some revising downwards of very optimistic assumptions which had been put forward earlier. Since then there have been a number of indications. The latest one published in the Financial Times yesterday morning was a favourable one.
    Mr. Amery: Would the Chancellor not agree that if he should fail to reach his target on the balance of payments, which could happen for reasons outside the Government's control as well as through their own responsibility, there would be no growth in the economy at all under the commitment into which he has entered in the Letter of Intent? Had he not better come clean and tell the House honestly that he has accepted a system of automatic deflation as rigid as the old gold standard?
    Mr. Jenkins: The answer to all parts of that question is "No, Sir".
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects to be able to announce the results of the general review on the presentation of the balance of payments.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Alternative methods of presentation are still being considered, and I am not yet in a position to say when an announcement will be made.
    Mr. Macmillan: Since the President of the Board of Trade has adopted the suggestion of isolating the United States aircraft, will the Chancellor consider adopting the other two suggestions that I made at the same time of publishing the quarterly figures for private investment and the quarterly figures for invisible trade? I understand that both those figures are available in the Treasury. Does he agree that this gives a better example of our trading position than the so-called estimated balance of visible trade monthly?
    Mr. Jenkins: The last time I endeavoured to give a comprehensive answer to a very long supplementary question by the hon. Gentleman, the House thought that the answer was getting rather long. Therefore, I will merely say that I will consider his proposals together with other proposals.
    Mr. Cant: Is there any precedent for a shadow Minister of Health asking over a long period such esoteric questions about very technical aspects of the balance of payments?
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Accepting the error on the export side, about which the Chancellor told the House, does not the size of the balancing item over the last few years make it more than likely that there may be an error on the import side of the ledger? Will the Chancellor assure us that he will pursue what may be an unfavourable error with a zeal equal to that with which he pursued the favourable one?
    Mr. Jenkins: I should most certainly pursue any error with equal zeal, but I am afraid that the results might disappoint the right hon. Gentleman in this respect. The size of the balancing item does not indicate anything of the kind. Indeed, it was the size of the balancing
    1136
    item which first led us to believe that there might be some error in the export figure. Anyone with experience of the attention which the Customs and Excise applies to incoming baggage compared with outgoing baggage will realise that imports are checked a good deal more carefully than exports.

    London Clearing Banks (Special Deposits)
    Mr. Huntasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to restore the recent cut in the rate of interest paid to the London clearing banks on their special deposits with the Bank of England.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: When they have collectively brought their restricted lending within the 98 per cent. ceiling.
    Mr. Hunt: Is not evidence accumulating that this latest form of squeeze has hit particularly hard small businesses which are unable to finance expansion from their own resources and which at the same time are not large enough to raise capital in the stock market? Will the Chancellor recognise that these small firms represent the lifeblood of our economy and that they are being very hard hit indeed by the recent measures?
    Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is not directed to his Question, which relates to the rate of interest paid to the banks on special deposits. Whether that rate were or were not restored, it would not affect the influence of the 98 per cent. ceiling on some firms. I do not entirely accept what he says. I recognise that any pressure on credit cannot be imposed without some hardship and cannot be done totally painlessly, but nor can any other measures to improve the balance of payments.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Chancellor not realise that this is as ineffective as caning a whole class because one or two of the boys have done something one does not like?
    Mr. Jenkins: It certainly does not look ineffective on the performance of last month's figures. Furthermore, the reason that we chose to proceed in this way is that the banks were asked whether

    1137
    they preferred a collective or an individual approach, and they in fact preferred a collective one.

    Company Profits
    Mr. William Priceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total of company profits in 1964 and 1968, respectively.
    Mr. Diamond: The provisional estimates published in the White Paper "Preliminary Estimates of National Income and Balance of Payments 1963–1968" indicate that the gross trading profits of the company sector, before providing for stock appreciation and depreciation, amounted to £4,616 million in 1964, and £5,194 million in 1968.
    Mr. Price: Has my right hon. Friend seen a document entitled "The Incredible Saga of Labour Failure", written by a bunch of deadbeat businessmen, and does he know that when I challenged them on their views their main complaint was that company profits had gone down under a Labour Government? Does that not suggest that they are totally incompetent, totally prejudiced, or both?
    Mr. Diamond: Treasury Ministers are, I regret to say, too busy to read this irrelevant literature. The gross trading figures are the figures I have given. In terms of percentages of gross national product, in order to give the whole of the facts it is right to say that the figure in 1964 of gross trading profits of companies was 15·8 per cent. of total domestic income, and in 1968 it was 14·1 per cent.
    Mr. Costain: Could the Chancellor tell the House how much extra the Government have collected in tax owing to the rise in profits?
    Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, I shall be delighted to give him the answer.
    Mr. William Priceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the effects of Government policy on the present level of company profits; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Diamond: I am satisfied that the level of company profits is in general
    1138
    adequate to support a high rate of fixed investment and of economic activity.
    Mr. Price: Then could my right hon. Friend say what the Opposition are complaining about?
    Mr. Diamond: The only complaint I have heard from anybody opposite is that there was a Mowbray pie which was slightly indigestible.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Could the Minister confirm that over this period corporate profits in this country as a proportion of gross domestic product have been declining, whereas in the United States the corporate profits as a proportion of G.D.P. have been growing? Is this not an extremely disturbing factor? Does it not partially explain the growth of the tendency towards the colonisation of European and British firms by giant firms in the United States?
    Mr. Diamond: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is omitting the obvious explanation that in the United States they have not had the good fortune which we have enjoyed in this country of the transfer from the private to the public sector in the period in question.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, although I myself and others of my hon. Friends support the Government's policy on prices and incomes, we find it increasingly difficult to support such policies when company profits go up by this extent? In five years £500 million in profits were made. Could we be shown that there has been some action to keep down these profits?
    Mr. Diamond: I appreciate and welcome my hon. Friend's continuing wholehearted support. But it was because I thought this to be an issue on which the whole of the facts ought to be known that I felt it right to give them in terms not only of absolute sums of money, but also in terms of the proportion of G.D.P.

    Selective Employment Tax
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Chairman of the Economic Development Corporation for the distributive trades about the recent increase in selective employment tax; and what reply he has sent.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): The Chairman of the E.D.C. wrote to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 28th April expressing regret at his decision to increase S.E.T. before Professor Reddaway had reported on the economic effects of the tax and asking for an assurance that no time would be lost in correcting anomalies as soon as the results of the inquiry were available. In his reply, my right, hon. Friend explained that he had to take his decision on the best information available to him and he gave an assurance that he would consider Professor Reddaway's findings very carefully.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Either before or after receipt of these findings, would the Government now admit that their argument that distribution has paid too little tax and manufacturing too much tax has been exploded by the fact that retailers themselves pay purchase tax and now must pay the increased S.E.T. as well?
    Mr. Taverne: No, this is not correct. S.E.T. is paid specifically on retailing activities, not purchase tax.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Could my hon. Friend give the House an idea when he expects Professor Reddaway's views to be put forward?
    Mr. Taverne: There is a separate Question on this matter later on the Order Paper.

    Nationalised Industries (Investment)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to raise the test rate of discount for appraising investment in nationalised industries.
    Mr. Diamond: A review of the rate is now in progress; I must ask the Hon. Member to await its outcome.
    Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman is a little late. Has he not heard that the interest rates have gone up since the 8 per cent. discount rate was fixed, and that they are now nearly 50 per cent. above what they were at that time? Will he hurry up in order to avoid a wrong distribution of resources in companies in the private sector?
    Mr. Diamond: I agree that this matter has to be dealt with expeditiously, and it is so being dealt with.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will set up an inquiry into ways of insulating domestic interest rates from fluctuations in international interest rates.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir.
    Mr. Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend agree that rises in interest rates mean that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and that most people who lend money at interest in this country have no intention of lending it ouside the country? It seems insane to them that changes in interest rates in New York should affect building society rates in this country. Will he look into the matter?
    Mr. Jenkins: I think that the relationship between interest rates and the distribution of income is probably somewhat more complex than my hon. Friend suggests, but I do not think that it would be possible to insulate ourselves from interest rates outside in the way he suggests.
    Mr. Barnettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The current level of interest rates in this country reflects the requirements of domestic economic and monetary policy as well as levels in financial centres overseas.
    Mr. Barnett: Is not the present level of interest rates alarming, particularly in view of the serious effect on investment decisions? Does not that stem from the United States monetary policy? Can my right hon. Friend say what discussions he is proposing to have with the United States with a view to seeing whether action can be taken to reduce the international level of interest rates?
    Mr. Jenkins: I keep in fairly close touch with the United States on these matters, as I do with other monetary authorities. I am not entirely convinced. This is a factor which could have an effect on investment decisions, but the fact -remains that with interest rates at what I think is a historically high level at present, investment plans are also at a very high level.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Now that the Chancellor has gone on record as saying that the increase in interest rates is in part due to deliberate Government policy, will he take responsibility for the £2½ million extra which the G.L.C. is having to find, on account of which it has put up its rates today?
    Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. For one thing, when local authorities borrow it is the case that they get substantial help from the Government in terms of interest rates. I also indicated that while probably the dominant factor is the level of international interest rates, two reasons why I cannot ignore this are the basic facts of the situation and that I believe it right to pursue a policy of credit stringency in this country.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: If the dominant factor is the international interest rates, how was it that in 1964 both the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party pretended that unilaterally they could bring down rates in this country?
    Mr. Jenkins: No. I think that they indicated that they could introduce something very near to the option mortgage scheme.
    Mr. Albu: In view of my right hon. Friend's estimates of investment and exports, are there indications that by the end of the year there will be spare capacity in the capital goods industries?
    Mr. Jenkins: It does not look as if there will be anything like approaching spare capacity in the capital goods industries. The indications are both that export orders are strong in this sector and that, with a fairly strong home investment demand, demand is stronger, as I would wish, in the capital goods sector than it is in the consumer goods sector.

    Bank Lending
    Mr. Barnettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on bank lending.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Yes, Sir. There was a fall, after seasonal adjustment, in lending by the main groups of banks, during the latest month for which information is available.
    Mr. Barnett: Because of the way that the bank facilities work is it not a fact
    1142
    that to an extent this is fortuitous? Does my right hon. Friend know to what extent the ceiling would have been exceeded if all the facilities had been used? Is he contemplating changing the system to something like the kind that they have in the United States where, instead of having facilities, there is fixed lending?
    Mr. Jenkins: The question of a change in the system would not be a matter for me but for bank practice. I could not give a figure of the position if all facilities were taken up. But it is the case that British banks have operated under this system for a long time. It should be possible for them to adjust their various commitments and the extent to which they are taken up so as to move rapidly towards the ceiling, as they have in the past month, though not in preceding months.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: As the right hon. Gentleman is penalising those banks which do not restrict their lending to 98 per cent., will he consider modifying the penalty and applying it only to banks which do not reach the 98 per cent.? To take one example, Lloyds has got its lending down to 98 per cent., yet it has to take the cut in interest on special deposits. Surely it should apply only to banks which have not reached the 98 per cent.
    Mr. Jenkins: No. I dealt with that point in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith). I would have been perfectly agreeable to have applied the cut in interest rates to special deposits selectively if that had been thought a reasonable procedure by the banks. The banks preferred that the procedure should be adopted across the board with an equal cut for all banks.

    Government Research
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the proportion of Government research devoted to military development, health, agriculture, housing and industry, respectively, in the latest available 12 months.
    Mr. Taverne: With permission, I will publish a table and notes in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving as much of the information requested as is available.
    Mr. Allaun: Does not my hon. Friend think that £236 million a year on military research is excessive in view of the state of our country's economic health and in contrast with Government expenditure on research in these other respects?
    Mr. Taverne: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has announced that the amount spent on research and development on defence will be decreasing. In fact, it has decreased since 1964, from something like 60 per cent. to a forecast of something like 45 per cent. in the current year, but if forces are to be effectively equipped there must be adequate research and development.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Is not the weakness of the Question that while it is clearly the duty of the Government to look after defence, in the matter of housing there is a growing proportion who like to look after their own problems?
    Mr. Taverne: The hon. Gentleman has raised a different question, but one has to have regard to the meaning of "research and development" in the Question. In matters of research and development defence necessarily takes much more. In the matter of housing and kindred subjects, it is almost entirely research.
    Following is the information:

    PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN 1966–1967

    Classification of Spending*

    Gross central Government spending†

    All spending,

    100

    of which Defence

    51·5

    Civil:—

    Health and Welfare including spending by the Medical Research Council

    3·1

    Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, including spending by the Agricultural and the Natural Environmental Research Councils

    4·5

    Technology, including civil atomic energy

    24·6

    Balance

    16·3

    * The classification is taken from that used in Cmnd. 3936, Tables 1 and 2 and in the Financial Secretary's Memorandum on the estimates, Table IIA and proposed in Cmnd. 4017 for general use in future in White Papers on public expenditure.

    † Based on gross figures before taking credit for appropriations in aid: includes spending on Government support for research in Universities.

    Notes on the Table
    1966–67 is the latest year for which full figures of spending on research and development are available. The precentages in the Table are based on figures being prepared for the next issue of "Statistics of Science and Technology." Figures for central government spending do not distinguish research and development directed towards improved housing standards as such. This is because work in many fields (e.g. materials, heating systems) contributes to such improvements and the expenditure is classed under the technically most appropriate heading.

    Inland Revenue, Scotland (Income Tax Claims)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now satisfied that the Inland Revenue organisation in Scotland is coping with matters affecting income tax claims; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Taverne: I have no reason to believe that, given the volume of work, there has been any undue delay in handling income tax matters in Scotland.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this is the second time that I have raised this question? Would he not agree that it must give the Department some concern that the East Kilbride centre in particular should be subjected to so much criticism? Does he not agree that a case has been made out for an investigation?
    Mr. Taverne: I am aware of letters which my hon. Friend has forwarded to the Treasury. It would be unfair to blame the Revenue in each of those cases, though there have been mistakes. But this is a tremendous operation in East Kilbride, with something like 1 million P.A.Y.E. payers being dealt with at one centre instead of 65 centres. It is inevitable that such a major reorganisation should have some troubles.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman at least accept that the concentration of so many tax offices on the computer centre at East Kilbride makes it extremely inconvenient and expensive for the average person in West Scotland to call in at his tax office to discuss his affairs?
    Mr. Taverne: This relates to P.A.Y.E. When it comes to the kind of cases where people often have to discuss immediate affairs, such as Schedule D, it is not affected.

    Private Basic Balance
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give figures showing the private basic balance for the years 1958 to 1968, respectively.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir. The practical difficulties involved would be disproportionate to the value of the result.
    Mr. Macmillan: Is it not more accurate to say that the practical difficulties involved would not be as great if the Chancellor attached the right importance to this factor? The current private balance and the capital private balance taken together over the years have given a massive surplus on private account, indicating that it is Government spending which causes our difficulties. Why does the right hon. Gentleman continue to under-value the great contribution of the private sector to our balance of payments?
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not under-value it. But the practical difficulties are very real, particularly on the visible trade account where it would be extremely difficult to distinguish, as is not done at the moment, between imports on private and public account. Even on the invisible trade account, does the hon. Gentleman suggest, for example, that the earnings of the two air corporations should be on public or private account? If on public account, should payments the other way to air companies belonging to other companies be on private account while the other is on public account? There are great complications of this sort. On a more general point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Very well. I will leave it to a later Question.

    Companies (Money Management Policies)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will seek powers to control the money management policies of large companies whose actions adversely affect the position of sterling.
    Mr. Diamond: I see no need for powers additiontal to those contained in the Exchange Control Act, 1947, and the Income Tax Act, 1952.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that it is becoming realised more and more that international companies have facilities for moving money round the place—which may not be patriotic and is certainly derogatory to sterling but which none the less is an increasing practice? Will he look at the problem?
    Mr. Diamond: We have adequate powers to do so and naturally we are concerned to see that sterling does not suffer in any way.
    Mr. Barnett: Can my right hon. Friend specify the powers that he has? Did he see the recent article which alleged that international companies are manipulating funds and profits across the exchanges? Can he tell us what powers he has and what evidence he has of the truth of these allegations?
    Mr. Diamond: Yes. I saw the article. To answer my hon. Friend's question about the powers that we have, there are three main ones. The first is the control of the purchase and holding of foreign currency. The second is the control of investment both outward and inward. The third is the power to require proper and prompt payment for exports. As for the Income Tax Act, the Revenue has power to prevent a company resident for tax purposes from gaining any tax advantage by artificially pricing goods sold to associated companies overseas.

    World Cup Competition, Mexico (Travel Allowance)
    Mr. Huntasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has agreed to give a preferential foreign travel allowance to holders of tickets for the 1970 World Cup competition in Mexico.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds sanction has been given for a £150 per head travel allowance to 8,000 persons intending to attend the Association Football World Cup Competition in Mexico in 1970.
    Mr. Taverne: This is a special occasion similar, in its popular importance and its duration, to the Olympic Games for which like arrangements have been made on previous occasions. The arrangement was agreed last year to enable bookings to be made.
    Mr. Hunt: Does it not tend to bring the regulations into disrepute when spectators of one particular sport are allowed a special privilege of this kind? Or could it be that, by the time the World Cup games are played in Mexico next year, these miserable and miserly restrictions will be swept away?
    Mr. Taverne: First, this does not apply to one particular sport. It applied to the Olympic Games as well. It was applied by the Conservative Government when they had these regulations in force as it has been applied by this Government.
    I have no doubt that the footballers concerned will gain if some supporters from this country are there. It would be impossible for supporters to attend if this provision did not exist.
    Mr. Shinwell: How does this relate to the policy of the squeeze? Is it an aspect of the squeeze policy? Can my hon. Friend explain why the Treasury provides this preferential treatment? Am I not as much entitled to the allowance as anybody else, even though I am not interested in the World Cup?
    Mr. Taverne: If my right hon. Friend was interested in the Olympic Games he could get a special allowance. Without a special allowance it would be impossible for anyone to attend something which lasts as long as three weeks.

    Non-Scheduled Territories (Remittances)
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why nonresidents working in the United Kingdom are allowed by regulation to remit to non-scheduled territories up to £1,000 per annum; and why residents may remit only £50 per annum.
    Mr. Taverne: The two types of payment are not comparable. It is reasonable, and in accordance with international practice, to allow non-residents who hold a permit to work here temporarily to remit home savings arising from their earnings after tax has been paid. The annual amount which a resident may remit as gifts will be reconsidered at the same time as the travel restrictions but amounts in excess of £50 are permitted in cases of hardship.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: If foreign exchange is as short as we are told, why should there be this discrimination against our own people? Is it not a fact that many foreign workers in this country, when they are nearing the three-year period when they are liable to be treated as residents, go away for a month or two and come back and start another three years at the £1,000 a year rate?
    Mr. Taverne: This is a two-way process. These foreign workers can, after all, come here only if there are no British workers available in that particular area. If we prevent them sending home part of their earnings, the same would apply to our workers who go overseas.

    City Banks (Speculation)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the result of his investigation into speculation by city banks in this country which covered the week in early May when speculation on a Deutsche mark revaluation reached its peak; and what steps he now proposes to take.
    Mr. Diamond: The investigation has not yet been completed.
    Mr. Eadie: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is not enough that speculators should get their fingers burned, but that organisations and individuals should be named to let the British people know who really are stabbing them in the back?
    Mr. Diamond: First, we must find out whether there were any individuals before naming them.

    Economic Expansion
    Mr. Dickensasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the rate of economic expansion in the United Kingdom in 1969–70.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I would refer my hon. Friend to the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1969–70" and to my speech in the debate on the Letter of Intent on 25th June.
    Mr. Dickens: May I ask my right hon. Friend to make it clear to the House and to the country that this in fact means that Britain will enjoy a lower level of economic expansion in 1969 than in 1968,

    1149
    and can he now say what the effect of this will be on the level of unemployment this coming winter?
    Mr. Jenkins: It could also be said that it means that Britain will enjoy a higher level of growth in 1968 and 1969 combined than in any two successive years for some considerable time past.
    Concerning the level of unemployment, it is never the practice to give precise forecasts. But I remember that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on this side and some hon. Gentlemen opposite were pessimistic at this time last year, and their pessimism proved ill-founded.
    Mr. Higgins: In view of the Chancellor's extraordinary statement in answer to a previous question, that the article in Economic Trends on monetary policy suggested that it did no more than provide an early indication of the way that the economy is going, may I ask him to appreciate that a rapid change round in the quantity of money of the kind he is envisaging is likely to have a serious effect on economic growth and that this is consistent with the view of Professor Milton Friedman?
    Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman has obviously been cogitating that answer for some time because it was given in reply to my first question. But he may have been cogitating it upon a false basis, because I did not say that this was the only effect of the squeeze on domestic credit expansion. I was discussing how far it was an indication of what was happening in the economy. A particular level also affects what is happening in the economy as well as telling us what is happening.

    Overseas Investment
    Mr. Dickensasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps he proposes to reduce the outflow from the United Kingdom of private investment abroad.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Exchange control measures and the voluntary programme are working well in minimising the burden imposed on the reserves by overseas investment, although a good deal of investment in the sterling area is designedly outside the scope of the voluntary programme. The Government have no proposals for modifying existing arrangements.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last year—a year allegedly of economic crisis—the gross export of capital from this country at £621 million was the highest in any single year since the war and that the trend has continued in the first quarter of 1969? Does he not appreciate that the seed corn of this country is an industrial investment at home and that it makes sheer nonsense to build up Australia at the expense of economic expansion in Britain?
    Mr. Jenkins: I have told my hon. Friend so many times—and I apologise for wearying the House with it again—that it is not valid to look at one side of the account and not to look at the other side or to believe that we can alter one side of the account without altering the other. The fact remains that in the four quarters from 1st April, 1968, to 31st March, 1969, we were in exact capital balance on private account.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Does the Chancellor realise that none of these persisting questions would be forthcoming if he attended to the obstinately continuing high level of our imports? Why, last week, did the right hon. Gentleman refuse the National Ecomonic Development Council's reasonable request for a successful import substitution committee?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am sure that, whatever I did, supplementary questions totally irrelevant to the original Question would still be forthcoming from the hon. Gentleman.

    Gilt-Edged Prices
    Mr. Biffenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to control gilt-edged prices in the light of current international interest rates.
    Mr. Diamond: None, Sir. I see no reason for departing from the policies followed by the authorities in the management of the gilt-edged market.
    Mr. Biffen: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the Bank of England Quarterly Review which suggests that for the first quarter of this year the Government Broker had ceased to be a buyer of last resort for gilt-edged? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a welcome reform which will recommend itself to Professor Friedman?
    Mr. Diamond: I am grateful for the information which the hon. Gentleman has given me.
    Ms. Cant: Will my right hon. Friend consider, in respect of the gilt-edged market, using not one Government broker, but a number of Government brokers, to reduce the psychological impact, and will he say whether, in his reorganisation of the gilt-edged market, he will buy out the private owners of gilt-edged generously and make it more of a professional market, as it is in the United States?
    Mr. Diamond: I shall consider what my hon. Friend has put to me, as I always do.

    International Debts (Settlement)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to discuss with the Italian monetary authorities the present arrangements for settling international debts.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: None, apart from the normal exchanges of views on monetary matters generally in bodies such as the I.M.F. and the Group of Ten.
    Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. Carli, the Governor of the Bank of Italy, has now joined the growing throng of those who advocate more flexible exchange rates? Would not it be a happy occasion if the Treasury gave some indication of its intended conversion to this policy?
    Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. I am aware of Dr. Carli's views, which I study with close attention, but I do not think that this bears on the question of special bilateral discussions with the Italian Government about matters of international debt.

    Magazines (Seizure)
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has completed consideration of the naturist magazines seized from Mr. Jack Gray, the publisher; why they were seized in view of the fact that they are on sale throughout London; and when he will return them.
    Mr. Taverne: These particular magazines were seized and condemned as being within the statutory prohibition on
    1152
    the importation of obscene articles, and they have now been destroyed.
    Mr. Hamling: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that magazines of this sort are on sale all over London, and all over the country? Why pick on this importer? This matter has cost him several thousands of £s. Having seen the magazines, and similar ones, I cannot see that these harmless magazines do anyone any harm.
    Mr. Taverne: The reason they were seized and condemned was that they were of a kind similar to those which have been condemned by the courts as obscene. There may be similar magazines on sale which have escaped the Customs. If my hon. Friend would like to send them to me, I shall look at them.

    Germany (Exports)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the scale of the continuing West German payments surplus on current account, he will initiate discussions with the Federal German Government with a view to international agreement on quantitative limitations on German exports to countries in payments deficit.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the German Government are as much in need of external encouragement and assistance in correcting a persistent surplus position as the British Government are in correcting a persistent deficit position? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the suggestion in the Question would be infinitely preferable to a generalised slide into protectionism which might follow from failure to correct these underlying imbalances?
    Mr. Jenkins: Whether or not I agree with the hon. Gentleman's premises, I do not think that a scheme of highly doubtful practicability, which would not commend anything approaching international agreement, would be the right way to deal with this problem.

    Taxation (Self-Assessment)
    Mr. David Howellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies he

    1153
    has made with a view to introducing self-assessment as the basis for personal tax collection.
    Mr. Diamond: The Inland Revenue keep under review the tax systems of other countries, including those where there is self-assessment; but my right hon. Friend has no present intention of introducing it here.
    Mr. Howell: In that case, has the Chief Secretary noted that the United States tax authorities succeed in collecting tax from three times as many taxpayers as the British tax authority, but with roughly the same number of staff as the Inland Revenue? As this arises largely from their self-assessment system, will the right hon. Gentleman see that tax simplification in this country is pursued vigorously so that we can get the same sort of labour-saving and cost-effective system?
    Mr. Diamond: Of course one would welcome any increase in labour-saving and cost-effectiveness, but, as the hon. Gentleman who knows these matters well is fully aware, there are other arguments to be taken into account, including the very high level of penalties, publishing of figures, and things like that. I do not think, especially having regard to the amount of tax deducted at source that we have in this country, that there would be anything like the same labour saving.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the introduction of a system of self-assessment would also involve the general introduction of P.A.Y.E. and the abolition of Schedule D? Would this be welcome on the benches opposite. If so, would he introduce it?
    Mr. Diamond: I am always anxious for tax simplification, but the difficulty about this is that every right hon. and hon. Member is against it as soon as the tax affairs of an individual constituent, and the egality of treatment of that constituent, are affected.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to convene a conference, under his chairmanship, of Prime Ministers in the European Economic Community and the European Free
  1154
  Trade Association countries for discussions about European unity following the election of the new French President.
  Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister if he will seek further support from European Heads of State for the Declaration on Europe signed by the United Kingdom and the Republic of Italy.
  Mr. Luardasked the Prime Minister whether he will undertake a further round of visits to Common Market capitals to discuss Great Britain's application to join the Community.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have no plans at present either for convening a conference of European Prime Ministers or for a tour of Common Market capitals.
  On the Declaration on Europe my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made it clear at the signature ceremony on 28th April that we welcome the adhesion to the Declaration of other countries who desire to see a free and united Europe.
  Mr. Marten: Can the Prime Minister say whether the original assurances given to our E.F.T.A. partners if we join the Common Market still stand? Second, can he say why it should be a disservice to the House of Commons if the cost of Britain's joining the Common Market is revealed, which he said the other day?
  The Prime Minister: On the first question, there is no change in the position relating to E.F.T.A. I have had an opportunity of discussing this very point with the Swedish Prime Minister, and indeed with others concerned, in the last two or three days.
  With regard to the second question, as I repeated to the hon. Gentleman—I think I answered a supplementary question by him, or by another hon. Gentleman, on 10th June—the problem is not that it is a disservice to give figures but that it is almost impossible to give an accurate figure at the present time, particularly when the Common Market itself has to make its own fresh arrangements in respect of agriculture under the Treaty of Rome.
  Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend will recall that in the Declaration on Europe

  1155
  there was a commitment to increase aid to developing countries, and, second, a commitment that the European institutions should be sustained by an elected European Parliament. On the first, can my right hon. Friend see any immediate increase in European aid to developing countries? On the second, will the democratisation of European institutions be a part of the negotiations for us to enter Europe?
  The Prime Minister: On the first question, I have nothing to add to what has been said so far as Britain is concerned in recent debates on the question of aid, though it has been generally agreed that if Europe becomes economically stronger as a result of closer integration this will be of direct help to all developing countries who rely on Europe for assistance.
  On the second question, the position—and this is referred to in the Declaration—is that we accept the democratic institutions set out in the Treaty of Rome. It does not go beyond that point so far as other political institutions in Europe are concerned.
  Mr. Luard: Whatever procedure is used by the Government to reactivate our application, is it not the case that the negotiations which will take place among the Common Market countries about the financing of the common agricultural policy will be of vital importance to the interests of this country, and is it not essential that we should be in a position to express our views on this policy as early as possible?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, in the last few days I have been discussing this with the Foreign Minister of Germany, as well as with the Swedish and Finnish Prime Ministers. I do not believe that it is right for us at this time to take any further initiative in this matter. It is now a matter for the Six themselves who are due to meet this month, and who have a number of important decisions to take about their own affairs later in the year. My hon. Friend may have seen that in my hearing yesterday the German Foreign Minister made it clear that it was his view that in the further consideration of agricultural matters by the Six his colleagues within the Six would be wise to bring Britain and other applicant countries into consultation.
  Sir C. Osborne: Would not it be better to try to build a real united Europe, stretching from the Urals to the Atlantic, rather than struggle to get into a half-united Europe, which will permanently divide Europe?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman wants to split the Soviet Union down the middle, as his geographical proposals would do. I do not think that there is any desire of the part of the Soviet Union and others to join an integrated economic community of this kind, but the hon. Member will be aware of the initiative taken by N.A.T.O. in Iceland last year, and repeated in Washington, in favour of much closer relations aimed at a détente between Western and Eastern Europe. These are two separate problems, and I probably carry the hon. Gentleman with me in saying that I think that both are important.
  Mr. Jay: Do I understand that the Government propose to embark on negotiations with the E.E.C. at a time when the Prime Minister now says that it is impossible to estimate the economic consequencies?
  The Prime Minister: Our application has been made and it remains in. The reason why I said that it is impossible to make a calculation on certain aspects of agricultural financing is that two things are necessary. First, the Common Market has to take decisions itself. After all, when its members complain about having to feed butter back to cows, that would suggest that they recognise that there are difficulties for themselves to settle. Second, of course, it has always been understood, from the time when my right hon. Friend was a member of the Cabinet, that the final cost would depend very much on the progress of our negotiations on agricultural financing, as opposed to agricultural policy.
  Mr. Jennings: In any future talks which the right hon. Gentleman might have on this subject, will he make it clear that he is not prepared to commit this country to joining a politically federated Europe?
  The Prime Minister: I have answered that question very many times. My understanding of the Treaty of Rome—I am glad to have had it confirmed by

  1157
  some of my colleagues yesterday—is that the only political implications of joining the economic community are those set out in the Treaty of Rome, which relate specifically to the institutions of the treaty. Ideas which others may have had that to join means an automatic commitment to some kind of political or defence federation are not justified, either by the treaty or by the present Ministers responsible for running the treaty.
  If the House could bear with me for one moment, I should like to quote from the statement made by Herr Willi Brandt yesterday, which was important in this context, and might clear up a lot of doubt, He said:
  "We said in 1967 that we had always agreed that the Communities' institutions would develop and that their activities would expand to wider fields beyond the activities covered by the existing Treaties. We cannot forecast exactly how these matters will develop, but once we are admitted to the Communities, we shall be willing to discuss and agree with our partners the steps needed to make Europe further integrated."
  He made it clear that political unity in Europe would not be done by established machinery.
  Mr. Grimond: While accepting what the right hon. Gentleman said about the extreme difficulties about the calculations, may I ask, in view of the fact that various figures are being bandied about in the Press, whether it would not be advisable for him to give some estimates, on certain assumptions, of the effects of joining the Common Market on specific fields like agriculture and the balance of payments?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; as soon as it is meaningful to do so, I agree that all the information available should be given. I must apologise to the House. The section which I read from the speech of Herr Brandt was the wrong one and I think that it is important to get on record what he said. He said that economic integration
  "…does not lead automatically to political union. This differs very much from the view which was predominant when the Treaty of Rome was put on paper. The view which is shared by many today, and I belong to those who share it, is that, of course, economic integration has certain political results, but for what has been called political integration, leading to more than inter-governmental cooperation in the field of developing common views on world politics, this demands special
  1158
  activity, something in addition to what is done in the economic field, and it demands also eventually an apparatus of its own."
  This was the particular quotation which I had in mind.
  Mr. J. T. Price: But is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing body of opinion in the House that Britain's entry into the Common Market in the context of contemporary European politics is a non-runner? Is he aware that those who persistently back non-runners at a racecourse are a godsend to the bookmakers—whoever they may be in the context of our own affairs? Is he further aware that many of us are greatly disturbed—although we are by no means "Little Englanders"—at the prospect of any further erosion of British sovereignty in European or world affairs, because we should like better evidence that those now running the Economic Community are better able to solve their own problems before they start trying to solve ours?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend said that he was worried, but he did not sound a bit worried. But when he said that he felt that this would be a non-runner in the present state of European politics, I was not sure whether he was referring to certain economic problems in the Treaty of Rome or to various political developments in the countries concerned. On economics, I have referred, as the House knows, to the serious difficulties within the Six on agriculture. After all, many in all parts of the House among those who most strongly wanted to join the Common Market have warned about some of the agricultural developments for many years—[Interruption.]—like many of us, over many years, including our negotiations in 1967. But if my hon. Friend is referring to political difficulties in Europe, I should have thought that the case for a closer political integration of Britain and Europe on many questions, going far beyond economics, might be the best protection against the danger which he so clearly foresees.
  Mr. Heath: In the first quotation which the Prime Minister produced—which, if I recollect correctly, came from one of his own speeches—he said, rightly, that any implications for sovereignty in the economic field are clearly defined under the Treaty of Rome and that any political

  1159
  developments would require a fresh treaty or fresh negotiations. To remove any confusion, would he say what the Government's present view is of any further developments in the political field outside the Treaty of Rome which would require a new treaty, and whether they would be federal, confederal or non-federal arrangements?
  The Prime Minister: The quotation was not from one of my speeches or from one of the right hon. Gentleman's, but what I read later was exactly what Herr Brandt said, on the record yesterday, in my hearing. What he said then is what I think a number of us in all parts of the House have said—that there is no automatic obligation to any political federation or any separate kind of political unity by signing or adhering to the Treaty of Rome. But many of us feel that there is a case for developing institutions towards political unity in Europe. I think that the right answer, therefore, in the first instance, is what Her Majesty's Government are doing, with, I think, the support of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—namely, invoking the machinery of the W.E.U. for closer political contacts. None of this implies any automatic commitment to a federal or confederal Europe.

  LUXEMBOURG (VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER)
  Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to pay an official visit to Luxembourg.
  The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so at present, Sir.
  Mr. Evans: When the right hon. Gentleman does next go to Luxembourg to seek support for British entry of the Common Market, will he reflect that, with a population of only 330,000, Luxembourg succeeds in maintaining a viable and prosperous autonomous life? Is he aware that Wales should enjoy a comparable status, and that the Welsh people view with alarm the possibility of entering the Common Market as long as the Welsh people have not a status comparable with that of Luxembourg?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman fully understands the attitude of Luxembourg to these ques
  1160
  tions. It is true that it is a small country and that in almost the whole period since the war it has been economically integrated with Belgium and the Netherlands in Benelux, which itself forms part of the Common Market. The hon. Gentleman will also recognise that, in terms of the pure geography, not to mention history, of Luxembourg, it is part of a highly prosperous coal and steel community. I think that about four-fifths of its earnings depend on the integrated coal and steel community of which the Luxembourg area forms only a part.

  UNITED STATES MILITARY AIR BASES (SECURITY)
  Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to hold discussions with President Nixon about security arrangements at United States military air bases in Great Britain.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mrs. Short: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that a short time ago there was an incident which might have ended in serious tragedy for this country? If the American serviceman who decided to take a 'plane had headed not out to sea but towards, for example, the Soviet Union, might not great difficulties have been created for this country? In view of this, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the whole matter and take it up with President Nixon?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that that suggestion would be helpful in this case. The American authorities are holding a very detailed inquiry into the matter. I am aware of the concern that is felt in the House, and more widely, about this incident. Indeed, it was the subject of an Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) not long ago in the small hours, when these anxieties were expressed by the hon. Gentleman and when my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Equipment dealt with these matters.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the Prime Minister aware that locally there has been great concern about the security arrangements for these aircraft but that the answers that were given by his hon. Friend to that Adjournment debate were

  1161
  perfectly adequate, were well received and that there is no longer the anxiety to which the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) referred?
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. It was clear from his speech in that debate that he was reflecting the great anxiety on the part of his constituents and others living in that area. As my hon. Friend said in reply to that debate, apart from his comments about security arrangements, we cannot at this stage be clear about what further safeguards will be instituted by the United States authorities until their inquiries have been completed.

TATE GALLERY
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
The House will recall that earlier this year the Tate trustees presented their proposals for a substantial expansion of the Gallery on its existing site. Because of the limited amount of land available, they proposed to develop the vacant north-west corner of the site and also to build across the front of the Gallery. The scheme which was drawn up by the architects provided a skilful solution to the problem, but it would have involved the demolition of the portico and steps. As the House knows, there were sharply divided reactions to this proposal.
The Government fully accept that the Gallery urgently needs additional space for its growing collection so that more pictures and sculpture can be displayed and supporting facilities and amenities improved. We therefore decided, as I told the House in reply to Questions on 20th February, to examine afresh the possibilities of making available to the trustees some of the adjacent land occupied by the Queen Alexandra's Military Hospital and associated buildings.
A further review of military hospital requirements in London and the home counties has now been completed. It has long been recognised that the Queen Alexandra's Military Hospital and the Royal Herbert Hospital, at Woolwich, must either be modernised or rebuilt. We have decided to build on Army land at
1162
Woolwich a new 500-bed hospital to replace both these hospitals. The Royal Army Medical Corps will have the facilities there to maintain the high reputation it has already achieved at Millbank.
This decision enables the Government to make available to the trustees the site occupied by the hospital at Millbank. This should meet the requirements of the Gallery for a long time to come. It will also enable the trustees to realise their aim to display their collection of modern art in modern galleries.
The way is now clear for the trustees to draw up revised plans to develop the north-west corner of the present site and the Government are prepared for building to start as soon as the trustees are ready. The construction of the new military hospital is, of course, a major undertaking, but we expect the Millbank site to be available by 1975, and planning for the new gallery and hospital can start at once.
Two very generous gifts are being made which are linked with the new building on the hospital site. As is already known, Mr. Henry Moore is presenting a large collection of his sculpture to the nation, subject only to one condition about the provision of additional gallery space.
The second gift I am happy to announce this afternoon. To mark the centenary of the birth of its founder, the Calouste Gulkenkian Foundation has just decided to give £1¼ million to the Tate for the construction of a gallery which will house temporary exhibitions and will bear its founder's name. This is the largest single grant that has ever been made by the Foundation in the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Heath: We are glad that the Government have been able to give further consideration to the question of the Mill-bank site and are making more satisfactory arrangements for the Tate Gallery. We also welcome the new gift from the Gulbenkian Foundation; and we have already welcomed Mr. Henry Moore's gift of his own sculpture.
Would the right hon. Gentleman answer a number of questions on this issue? First, will the Government be making available the whole site at Mill-bank? I ask this because the right hon. Gentleman referred to a part of the site.

1163
Secondly, will the new Gulbenkian Gallery be part of the north-west development, or will it be part of the Mill-bank site? Thirdly, in the revised plans for the north-west corner, to which the Prime Minister referred, will the trustees ensure that the portico remains, remembering that the portico was the main matter of controversy in the last plans? Fourthly, what will be the total cost of the new scheme? Fifthly, if the site is to be made available in 1975, what do the Government and the trustees visualise will be the completion date of the new Tate?
The Prime Minister: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question about the site in general is that the whole hospital site will be made available to the Tate trustees; though, of course, the college will remain until further decisions are taken about that. However, that will not inhibit the planning and other work which must now be done.
The answer to his question about the Gulbenkian bequest is that a special gallery will be built. This will be a matter for the trustees and architects to draw up new plans. It is intended that when these plans are available they should be put on public exhibition so that, once again, all members of the public can express to the trustees and the planning authorities their views on the exact proposals.
As for the newly-designed plans, I do not think that it is for the Government specifically to say that the portico and steps must be retained. However, since, the whole problem arose from public feeling about the loss of the portico and steps, and since there was a strong expression of view by those who, having seen the plans, said that the portico and steps should be retained, I believe that most of us would expect that one result of more land being available will be a guarantee of maintenance of the portico and steps.
To answer the right hon. Gentleman's question about the date, I agree that I mentioned 1975. While, naturally, we would like to see an earlier date, the right hon. Gentleman will understand the tremendous complications there are in building a new hospital and the need to do it economically and maintain the services meanwhile. That is why it can
1164
not be done earlier. We will now want to get down with the trustees to working out the plans and time-table for the whole operation.
Mr. Heath: If the site becomes available in 1975, the construction of the main part of the new Gallery will obviously take us into the second half of the 'seventies and the beginning of the 'eighties, and that is when the cost will fall due. Has an estimate been made of the cost of the new development on the Millbank site?
The Prime Minister: Two elements are involved in the cost, the biggest of which is the reconstruction of the hospital in Woolwich. It is expected that the cost of that will be about £6 million. But against that must be set the fact that about £3¼ million would be required to modernise the existing Millbank and Woolwich hospitals if we proceeded with the idea of keeping these rather ancient hospitals alive and sought to modernise them within the present buildings. Thus, roughly speaking, the cost of the hospital will be something under £3 million net, after making that calculation.
The new Tate proposals are not expected to cost more than the original proposals; that is, about £2 million in all. That, of course, excludes the hospital and is the cost of the Tate itself. The Government are making a basic contribution of £850,000 towards this, plus a special contribution, which has already been announced, of £200,000 towards the cost of housing Mr. Henry Moore's generous gift of his own sculpture. The remainder of the cost will be met partly from the expected financial gift and partly from funds to be raised through a public appeal by the trustees.
Mr. Strauss: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone interested in the future of the Tate and this part of the river bank will be deeply grateful to the Government for reviewing their previous decision as a result of public criticism? Is it proposed to preserve the open space in front of and around the Tate, since it was the preservation of these, rather than the possible destruction of the facade, which aroused strong feeling and which are exceedingly important?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said. He was quite correct in what he

1165
said about the effect on public opinion of these decisions. While no firm decision has been taken, we should certainly expect that the open space would be maintained. The fact that we have now been able to provide additional acreage through the removal of the hospital makes this a real possibility.
Mr. Pardoe: Is the Prime Minister aware that we on the Liberal bench welcome his statement wholeheartedly and wish to add our thanks to Mr. Henry Moore and to the Gulbenkian Foundation? Can the Prime Minister undertake to look in just as enlightened a fashion at other military occupations in central London?
The Prime Minister: I think that that is a different question.
Mr. MacDermot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision will give great satisfaction to all the Tate Gallery's many friends, not only in this country but in others? Can he say whether his reference to the plan for the extension of the north-west corner means that nothing in the decision he announced today will impede in any way further extension of the north-west corner and also any further necessary modifications of the existing building? I am not speaking of the front, which should be preserved.
The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend's question is correctly based. It is not intended that anything should impede the plans for going ahead with the north-west corner, or that there should be any hold-up on the other part of the announcements which have been made and which have not proved to be contentious.
Mr. Robert Cooke: The Prime Minister will know that the hospital site is quite separate from the present Tate Gallery site. Will he look at the possibility of in some way linking the new site with the old building—possibly by reorganising the roads—so that we can have perhaps the finest gallery of modern art in Europe?
The Prime Minister: The trustees are responsible, together with their architectural advisers, for getting the best possible plans. Up to now, they have been severely inhibited by lack of space and the need to find more exhibition space. That is why they made some of the proposals which have caused such a sharp reaction. There have been suggestions about closing one of the roads. I do not think that this is widely acceptable to the trustees, but they will certainly note the comment made by the hon. Member.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even those of us who thought the proposals for rebuilding on the old site made the best of a bad job believe that the new proposals he has announced give the opportunity of making the best of a thoroughly good job and that it is widely believed that the possibilities now available make the proposals not too bad? May I add my voice to the congratulations given to the Government?
Mr. Pavitt: In view of the fact that St. Thomas's Hospital and Westminster Hospital are still in the process of rebuilding, was consideration given to transferring the Millbank hospital beds to be incorporated perhaps at a cost of less than £3 million?
The Prime Minister: No, I do not think that that was a solution that would have been acceptable. The two military hospitals needed fundamental modernisation or total rebuilding and it was thought better to combine them on the single site on land held by the Army in Woolwich. It was not thought right to link this already complicated question with the inevitable delays it may have involved with the rebuilding proposals referred to by my hon. Friend.

TATE GALLERY
  NEW MEMBER SWORN
  Wallace Leslie Lawler, esquire, for Birmingham, Ladywood.

LICENSING OF MARRIAGES ON UNLICENSED PREMISES
3.45 p.m.
Mr. Victor Goodhew: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit marriages on unlicensed premises; and for purposes connected therewith.
The Bill which I seek leave to introduce is not as sweeping or far-reaching as it sounds. On the contrary, it is a very limited Bill with a very limited scope, designed to enable marriages to take place in premises other than a church or registry office in exceptional circumstances or grave emergency. The type of emergency I have particularly in mind is where one of the parties to an intended marriage is desperately ill in hospital.
The present position is that, except by a special licence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, no marriage can lawfully be solemnized otherwise than according to the usages of the Jews or the Society of Friends in a place which is not a church of the Church of England, a place of public worship of some other denomination which has been registered for marriages, or the office of a superintendent registrar.
The special licence of the Archbishop of Canterbury meets the normal needs of Anglicans enabling an Anglican marriage to be solemnized at any time or place. Thus, a bedside marriage in hospital could normally be arranged for members of the Church of England without difficulty. But there is no similar power of dispensation for any other form of marriage. Anyone who is not an Anglican is unable to marry in such an emergency. The present law goes back to the Ecclesiastical Licences Act, 1533, when licensing power was taken from the See of Rome and given to the Church of England. Indeed, it was part of the break from Rome, but today there are many people, not only Roman Catholics but adherents to a variety of churches and religions, who are denied this dispensation which is available to Anglicans.
As an Anglican myself I cannot believe that this is right or just. It is not merely a question of the other churches which are indigenous to this country. Today, there are many immigrants and descendants of immigrants who adhere to other
1168
religions, such as Muslims and Sikhs and there are those who would wish to have a civil ceremony, be they divorced Anglicans or perhaps persons who have no religion. At present, they are all denied the possibility of a lawfully solemnized marriage if they are unable to attend a place of public worship licensed for the purpose or the office of a superintendent registrar.
I emphasise that the Bill would not interfere in any way with the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury to issue his special licence for marriages according to the rites of the Church of England. But it would enable the Registrar-General to issue special licences similar to those issued to Anglicans by the Archbishop to all others, be they members of other denominations or of none.
The Registrar-General would be required to satisfy himself as far as possible that there was no lawful impediment to the proposed marriage. He would also have to satisfy himself that the exceptional circumstances or emergency were such as to warrant the issue of a special licence and that the place at which the marriage was to take place was not unsuitable. There would be no question of special licences being issued to enable marriages to take place in unusual surroundings for purely frivolous reasons.
Indeed, the Registrar-General would himself be represented by a registrar who would be a witness at a religious ceremony, but would officiate in the case of a civil ceremony. There are occasional tragic cases where, because of the existing law betrothed persons are unable to marry before the death of one of them simply because of the physical impossibility of getting the one who is seriously ill to a church or registry office. This modest Bill would remove this unintended injustice.
I believe that it is, therefore, a humane and a just Bill. From what the Secretary of State for Social Services wrote in a letter to me on this subject I believe that it is a piece of legislation which he and the Registrar-General would wish to see enacted. I therefore commend it to the House in the hope that it will give me leave to introduce my Bill.
Mr. Speaker: The Question is—
Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Lady wish to oppose the giving of leave?
Mrs. Ewing: I seek to raise a point of order, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot take a point of order now. I will take it after I have put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Goodhew.

LICENSING OF MARRIAGES ON UNLICENSED PREMISES

  LICENSING OF MARRIAGES ON UNLICENSED PREMISES
  Bill to permit marriages on unlicensed premises; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 191.]
  Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order. I have no opposition to the Bill, Sir. It seems to be an excellent one in every respect. But, on a point of clarification, when a private Member introduces a Bill could it not be made clear whether the Bill relates to English or Scots law, because there is no situation under Scots law where the permission of the Archbishop of Canterbury is required to get married?
  Mr. Speaker: Now that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) has been given leave to bring in his Bill, it is a matter that the hon. Lady may discuss with him privately—and with the Archbishop of Canterbury, if necessary.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No. 2) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]
  3.55 p.m.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: May I make a humble representation to you, Mr. Irving, about your provisional selection—not for your immediate Ruling, because I imagine that you will wish to reflect about the matter, but so that you will know what is in our minds?
  We give our thanks to you for the care that you have devoted to this matter. There is a very long group of Amendments which you propose to take together, for both discussion and, apparently, Division. I notice that whoever has typed the provisional selection has punctuated it in such a way as to indicate that there is a difference between some of them, by putting a semi-colon at certain rests. This corresponds very broadly to our own feelings about it.
  Quite apart from the individual Amendments, we had intended—I speak only about Amendments in the names of myself and my hon. Friends—to deal with three quite separate groups of subjects. The Government say that the Report of the Boundary Commission should be suspended owing to the imminence of the local government decisions arising on the Redcliffe-Maud Report. We desire to raise three points on that by this group of Amendments.
  First, there are, quite apart from Schedule 2, a number of constituencies of abnormal size, and one group of Amendments deals with abnormally large constituencies. The second, which is dependent upon an amendment to the Long Title, deals with abnormally small constituencies. The third deals with constituencies round London. In our view, that group is entirely separate from the other two, because it is not dependent primarily upon the size of the constituencies.
  The Government have departed from the Boundary Commission, on the basis

  1171
  that they wish to keep the Boundary Commission's recommendations for London but to make a special job of the peripheral constituencies by way of adjustment. We have proposed a scheme which would enable us to give effect to the Boundary Commission's proposals for the periphery, not by way of adjustment, but by way of incorporation. We have reasons which we shall advance for suggesting that this is both better and more constitutional.
  The view which I would like you to reflect upon, Mr. Irving, is that these three groups should be dealt with separately, both for discussion and for Division, and that, if you were to go half way and not the whole way that I am asking you to do, the ones on the periphery of London should be taken separately, anyway.
  I am very grateful to you for listening to me, Mr. Irving. I am not pressing you to give an immediate Ruling. I merely make that as a submission for you to reflect upon.
  The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am most grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for making a submission to me. I am thinking very carefully about it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to make some private representations to me. I will let him know my decision as soon as possible.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No. 2) BILL
    Clause 1

      SUSPENSION OF REDISTRIBUTIONS TILL NEXT GENERAL REPORTS OF BOUND ARY COMMISSIONS, AND ACCELERA TION OF THOSE REPORTS
      Mr. Hogg: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out from '1969' to end of line 11.
      I understand that we are taking, at the same time, Amendment No. 2 in page 1, line 11, at end insert:
      Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the submission of reports under section 2(3) of that Act (reports relating to particular constituencies).
      That will be convenient to me if it is convenient also to the Committee.
      If I may have your indulgence, Mr. Irving, and that of the Committee, I
      1172
      want to address these general words to the Government and to the Committee by way of introduction, as to the attitude we are seeking to take. There was a considerable conflict of opinion between the two sides of the House on Second Reading. This conflict reflected the deep feelings which have been engendered on our side by the Bill, the depth and strength of which I do not seek in any way to disguise.
      However, we are not anxious to make, even if you were likely to allow us to make, Mr. Irving—I apprehend that you might at some stage intervene against us if we attempted to do so—these debates on Amendments in Committee into a series of Second Reading conflicts. On the contrary, we want the Committee stage to be a genuine Committee stage.
      This means that, although we do not accept, any more than we did on Second Reading, the principle of the Bill, we move our Amendments on the assumption that this has been passed. All our Amendments are designed in one way or another to improve the Bill, on the hypothesis which we make for proposing them that the Government's general case was made out, although we do not think that it was.
      By these Amendments we seek to import Section 2(3) of the principal Act into the Bill. The principal Act provides for periodic reviews by the Boundary Commissions, and it envisages that, in between the periodic reviews, a Commission may make interim reviews relating to particular constituencies. Section 2(3) provides that
      "Any Boundary Commission may also from time to time submit to the Secretary of State reports with respect to the area comprised in any particular constituency or constituencies in the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned, showing the constituencies into which they recommend that that area should be divided in order to give effect to the rules set out in the said Second Schedule".
      The rules set out in the Second Schedule are the familiar rules relating to local community boundaries, to electoral quota, numbers, and so on.
      4.0 p.m.
      That subsection has proved extremely valuable in the past. I am told that between 1954, when the last general review took place, and the present one there have been 28 interim reports and 28 Statutory Instruments following those

      1173
      reports. For the benefit of the curious, I may say that they are set out at length in Appendix B, page 72, of the English Boundary Commission Report. We regard that subsection as a valuable provision to add to the present Bill.
      The Government have said that they do not want to implement, either with or without modifications, the general provisions of the Boundary Commission Reports as contained in the published volumes. We do not agree, but that is what they have decided in introducing a Bill of this character. For this purpose, Clause 1 provides that, if the Secretary of State does not himself intervene under subsection (2) or subsection (4)—we shall come to that on another group of Amendments, so I do not discuss it here—the next general review of the Boundary Commission will not take place for another 10 years at a minimum, or 15 years at a maximum, from now.
      Admittedly, even now, 15 years after the last general review, there are constituencies which are already distorted. A later group of Amendments deals with those. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) pointed out that, by the time another 10 or 15 years had elapsed, the distortions, such as they are, will have tended to increase. My hon. Friend spoke of his own constituency as growing in a very few years, far fewer than the period envisaged under Clause 1, to 120,000 voters, a very largely distorted figure, and rather more than twice the electoral quota. I give that as an example of what we have in mind.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden told the House that he had drawn the attention of the Boundary Commission to that anomaly. It wrote back to him—it was leaving his constituency as it was at that stage, I think—and drew attention to its power to make an interim report under Section 2(3) of the principal Act, the subsection which we seek to reintroduce into play by our Amendment. My hon. Friend complained that, as the Bill was drawn at present, that letter would be wholly without avail.
      For the purpose of the Amendment, I assume that the Government are correct in wishing to suspend the general operation of the Boundary Commission Reports pending decisions on the
      1174
      Redcliffe-Maud proposals regarding local government. Well and good. But that means that, in the ordinary course of population shift, some of which is predictable and some not, constituencies will grow meanwhile more and more distorted even than they are after the 15-year delay since the last general review. On the Government's own assumptions, why should they not be the subject of interim reports under Section 2(3)?
      I treat this to some extent as a test of the Government's good faith in the matter. Let us take it that my hon. Friend is right—he said that he had figures to prove it and they were not disputed—in saying that his own constituency would grow in a very few years, before the lapse of the period provided for under Clause 1, to the figure of 120,000, a borough constituency more than twice that of the electoral quota for England, which is between 58,000 and 59,000 voters. Clearly, such a constituency can be sub-divided without prejudice to any surrounding constituencies. It can be turned into two. Manifestly, it ought to be turned into two.
      Accepting the Government's case that, as regards another periodic review or as regards implementation of the present Reports, they ought to wait until decisions are taken on the Redcliffe-Maud Report, can there be any reason in good faith why our Amendment should not be accepted? We think not.
      We can take the argument a stage further. Whereas the Boundary Commission, under the periodic review procedure, is bound to take account of local government boundaries, that is, existing local government boundaries, in its reflections under Section 2(3) of the principal Act, it is not bound in exactly the same way or to the same extent. Although, in making its recommendations, it is bound to give effect, if it makes an interim report, to the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Act—the considerations to which I have referred—in coming to a conclusion on whether it is to make an interim report at all it is entitled to take into account respresentations from the Government, from the Opposition, or from other interested parties, which would include in the ordinary course the extent to which, if at all, there is the probability of an upheaval of the kind which the Government

      1175
      apprehend should suspend the operation of the general periodic review.
      It follows, therefore, that the case for these two Amendments is wholly made out. Even making every concession and assumption which the Government asked us to make on Second Reading, we cannot see how they can decently refuse assent to the Amendment. If they do make concessions to us in this way, they can expect a quite different attitude from the Opposition to that which will inevitably be adopted if their approach is, "we shall not allow any concession at all, however reasonable it may appear or however overwhelming may be the considerations in support of it".
      We wish to play our part in the making of the Bill. We have expressed our view as to its constitutional propriety, but we do not wish the Committee stage to be coloured by the passion with which we dislike the principle. Our Amendments, particularly the two with which we are now dealing, are designed to meet the Government's full case and, at the same time, to improve the Bill with reasonable and just proposals.
      Mr. Keith Speed: I support the Amendment, but I would like to correct my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) on one matter. My constituency is not a borough constituency. It is not a county constituency either, but is a multi-county constituency, since it contains three county boroughs and two counties. This makes for considerable problems.
      My right hon. and learned Friend was good enough to mention some of my remarks on Second Reading. In considering the two Amendments before us it is very important to realise how interim reports could affect constituencies such as mine. I have persistently over the past few months—even as long ago as the Representation of the People Act last year—challenged the Home Secretary with the sort of situation that will arise in my constituency. I have had no answer so far, satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
      But the matter goes further than my own representations to the Boundary Commission. On 9th May this year the Commission, in reply to a letter sent by the Meriden Rural District Council on 6th May, made some interesting observa-
      1176
      tions. In its letter the council had pointed out the very rapid growth in my constituency, for reasons to which I shall come in a minute or two, and asked the Commission if it could have a special look at the constituency, since even its existing proposals were hardly adequate.
      In its reply of 9th May, reference BC/E/REV: PROP/134, signed by Mr. J. R. Jeffery, Secretary to the Commission, the Commission said:
      "Under Section 2(3) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Scats) Act 1949 the Commission have power to submit from time to time recommendations for particular constituencies, and should the need arise they could consider exercising this power at some future date in respect of the Meriden constituency."
      That was a letter from the Boundary Commission to the Meriden Rural District Council, one of my large and important local authorities.
      On page 62 of the Report of the Boundary Commission for England, it says, under the heading "Warwickshire":
      "Towards the end of our review we received representations about the rapid housing development being carried out in the Chelmsley Wood area of the Meriden C.C., and the effect this would have on the future electorate of the constituency, but we decided that the development was not sufficiently advanced for us to make adjustments to take account of it in this review. The matter could be reviewed under Section 2(3) of the 1949 Act when this appeared necessary."
      Both in the letter to the Meriden Rural District Council and on page 62 of its report, the Commission was clearly under the impression that those powers would continue.
      I asked the Home Secretary in a Question a week or two ago what consultations he had had with the Boundary Commission since 21st April this year. He told me that he had had none, so presumably he did not discuss this point with it. The Commission's letters, both to me at the end of last year and to the Meriden Rural District Council on 9th May, saying that special provision could be made under Section 2(3), and the statement in its report, appeal to be nullified by the Bill unless the Amendment is made.
      What are the practical consequences if the Amendment is not made? I hesitate to weary the Committee, but since I did not receive a satisfactory reply when I raised the matter before, and since it is

      1177
      germane to the Amendment, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I explain the position in my constituency. If verification is required, I have in my hand a copy of a letter from the Meriden Rural District Council to the Home Secretary, dated 4th July and signed by the clerk of the council, who is also the acting returning officer for the Meriden constituency.
      Let us take the district council's word rather than mine. I was at the council meeting the other day when unanimously all parties passed a motion saying that the Government should do certain things as regards my constituency. The letter says:
      "(a) The electorate in the Meriden Constituency will amount to some 100,000 electors in October of this year, and to approximately 120,000 in October, 1970. This is principally due to the construction at Chelmsley Wood, in this rural district, of a vast overspill estate, where the rate of construction and occoupation is the fastest in western Europe, and to town expansion, for similar purposes, in the part of the Borough of Tamworth covered by the Constituency."
      4.15 p.m.
      I have half the Borough of Tamworth, which is in Staffordshire, in my constituency. I understand that I probably have more electors in Tamworth than the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth (Mr. Snow) has. Within the next two or three years I shall have many more than he has, because all the overspill for Tamworth happens to be in the Meriden county constituency rather than the Lichfield and Tamworth county constituency.
      My rural district council continues:
      "These are quite exceptional circumstances, demanding exceptional electoral treatment…
      "(b) In making their representations earlier this year to the Boundary Commission for England the Council were informed to the effect that the position could be dealt with under Section 2(3) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949, but although this section is not specifically referred to in the repeals effected by the Bill it appears that Clause 1 will render it inoperative. Thus no relief will now be secured in the manner forecast by the Boundary Commission."
      That is the view of the Independents, the Labour members and the Conservative members of that rural district council. I believe that it is also the view of the large majority of my electorate, whatever their political party or political persuasion. I have discussed this with
      1178
      a number of them. It seems that if the Government do not accept the Amendment they are deliberately kicking the Boundary Commission in the teeth and making all the letters and the statements in its report meaningless, without any consultation with the Commission, on the Home Secretary's own admission. This is a serious situation.
      I have pointed out that by October, 1970, my constituency will be 120,000 strong, and this is without considering the effects of enfranchising the 18-yearolds, which will add considerable numbers. The Home Secretary's estimate to me last year in a Parliamentary Answer was between 6 per cent. and 8 per cent. I think that that is an average estimate for most constituencies. As I have pointed out before, constituencies like mine, Wokingham, Billericay, Cheadle, Huyton, and other large overspill constituencies outside big cities, tend to have a larger than average proportion of young people moving into them. This is understandable, in view of the sort of housing development and the people moving out from the cities.
      I have been into this question in some detail with one of my local authorities which, for its own purposes, had to do a statistical breakdown of the age groups of the population generally. It appears that at present, certainly in large parts of my constituency affected by the overspill, the proportion of young people who will be enfranchised is running at 9 per cent., which is above the national average. It also appears that by the mid- to late-1970s they will be between 11 and 12 per cent. of the electorate, so that on top of my 100,000 this year I shall have to add perhaps 8,000 or 9,000 18- to 21-yearolds, and on top of my 120,000 next year I will have to add perhaps 12,000.
      So it is possible that with votes at 18, and assuming that the General Election is fought in the spring of 1971, as it may be, my electorate at that election will be about 130,000 to 132,000. If the Home Secretary considers that to be fair and reasonable, perhaps he would be good enough to say so when he replies. If he does not, it seems to me that he cannot resist the Amendment. I heard what he said about the problems of large constituencies on Second Reading. No one has yet challenged my figures or those

      1179
      of the Meriden Rural Dustrict Council, which has been into these matters very carefully. If the right hon. Gentleman considers that an electorate of 130,000 people will receive from their Member the service to which they are entitled, perhaps he will say so. If he cannot accept that that is a reasonable proposition, he is bound to accept the Amendment in equity and fairness to the electorate, to the constitutional principles involved, and, perhaps least important, in fairness to the Member.
      I have been talking in terms of October, 1970. But Meriden will not stop growing then. We have done our calculations. Although the rate of growth will not be as rapid when the Chelmsley Wood development comes to a conclusion, taking into account votes at 18, it is reasonable to suggest—and all the experts to whom I have spoken in the constituency agree with this—that by about 1978 or 1979, my electorate will be between 160,000 and 190,000. This is obviously speculation, because we are looking some distance ahead. Over the next eight to nine years 30,000 people from the overspill population of the Borough of Tamworth will go to my constituency. The votes at 18 factor also comes into it.
      The electorate in my constituency may be 132,000 by the spring of 1971. It may well be another seven or eight years before redistribution can take place if the Bill is passed unamended since it is unlikely that the Redcliffe-Maud Report will be implemented before 1973 or 1974. Then after that the Boundary Commission's proposals will not be implemented until the next General Election. This will take us up to about 1980, by which time the electorate in my constituency will be nudging 200,000. To give a piece of quite useless information, although it may interest hon. Members, by that time the population of my constituency will be comfortably in excess of the European population in Rhodesia. This may be a very strong argument for a U.D.I.
      Mr. Nicholas Ridley: It might be possible for my hon. Friend to arrange to have three votes in the House, to be allowed to table six Questions each day, and to catch Mr. Speaker's eye three times in each debate.
      1180
      This would give great pleasure to his hon. Friends.
      Mr. Speed: My salary might also be £9,750. However, I feel that the dead hand of the Treasury would jib at that.
      My constituency is in an extreme situation, but a number of other constituencies with electorates of 80,000 or 90,000 are not very far behind. These are constituencies in overspill areas, new town areas, and so on. They have a larger than average proportion of young people and, therefore, will be considerably affected by votes at 18. These are the constituencies which will be under-represented in Parliament. Their Members, whatever their party and however hard working they may be, cannot possibly devote the same amount of work, time and effort to 120,000, 130,000 or 140,000 people as other Members can devote to 60,000 people.
      This afternoon we had a pleasing ceremony when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Lawler) was introduced in the House. I congratulate him on becoming a Member. It is a significant fact, however, that the vote cast for the hon. Gentleman at Ladywood would not have been sufficient to prevent him from losing his deposit in the recent by-elections in the West Midlands—Brierley Hill, Dudley, and Warwick and Leamington.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) has similar problems to me, with overspill population moving to his constituency from Birmingham and Wolverhampton. Having represented a small constituency and now representing a very large one, he may have something to say about the service which he can give to his constituents.
      I hope that the Home Secretary will take this Amendment very seriously. It does not interfere with any principle in the Maud Report. The Government have accepted the principle of it by splitting Cheadle and making special provision for groups of other constituencies. If the right hon. Gentleman rejects the Amendment, then I say, speaking for all sections of my rural district council and of my electorate, whatever their political allegiance, that we shall have grave doubts about the bona fides of the Government.
      Mr. R. H. Turton: I gather that the local authority association are very disturbed about this aspect of the Bill. If the recommendations of the Boundary Commission are not implemented for a number of years, a great deal of administrative inconvenience will be caused and the position of local authorities will be made very difficult.
      Since 1949, 28 special orders have been made under section 2(3). A special order was made under it in respect of York in 1964. When the boundaries in York were changed in 1967, the Boundary Commission embodied the change in its recommendations. When local authority housing estates are built outside the frontiers of the local authority, it is convenient for the authority which owns the houses and the authority which was previously responsible for the territory on which they are built that there should be a change of local government boundary and a change of Parliamentary boundary. If not, there will be in the area tenants of the borough who are paying their rates to the borough who are voters for local elections in the borough in Parliamentary elections voting in a county constituency with which they have no concern. Therefore, when they are confronted with difficult Departmental problems they have to write to the county Member whereas they would expect to write to the borough member. This is not desirable.
      I do not think that the revival of the Section 2(3) powers would cut across the general attitude which the Government are taking, rightly or wrongly, in the Bill. It would enable the Commission to do a certain amount of repair work as the years passed. Once the Bill is passed, it is unlikely that there will be another major redistribution Bill for probably six or seven years.
      Take the situation in certain large towns. The electorate in the Exchange Division of Manchester has dropped during the past two years from 32,000 to 19,000. It has the smallest electorate in the country. The electorate in Wythenshawe has increased from 70,000 to 70,500.
      There are many drawbacks to the Bill. The Government have attached too much importance to the Maud proposals, thinking that they are likely to be implemented
      1182
      in the fairly near future. They are not likely to be implemented at all, or any-how for a very long time in their present form. Bearing that difference between us in mind, it would be wise for the Government to give way on this 2(3) point, to keep the Boundary Commission in existence, and ask it to keep on looking at the small fringe changes, trying to secure that no parliamentary constituency gets to the ridiculous position of Lady-wood or Manchester, Exchange, and trying to see, when local authorities extend their housing activities outside their frontiers that that territory in due course is included within their own boundaries for local government and Parliamentary purposes.
      I hope that the Home Secretary will look at this not as any great issue, but as one that is much desired by all local authorities. It could be brought within the general ambit of the Bill.
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. Ridley: The introduction of the Bill seems to bring a new dimension into these matters. We had all thought that, after a certain period of years, there would be a complete adjustment of all Parliamentary boundaries which would allow for all the factors about which my hon. Friends have been talking to be adjusted. Now we are in a position where there will be perhaps another 10 years before these adjustments, even as proposed now, can be made. Who knows, the precedent having once been set, that a further Redistribution of Seats Bill will not be brought in, in say, 1979 if the Government in power then think nothing of bending the rules to suit their convenience.
      During this time it could extend for another 20 years the most extraordinary distortions in the size of constituencies. Even 10 years from now, the period of currency of the present legislation, there will have been 25 years since the last review. In 25 years, in a rapidly changing society, the sort of things which my hon. Friends have been discussing will become more and more prevalent. After the Bill has been passed, if it is, there will be constituencies in England as widely differing in electorate as that at the bottom, which has 18,000 electors and that at the top, with 100,000 electors. They will not be altered at all.

      1183
      There will be a factor of five-and-half times between the smallest and the biggest constituency. If we add the factor which my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has just mentioned, the growth of the periphery at the expense of the centre of towns and sities, which is going on all the time, together with movements of population, there is no doubt that the anomalies in the electoral map will be really serious.
      If this Amendment was carried it would enable adjustments to be made where the shoe pinched most, from year to year. There are many problems, not serious ones, which could be dealt with, without any damage being done. To give a personal example—and I think that it will be fashion in this debate for hon. Members to quote from their own experience—I was due, under the Boundary Commission Report, to cede certain areas on the outskirts of Cheltenham to the constituency of Cheltenham.
      As my electorate is 67,000 and Cheltenham's electorate 55,000, it seemed only sensible that the county constituency surrounding the borough should tend to give up the newly colonised areas on the periphery of the city to the borough constituency, representing the city. My right hon. Friend is right; I am often being approached on subjects to do with the town of Cheltenham by constituents who have moved out ever the border. This process continues the whole time, and such anomalies should be rectified. The Redcliffe-Maud proposals do not affect my part of Gloucestershire at all, so there is no reason, either in Maud or elsewhere, why this small but useful little change should not be put into effect.
      It is a recommendation of the Boundary Commission and as far as I know it is not opposed. It does not even cost the Tory Party a single vote. It will not cost me my seat and it will not affect the constituency of Cheltenham. There could not be any electoral considerations involved in making this small change. There will be countless other similar changes and I do not see why they could not be put into effect under the 2(3) procedure, as it has come to be called.
      If we are to have no general reviews for 25 years or longer, the only way we can proceed is by ad hoc improvements,
      1184
      by making small changes everywhere we may without infringing on great strategy like Maud. This might be the best way to proceed in the next few years. The Home Secretary may say that this is not a good idea, because it will be obvious that a change in one constituency affects its neighbours and that we cannot, with the greatest of ease, take isolated examples and put them into effect without having side effects on neighbouring constituencies. He would be right, but this is why Parliament first decided to have general reviews and reports of the Boundary Commission, which were to be put into effect, wholly, by the government of the day.
      If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to fly in the face of the law to that extent then he has only himself to blame if all that we have at our disposal is the second line of defence, the making of ad hoc improvements in seats as and when and where we can. The strongest argument for the Amendment is that it has a very great advantage in that it takes the boundary changes out of the hands of politicians.
      The Bill makes a number of changes in and around Greater London, in the very largest constituencies. But note this curious anomaly—it is in only the largest constituencies which happen to be in pairs. A large constiteuncy not close to another large constituency, for some reason, is not to be affected. It is only pairs of large constituencies, dealt with in the Schedule.
      The profound constitutional reason for this piece of startling logic has so far passed me by. No doubt it will be explained to us. It is not right that we should take decisions about which constituencies to halve, double, or amalgamate, or to carve up. This should be done by the independent Boundary Commission, which views these matters from a slightly less personally interested standpoint and has developed a certain amount of skill and expertise. The less contact politicians have with the Boundary Commissioners the better, because then politicians are protected from any charge of gerrymandering or trying to fix the rules to suit their own book.
      Rather than the Home Secretary having at a later stage to have another go at dealing with the kind of problem which arises in a constituency like that

      1185
      of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed), it should be left to the Boundary Commission. Who can doubt that within two or three years something will have to be done about the big seats which will have come into existence by then and which will be too big for them to be allowed to continue? This, again, will involve selective political decision in order to do something about it.
      The safest way would be to allow the Boundary Commission to tackle those areas where the problem is most pressing, where there appears to be no conflict with Redcliffe-Maud or where all agree that a change can be made, and to put it into effect as and when the opportunity arises. Failing that, I do not see the point of continuing to have Boundary Commissions. Why do we not wind them up and allow the Home Secretary to draw boundaries as he thinks fit as and when the opportunity presents itself to him?
      This Amendment should be accepted. It gives a chance of progress, despite the straitjacket into which the Committee has been placed by the very existence of the Bill. It gives a chance of progress being made independent of the incumbents of political office.
      In this Session, the Home Secretary has tried twice to legislate on constitutional matters. The first time was not very successful. He will not be very successful this time unless he is prepared at least to show that his heart is in the right place in a matter like this. I did not have the good fortune to take part in the Second Reading debate, and I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech now, but I believe that great anxieties and feelings of apprehension and woe have been aroused in the breasts of hon. Members at the very existence of the Bill. The fact that we are debating it fills us with profound alarm. It is up to the Home Secretary to meet that alarm by taking the points which will be put to him. This seems an ideal one on which to start.
      If the right hon. Gentleman can say that he accepts the burden of our arguments, I am certain that he will find a receptive audience on this side. In view of the overwhelming reasons for this Amendment, I hope that he will do that.
      Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: It had been the confident expectation of both sides of the Committee
      1186
      that the Home Secretary would accept the invitation just given him by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). We thought that this was a simple Amendment for him to accept. We have heard about woe in hon Members' breasts. I feel anxious in that the Home Secretary does not appear to be disposed to accept the Amendment. In view of that, we must press the matter. But, like those who have preceded me, I shall do so shortly because, obviously, we want to make progress.
      Inevitably, hon. Members must draw on their own personal experience, and I must do the same. When the last count was taken, which is very nearly a year ago, I was marginally under 100,000 electors. I am what is technically called "overweight". I do not have such gross prospects as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed), with whom we all sympathise, but we are both in broadly the same physical class.
      It is a situation which is not only witth us at present, but which can be foreseen. Thus, for example, within the boundaries of the constituency of Wokingham there is the London overspill new town of Bracknell, which is one of the most successful of its kind in the country. By design, by the plan of successive Governments, that new town will grow at a predicted rate. I have no doubt that when the count is taken again next October, my electorate will be over the 100,000 limit.
      The name town in my constituency, the non-county borough of Wokingham, is expanding annually at the rate of 7 per cent. and the great area of private house building to the east of the county borough of Reading known as Woodley is growing at almost exactly the same speed as the planned town of Bracknell. In other words, East Berkshire and that part of it which it is my good fortunte to represent is growing at an immense rate. It can be seen to be growing. It has grown over some years past. As a county, it shares with our neighbours in Hampshire the pride of being the second fastest growing county in the country. Therefore, it is simple to see that these pressures will continue.
      At present, the boundaries of a constituency like that go across local government boundaries. I agree that it would

      1187
      be ideal in a perfect situation so to draw the boundaries of a constituency that they were exactly contiguous with local government boundaries. With that spirit which the Home Secretary has been expressing, very few of us would disagree. However, at present I have to deal with a county council, a county borough council, a non-county borough council and two rural district councils, and I have precisely one ward of a county borough council.
      This presents no great problems. That part of the county borough of Reading which I represent, and that part which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor), fit agreeably into our respective constituencies. They enable us to underpin the representation of the County Borough of Reading which, in present circumstances, is badly needed, and they enable us to take an active and interested part in the affairs of that county borough.
      Whereas it would be ideal for the two sets of boundaries to be contiguous, it is not beyond the wit of man or Members of Parliament to work within a situation where, mathematically, that is not possible. To that extent, RedcliffeMaud—the great excuse which is put up against implementing the Report of the Boundary Commissioners—is immaterial. The whole of the area which I describe will be within one authority, and we shall not be on the outer edge of that authority. Under no possible forecast will the constituency of Wokingham or land near it be on the outer boundary of the new local authority unit, always assuming that Redcliffe-Maud is implemented in its proposed form or anything broadly like it.
      The intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mal-ton (Mr. Turton) was extremely important. Not only is he the most senior hon. Member of the House in terms of membership, but we know him to have an immense experience of local government. Drawing upon that experience, he foresees a very lengthy period of consultation before the Redcliffe-Maud proposals are ever implemented. That is a forecast to which the Committee should pay very careful attention.
      From my own experience, which is so limited by comparison, I should have thought that was absolutely right. Once
      1188
      one gets down to consultations on local government reorganisation, the process will be a lengthy and careful one. While we must not now go into the realms of Redcliffe-Maud, broadly speaking, the problem is that when one has been through the mayoral chair one takes a broad and statesmanlike view of local government reorganisation, but when one is about to weigh, and, more particularly, when one's wife is about to weigh, one is apt to see the immense advantages of the exact unit into whose chair one hopes to move. These are the local pressures which will affect either side of the House, but which at present overwhelmingly affect this side of the House.
      The Amendment would enable the Government to retain their bona fides and to say that they may have a period to be changing the rules just to suit their own electoral convenience, but that they reject that and, as proof of it, they will insert in the Bill this Amendment, which at least enables special cases to be dealt with and reports to be made on particular constituencies. My constituency would be precisely the sort of constituency concerned. I am advised that the effective number of voters will rise to 110,000 by next February, when votes at 18 come into force, which we on this side welcome.
      I must make this confession. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was able to point out that the changes gave no electoral advantage in his constituency. That, I freely admit, is 'a weakness in my case, because the creation of a totally new seat, as the Boundary Commission recommend, would give an additional Tory seat in Berkshire, but I am sure that the Home Secretary can look at this in a broad way and not allow himself, at least outside the House—[Interruption.] We have so far conducted this discussion in an agreeable way. I am a charitable man and I am quite prepared to try to believe, for the moment, at any rate until he replies, that the Home Secretary will take a broad, non-party view of the matter. Should that prove to be wrong, we should have other things to say.
      It is difficult for hon. Members who represent oversized constituencies to put across the problems associated with them without appearing in the process to be whining. I am a bit short with my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite

      1189
      who complain here about our pay and conditions. I say, "There is a simple remedy. Why do you not get out, because there are at least 100 people who are anxious to take your place?" I do not develop that; I simply make the point, Mr. Irving, because I can see that you are interested in it. One does not want, by drawing attention to the special problem of the size of constituencies, to give the appearance of personal whining.
      Hon. Members who represent such seats are presented with much greater burdens, not because of any personal merit, than those whose electorates are broadly stable. For example, if a great motorway is being driven through the middle of a highly populated area, the problems that brings into the constituency mailbag of a Member, whatever his party politics, are enormous. If one is representing an area which is greatly growing in size—and that is why we are looking for a special report on it—then the pressures on the Member are the greater. In a mixed constituency like mine, one has not only the problem of great urban growth, but of agricultural interests which, quite properly, expect to be represented in this House, while still being part of a large electorate, and for all these reasons the pressures upon an hon. Member are the greater.
      I remember my feeling of sadness not long ago in the Post Office in this building when an hon. Gentleman who most ably represents a Scottish constituency, on collecting his mail, took out a solitary letter and said, "This has been a very heavy week. I have had three already". I am sure that it is the experience of hon. Members like myself—and I repeat that there is no personal merit in this—to have an average postbag of 50 letters a day which require attention, and to have a whole-time secretary, not shared, dealing with nothing but constituency work and another part time secretary in the constituency. This obviously adds greatly to the financial problems of the Member and to the number of cases requiring personal attention in what we familiarly call our "surgeries".
      I speak on behalf of hon. Members who represent constituencies with large electorates and who would, therefore, expect, were the Amendment to be accepted, to be given some modest relief. The most important aspect is not the effect upon
      1190
      the Member, for we are relatively unimportant; it is the effect upon those whom we represented.
      Until the Bill was published, and I took the temperature of my constituency last weekend, I had not appreciated just how strongly my electorate felt at the concept of having only a 100,000th share of a Member, particularly at the time of the by-election at Birmingham, Lady-wood.
      I warn the Home Secretary not to treat this aspect lightly. We are all conscious that, particularly among the young, there is a cynicism today about the institution of Parliament. This is a far deeper-seated cynicism, particularly among the young, than we sometimes uncomfortably admit. Anything which appears to change the rules, anything which adds to that cynicism and which is palpably unfair as between one set of electors and another undermines men's respect and regard for the institution. That is the serious side of the Amendment, and that is why I profoundly hope that, even if the Home Secretary has come to the debate with a brief marked "No" on the right-hand side, he will, as a result of the debate, agree that the arguments for the Amendment are overwhelming.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): The Home Secretary's attitude to the debate so far looks a trifle odd in a Minister who, presumably, is trying to get a Bill through by the normal parliamentary processes of debate and conciliation. My right hon. and learned Friend moved the Amendment well over an hour ago in terms whose moderation would have been surprising in me and which would possibly be astonishing in him. He not only put the case for the Amendment, for that very reason, with peculiar effectiveness, but he put squarely to the Home Secretary that to some extent the Amendment was a test of his sincerity and good faith. Without prejudice to the strong views held by many of us on the main purpose of the Bill, the Home Secretary would to some extent be able to restore confidence in the belief that he was trying to behave fairly if he were to accept this Amendment.
      The Home Secretary will recall that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr.

      1191
      Hogg) sat down there was a distinct pause before other Members rose. We all expected the Home Secretary to rise to accept the Amendment so that we could pass on to the more controversial matters. If he felt that he could not accept it in those precise terms, he could do what many have done before him. He could have said, "I accept the principle of the Amendment and will put down an Amendment on Report to give it effect." But what the Home Secretary has done is to sit there without any support whatever from his own side. Not a single speech has so far been made against the Amendment.
      The Home Secretary is not setting a very good tone for our debates in Committee and later stages of the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend's proposal is surely a simple and straightforward one. As I understand Clause 2(4) of the Bill, these interim reports by the Commission will be continued in respect of Greater London alone. Surely it is sensible to make at least some provision for some interim reports by the Commission in respect of the rest of the country.
      The Boundary Commission is a responsible body. It is presided over by no less a person than Mr. Speaker himself, as are all Boundary Commissions. The deputies are judicial personages of very high standing. Surely they can be relied upon not to make frivolous, futile and unnecessary recommendations? They will understand what the rest of the Bill does, if it passes into law. Why deny them, except in the Greater London area, the opportunity to make these interim reports?
      Would the Home Secretary say whether he consulted them about this matter? Did he ask their views? Did he seek to find out from them whether they would wish to be relieved of these duties? It may be that with all their hard work of four years having been thrown out of the window, even so august a body as the Boundary Commission may be a little unenthusiastic for the Home Secretary and may not wish to help him further. I do not know whether that will be so, but we are entitled to be told whether they were consulted before this particular provision which inhibits the submission by them of interim reports was put into the Bill.
      1192
      I ask another question. Let us assume that there are areas of the country in which, over the next few years, two things will happen. First, that there will be a substantial expansion in population or a diminution in population, and second, that even if something is done about Redcliffe-Maud—and many of us are becoming increasingly sceptical about that—it is quite clear that nothing whatever under Redcliffe-Maud will apply to an individual constituency or two or three constituencies together.
      What does the Home Secretary propose to do about it? Does he propose to do nothing, to allow an anomalous situation to grow even more anomalous in circumstances in which his one excuse for doing this throughout the country does not operate? Is he to stand by and let that happen? He may say that he can make an order telling the Boundary Commission to apply it to some part of the United Kingdom. But is it not very much better to let the Boundary Commission proceed by its normal sensible process of hearing evidence, taking the points of those affected, and then making a recommendation?
      Why should this not apply in the kind of situation which I have predicated—a situation in which populations and electorates have changed violently up or down and where it is as plain as a pikestaff that no local government changes are impending? Why, in those circumstances, should there not be change? And if there is to be change, surely the right mechanism for securing that change is by way of a recommendation made by an impartial and independent Boundary Commission on its own initiative.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). The more we can keep the necessary adjustment of constituencies at the first stage out of the hands of politicians who are interested parties—and it was truly said on Second Reading that the whole Bill was about votes—but in the hands of an impartial body, in the hands of people who are not affected by other considerations, the more fairly it will be seen to operate. The fact that it will be in the hands of an impartial body will prevent any increase in anomalies during what may be a fairly prolonged period.

      1193
      We do not know whether the Redcliffe-Maud argument is still to be maintained. I feel that the Home Secretary has underrated the length of time it will take to happen. Has he taken into account the time and trouble taken by the Conservative Administration over the much smaller task of the reorganisation of local government in London? That was a lengthy and difficult operation. If the Government are to go ahead with Redcliffe-Maud—and so far they have not said even that they will do so—they have taken on a task that will take many years. During those years there will be individual changes which are vitally necessary and which no hon. Member on either side of the Committee would in conscience dispute to be right.
      Here we have an attempt to preserve the mechanism not for dealing with the great general issues, but for putting right some particular indisputable anomalies. So far, we have had no indication from the Home Secretary as to why he declines to do this and to put this instrument in the hands of a trusted body, the Boundary Commission. The longer he desists in telling us why he declines to do so, the worst we shall suspect his motives to be.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I respond at once to the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). It is always difficult to know when to intervene in these debates. I agree that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) sat down, nobody got up. But I did not assume that that was the end of the debate. Had I got up at that stage, no doubt I would have been accused of rushing in before I had heard all the arguments.
      I was waiting for the end of the debate, which at one stage seemed likely since some three speeches ago the only other hon. Member who got up was the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery). I made a sign to him saying that after he made his speech, I would get up. But when the following speaker sat down, three other right hon. Gentlemen rose with him and he was not called. Then when the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames sat down, I am sorry to say that seven of
      1194
      the colleagues of the hon. Member for Brierley Hill rose. This begins to look like the hydra. As soon as one cuts off one head, three other heads take its place.
      It is appropriate that I should say something at this stage, having heard a substantial part of the arguments. I was grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone for making this out to be a genuine Committee stage and an attempt to improve the Bill. He said that the attitude of the Opposition would be reflected by the Government's attitude to their Amendments. Of course, it will. But he will be convinced when I am finished that the Amendment is not a good one. It will not affect his attitude because the arguments I propose to adduce are sufficiently substantial to warrant that the Committee should reject the Amendments. If I thought that the Opposition's Amendments were good, I would accept them. But, as the argument has been developed, hon. Gentlemen opposite have helped my case. This is probably one more reason for sitting silent and listening, because nearly every speaker has under-estimated the consequential effects of his proposals.
      For instance, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said that on page 72 there are about 28 Orders which have been made under the provisions of Section 2(3) of the 1949 Act. The first was made in 1956 and the last in 1964. None has been made since. This, incidentally, affects the quality of some of the later Amendments in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's name. I shall have to return to this, because I am afraid that they are defective.
      None of the local government changes for which Section 2(3) was largely devised has been translated into Orders because there have been no interim recommendations by the Commission since 1964, because the general review was going on. Therefore, these arrears have mounted up substantially. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and others were quite right. We have substantial arrears on our hands now. My view and that of anyone who has studied the matter is that nothing short of a general review can overtake those arrears: it cannot be done piecemeal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am surprised to hear hon. Members cheering

      1195
      that, because so far the argument from that side has been that they could be done piecemeal if there could not be a general review. My own conclusion is that they cannot. If the Opposition now agree with that, at least we can make progress.
      We are, therefore, driven back to the principle of the Bill, since these things can be done only with a general review and not piecemeal. The question then arises, which the House has decided, whether there should be one general review or two general reviews.
      Mr. David Mitchell rose—
      Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member has not taken part in this debate, and a number of others have. He rose for the first time only two speakers ago, when the hon. Member for Brierley Hill rose. I am trying to deal with those who have already spoken, which is surely reasonable.
      It therefore seems conclusive that we must deal with this generally and not piecemeal.
      The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) has pursued this with great assiduity, and he has substantial difficulties. The truth is that his constituency is divided between five authorities. There are three county boroughs and two counties. Therefore, any attempt to divide his constituency will involve not merely him but many other people. But more than that—this was one of the things which I first looked at because of the assiduity of his questioning some time ago—his constituency is one of the few divided between two main units under the Redcliffe-Maud Report, one rather gracelessly called unitary area No. 28 and the other a metropolitan area. So, whatever we do for the hon. Gentleman now, if we adopted the Boundary Commission's Report, it will have to be undone and done again when the Redcliffe-Maud Report, or something like that, assuming that these boundaries are not drawn, comes into play.
      So what the right hon. Member is saying is that these large constituencies should be broken up. I want to see some broken up, and I hope to have his support when we reach what can be conveniently broken up—these four areas
      1196
      which I have put in—because I want, with the assistance of the House, to overcome these difficulties where possible. But they cannot be overcome easily in the hon. Gentleman's case without a general review. Far too many other people are affected.
      5.15 p.m.
      The same applies to the hon. Member for Wokingham, who is no longer with us. He spoke about the difficulties of a large constituency. This would not be a simple solution of cutting his constituency in half, because the Boundary Commission has in mind not only the impact on his constituency but also the number of seats which it thinks the county is entitled to. In Berkshire, it is a complicated sum. I do not know whether all hon. Members realise that the Commission has given one more seat each to Cumberland and Cornwall than it thinks they were entitled to, and has offset that by taking a seat from somewhere else. Whether that principle is right is not for me to say, but this is just not a simple question of bifurcation. One must consider the consequences in Wokingham.
      The Commission immediately brought Reading into the picture:
      "The electorate of … Reading … was too high for one seat but not big enough to warrant the borough being given the additional seat to which the geographical county was entitled—a solution which in any case would not have met the needs of Wokingham."
      The Commission then went on to propose that the four wards in the south-east part of Reading should be combined with parts of Wokingham to form a Reading, South borough constituency:
      "(One of these wards was already associated with Wokingham R.D. in the existing Wokingham C.C.). Thus our scheme provided for a substantial reduction in the electorate of Wokingham … moderated the electorate of Newbury … and … divided Reading C.B. between two instead of three constituencies as at present."
      I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Wokingham has returned. I am sure that he has read pages 29 and 30 of the Boundary Commission's Report. What I am saying is that Wokingham cannot stand by itself even on the basis of what the Boundary Commission recommended. At least two, if not three, contiguous constituencies would be affected. I draw from that a general conclusion, which I believe stands examination whether it is applied to Meriden or to Wokingham.

      1197
      One cannot just say that we can slice the area in half in these simple cases. There would be a ripple effect on other constituencies, as with a stone thrown into a pond.
      This is why, when we reach the large group of Amendments which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone has devised, hoping that he will not interfere with other constituencies, he will find that he is interfering. So his Amendments are defective.
      There is no solution, in the Government's view, other than a general Boundary Commission review. The House has already decided that principle, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledged, but it will not have a general review until the Redcliffe-Maud proposals, or something like them, have been put into operation. As to how long that will be, there have been a number of views, and this is a matter of judgment—[An HON. MEMBER: "In ten years?"] It could be much sooner than that—[An HON. MEMBER: "Never?"] It could be never, but it will not be never under this Government. I would not like to say what would happen under any other Government.
      Sir Gerald Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I put this question to the Prime Minister immediately after his statement on the Redcliffe-Maud Report, and that the Prime Minister's reply to mine or a later supplementary was that the Government accepted the Redcliffe-Maud Report in principle but nothing more. So far as I know, no Minister has yet said that it is proposed to legislate for the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations either in this Parliament or in any future Parliament. That depends on the will of the House of Commons and on its composition.
      Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman is not wholly right. The Government have accepted the major principle of the Redcliffe-Maud Report and are now busily engaged on the process of consultation with local authorities with a view to preparing schemes which will be brought before the House at an early date. I cannot be committed more precisely than that. The hon. Gentleman should not be under the misapprehension that it will be allowed to slide away into pigeon holes. It will be effectively and actively
      1198
      worked on over the next few months. The Minister without Portfolio is here this afternoon as an indication of his interest in the discussion which has taken place on this matter.
      Mr. Hogg: The Home Secretary has just said that the Government have accepted the principle of the Redcliffe-Maud Report. I listened very carefully to what the Prime Minister said the other day—I should like to be corrected if I am wrong, because this is a matter of great importance, both on this Bill and generally—and I understood that the Government understood the principle of the abolition, as it were, of the distinction between town and country, but that the theory that we should start with these all-purpose authorities and make the substructure advisory and leave the superstructure of provinces until afterwards had not been accepted. I should like the Home Secretary to make clear whether and to what extent I am right or wrong about that.
      Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. In his brief intervention he has been talking about functions and powers, not boundaries. The Government have accepted the major principle of the Redcliffe-Maud Report, which is that there should be a substantial reduction in the number of major authorities conducting our affairs. I think that I am putting it correctly. So we are in the middle of a process which will affect their boundaries substantially.
      I agree with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that it is convenient that local government and Parliamentary boundaries should coincide. This, indeed, is a principle that I want to follow and that the Government intend to follow. The only question is whether we should do this by means of adopting the Boundary Commission's proposals now and having another one as soon as the Redcliffe-Maud proposals have been put into operation. This is a matter of principle. I do not wish to comment on it too much. The House decided that, and I am proceeding in Committee to put it into effect.
      Mr. David Mitchell: The Home Secretary seems in essence to be saying that he is unable to give us the whole loaf which lie was supposed to put into operation and, therefore, he cannot give us

      1199
      half a loaf. It does not seem to have much logic behind it.
      Mr. Callaghan: I have no comments to make on that. The conclusion to which I have come, having looked at the matter very carefully to see whether we could overcome all the problems of the larger constituency, is that we cannot do it without creating so many anomalies that we are then embarked upon a substantial review. Indeed, the Opposition in later Amendments want to re-draw the boundaries of about 200 constituencies. That shows the size of the operation that they want to conduct. But that is against the principle of the Bill, which is for a standstill until the Redcliffe-Maud proposals have come into sufficient operation to enable us to proceed with a further review.
      Mr. Speed: The Home Secretary has referred in some detail to Meriden. Is he aware that there are proposals with the Minister of Housing and Local Government which create new local authority areas, new parish councils and all the rest in my constituency, which fall within the metropolitan area of Birmingham as proposed in the Redcliffe-Maud Report? Do I understand that the right hon. Gentlemen will not approve the draft orders in view of what he has just said?
      Mr. Callaghan: No. I am not talking about local government boundary changes. That is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The hon. Gentleman is indicating that if there are further changes to be made, this is another reason why we should avoid making these continual changes. We must have some finality for everybody's sake. I am convinced that this is the right way to tackle the problem. Let us have one substantial redrawing of the local government map as soon as we can and follow it by a substantial redrawing of the Parliamentary map to make sure that local government and Parliamentary boundaries coincide.
      Mr. Peter Hordern: On this point of principle about not implementing the proposals of the Boundary Commission until it is time for the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations to be carried out, to which the right hon. Gentle
      1200
      man continually refers, is he aware that the proposals affecting Horsham recommend that a great part of the constituency should be transferred into East Surrey? Yet the right hon. Gentleman is bringing my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Captain Kerby) into the special purview of the Boundary Commission. What does that do to his principle?
      Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to debate something in the Schedule to which we will come later. Indeed, I have no doubt that some of the speeches that we have heard this afternoon—I will not say ad nauseam, because that would be impolite—we shall hear repeated in the next instalment. The hon. Gentleman is saying that I have found a way of trying to relieve him and his neighbour of some of the burdens of which the hon. Member for Wokingham was complaining. If this can be done, it is sensible for Parliament to try to do it. It was done in 1944, and I am proposing that we should do it again now. This is the sensible, practical and workmanlike way of tackling the job.
      Mr. Hogg: I will not detain the Committee long, because I have already spoken and some of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate. I rise briefly to say how profoundly disappointed I am at the Home Secretary's response to what I believe was a reasonable and sincere appeal to him to accept the Amendment. I hope that my hon. Friends will be more successful than I have hitherto been in making him change his mind.
      The Home Secretary has based his whole argument upon the proposition that the matter is so serious already that we must have a general review or nothing. We have accepted this view in our attitude on Second Reading. The House gave the Bill a Second Reading on the hypothesis that it does not want a general review. But it does not follow that no amelioration of the present intolerable situation is permissible. On the contrary, the more intolerable a situation is, the more vital that individual Amendments should be made.
      Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not expressing my argument correctly. I am not saying

      1201
      that the situation is so serious that we must get ahead. I am saying that it is a jigsaw puzzle. If we subtract one part, then the rest collapses. This is why we cannot extract individual parts, except in a very limited way.
      Mr. Hogg: This would be a reason for rejecting the Bill in toto, but I will not go into that because we have had it out on Second Reading. I am saying that the more intolerable we make the situation by perpetuating the present anachronistic boundaries, the more vital it is to ameliorate the present situation. That is what we are seeking to do.
      The Home Secretary gave a number of instances, into which I will not go, but which I hope my hon. Friends will develop, to support why he could not do that. He said, for instance, that Meriden cannot be divided into two, though he wholly failed to persuade me that this was so.
      5.30 p.m.
      The short answer of principle to the Home Secretary—and I rise a second time only to put this to the right hon. Gentleman—is that if he is right, and the Amendment were accepted, the Boundary Commission would be the first to say so. All that we are asking is that this should be decided, not by the party in office for the time being, whether it is us or them, but by an impartial body. If we are wrong, the Boundary Commission will say so. If we are right, the Home Secretary will have lost nothing by accepting the Amendment.
      When I told the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of this debate that to some extent this would be the touchstone of the Government's sincerity, I meant exactly what I said. If this Amendment were accepted, it would wholly alter my attitude to the Government over this Bill. It is true that we have put down a large number of detailed Amendments to later stages of the Bill which seek, in the main, following the Boundary Commission's territories, to redraw particular constituencies consistently with the principle of the Bill. When one faces a Committee stage, one puts down Amendments following the order of the Bill, hoping that they will be accepted. If some earlier ones are accepted, many of the later Amendments become unnecessary.
      1202
      If we could have it clearly stated by the Government that, wholly consistent with their attitude, they would allow interim reports by the impartial body, it would perhaps not be necessary for us to press some of the other Amendments. We are willing to abide by the Boundary Commission. The Government are not. The conclusion we draw is that we are honest and that the Government are not.
      Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I support the Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), and, like my right hon. and learned Friend, I have to confess that I was not particularly struck with the arguments put forward by the Home Secretary. We all know that the need to redistribute constituencies arises from the movement of population; people moving from town centres into suburbia and more pleasant country areas.
      The Home Secretary said that the answer to this was a general review. We have just had a general review. If the Home Secretary is being genuine, why does he not accept the review which the Boundary Commission, after years of deliberation, has presented to him?
      The right hon. Gentleman's second point was that we should await the Redcliffe-Maud Report, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) said some constituencies in his area which are being tampered with now will also be affected by the Maud Report, if it is ever implemented. One of the points made repeatedly by this side of the Committee is that no one can be sure that the Maud Report will ever be implemented. If that is so, how much longer will we have to wait before these over-large constituencies are brought down to a reasonable size?
      In 1959, the constituency which I have the honour to represent had an electorate of 70,000. Today, that figure has risen to 89,000. Almost 20,000 extra electors have come into Brierley Hill in the last 10 years. If 18-year olds vote at the next General Election, and if to that is added the natural growth in my constituency, by the time of the next General Election I shall have about 100,000 electors, and if we have to wait until 1980, or thereabouts, for a further review, the size of my constituency will be considerably more than that.

      1203
      I speak with some experience, because this is my second period of service in the House. For five years I represented the constituency of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, a small, compact, borough constituency which, when I represented it, had 48,000 electors. I now represent a sprawling constituency with almost twice that number of electors.
      I endorse what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mr. Speed) and Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) about the enormous amount of extra work that one must do when one represents a very large constituency. We must spend a great deal more time on our constituency work. During the two years that I have represented Brierley Hill I have dealt with as many constituency cases as I did during the five years I represented Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, and I have far more letters to cope with now.
      Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, I cannot afford a full-time secretary. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, I have to share a secretary, but I hasten to add we do not share the same girl, because if she had to cope with the problems of Meriden and Brierley Hill she would be kept busy for more than seven days a week. We do not complain about the amount of work that we have to do. We knew exactly what the job entailed. I can tell hon. Gentlemen opposite who may not be with us in the next Parliament that it is a terrible feeling to be kicked out of this place and long to be back in it.
      The electors of Brierley Hill should have the same chance of getting service from their Member as those in Birmingham, Ladywood, a constituency of fewer than 20,000 electors. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden was again right to compare by-election results. If in Brierley Hill two years ago the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Lawler) had polled the number of votes which elected him to Parliament a few days ago, he would have lost his deposit. It took 31,000 votes to elect a Member of Parliament for Brierley Hill, but only 5,000 to elect a Member of Parliament for Ladywood.
      I suggest that the Home Secretary should pay some attention to the problems of those of us who represent large constituencies. If there are two equally
      1204
      diligent Members, one with an electorate of 20,000, and the other with an electorate of about 90,000, it is obvious that the Member with the smaller electorate can devote far more time to the individual constituent's problems.
      I suggest that the present situation is farcical. It is no good the Government saying that they believe strongly in the principle of one man, one vote, when they are not prepared to give a fair distribution of electorates. We admit that redistribution is never popular with many people. No hon. Member likes to have his constituency carved up and find that the friends he has had for many years, and the supporters who have worked loyally for him have been transferred to another constituency. This is always difficult to bear, yet we believe that it is in the interests of the electors that we create constituencies of a manageable size.
      The great argument that we have had repeatedly from the other side of the Committee—not today, because the Home Secretary is the only Member who has spoken from that side today—is that we should wait for Redcliffe-Maud. What I cannot understand is this sudden enthusiasm that the Government have of paying attention to local government boundaries. It may be that I am being unduly cynical. We know that the Government do not really want these boundary changes, because they would be to the disadvantage of the Labour Party. If they did not have Redcliffe-Maud to cling to, they would have found some other excuse to put off implementing the Boundary Commission's Report.
      If they are so keen on having local government boundaries conforming with parliamentary boundaries, why did they not do something in the West Midlands in 1965, the year when there was a tremendous upheaval of local government there? They were the Government of the day, yet they were not concerned to do anything about altering the parliamentary boundaries to fit the local government boundaries at the time. I am, therefore, very suspicious of this sudden change of heart.
      In my constituency I have parts of three boroughs, a rural district, and a county council. For the Home Secretary to continue saying that local government

      1205
      boundaries should conform with parliamentary boundaries is nonsense, because, if the right hon. Gentleman has his way, for at least another 10 years I shall be in position of representing parts of three boroughs and a rural district.
      I hope that the Government will change their mind about this perfectly reasonable Amendment. If they fail to accept it, in a few years' time we shall have several constituencies with over 100,000 electors, and that is far in excess of the Boundary Commissioners' idea of what constitutes an ideal-sized constituency.
      Mr. Christopher Chataway: From time to time I have heard one or two replies to Amendments in Committees, but I have never heard a thinner reply than that given by the Home Secretary. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) demolished the Government's case with just two arguments, and it did not take my right hon. and learned Friend's skills to do it.
      As I understand it, the Government's case against the Amendment is that the constituencies of England and Wales are a jigsaw and that one either makes a general review or none at all. The Home Secretary will not accept our Amendment because he believes that it would be impossible for the Boundary Commission satisfactorily to make one or two interim changes without affecting a large number of other constituencies. That is to argue immediately against the whole basis of the Bill. That is exactly what we have said. In the Bill the right hon. Gentleman is himself making one or two changes. If it is the case that this is so interlocked a jigsaw that it is impossible to change a few without altering all, the right hon. Gentleman should not be introducing the Bill. He should have gone the whole hog and said that for party advantage he would not implement any of the Boundary Commission's Report and had decided to leave it at that. But he is not doing that. He is seeking to make some changes.
      To argue that for this reason the Government will not accept an Amendment which would allow the Boundary Commissioners to make some interim changes is almost incredible, because my right hon. and learned Friend's second argument, to which there can be no answer, is that if the Boundary Commissioners
      1206
      believe that they cannot make any interim alterations, they will not. All that we are saying is that the Commissioners should have the power to make such an alteration.
      There cannot be any hon. Member opposite who has listened to the Home Secretary's reply and followed the debate without feeling some shame. It is evident that the right hon. Gentleman has not the least intention of proceeding with the Bill in the normal fashion of trying to reach agreement and making compromises where necessary.
      5.45 p.m.
      When this Measure was first introduced, The Times described it as "a shabby Bill". As I recall, it said that at best it would subsequently be regarded as a sordid little episode and that at worst it might undermine the sense of legitimacy in our constitution. If there were those fears when the Bill was introduced and after its Second Reading, they are redoubled now that we have heard the Home Secretary's reply. It is not surprising that so few hon. Members opposite are present for this Committee stage. Very few of them will want to be associated with these disreputable proceedings.
      If I may, I will illustrate the falseness of the Home Secretary's argument by reference to my own constituency. In West Sussex, the Boundary Commission proposed to make four constituencies out of three. The Commissioners recommended that the constituencies of Horsham, Arundel and Shoreham, and Chichester should be re-divided to make four constituencies. The Home Secretary has come forward with an alternative proposal. He wants to leave the constituency of Chichester as it is and ask the Boundary Commissioners to make three constituencies out of Arundel and Shoreham and Horsham.
      That is a pretty ludicrous suggestion. It is manifestly inferior to the proposal of the Boundary Commissioners, which would produce four constituencies roughly equal in size. The Home Secretary's proposal will produce three constituencies each with approximately 60,000 or 62,000 electors and one which will very shortly have an electorate of 100,000. That is what happens when the initiative for making changes in boundaries is left in the hands of this Government as

      1207
      opposed to those of the Boundary Commissioners.
      As it happens, there is no party advantage in this instance. There is no question of there being fewer constituents. There is no question of one set of proposals being better tailored to the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations than the other. It is merely that the Home Secretary has decided for party reasons not to proceed with the implementation of the Commissioners' proposals but, instead, has taken a quick look at the map, seen pairs of constituencies with rather large electorates and felt that he could make the situation look slightly better by taking a couple of constituencies here and there, running them together and agreeing to some extra constituencies being created.
      While the whole Bill must be deeply offensive to anyone who cares about the reputation of public life in this country, some improvement can be made if the Amendment is accepted. In the case of West Sussex, it would be open to the Boundary Commissioners to say in a few years' time that alterations should be made to even out the size of the constituencies. If the Bill passes into law, there will be four constituencies in West Sussex, including Worthing, each with an electorate of about 60,000. My own constituency, which at the moment has an electorate of 82,000, is expected to increase to over the 100,000 mark early in the 1970s.
      The effect of the Amendment would be to leave it open to the Boundary Commissioners to rectify that anomaly. It would not require them to. The Home Secretary seemed to imply that it would mean that the Commissioners would have to make a change and thereby upset a number of surrounding constituencies. However, the Amendment would enable the Commissioners to make a change if they saw fit, and that is all.
      I do not wish to go over any of the ground which has been covered so ably by a number of my hon. Friends. I think that there is general agreement that it is undesirable, other things being equal, to have over-large constituencies. I do not think that many people would regard a constituency with an electorate of over 100,000 as very satisfactory. Like a number of my hon. Friends, I have had a
      1208
      brief opportunity to compare the volume of work arising in a constituency with an electorate of 50,000 or so with that which goes with an abnormally large constituency of over 80,000 electors. The vast majority of people wish to see constituencies of roughly equal size. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider his disgraceful reply and agree to accept the Amendment.
      Mr. Charles Doughty: I, too, urge the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment. His argument against it seemed to boil down to saying that because parts of the country are in an electoral mess from the point of view of boundaries, nothing at all should be done. He seemed to suggest that there would be difficulty in moving the jigsaw pieces into their right places if we took action.
      The answer is for the Government to allow the Boundary Commission to do the job. The Commission should be told, "We want you to make recommendations relating to, for example, the West Midlands", and it should then be allowed to tackle the problem. As I listened to the Home Secretary I wondered whether this occupation of the Boundary Commission was being handed over entirely to the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers. Is the Boundary Commission to play any part in the formation of electoral boundaries?
      I recall being here some years ago when Parliament passed a Measure giving the Boundary Commission the duty to inquire into various boundaries and make recommendations. Had any hon. Members said at that time that we were wasting our time because its recommendations would be ignored by the Government of the day—that a future Government would find an excuse, a word which I use advisedly for not adopting its suggestions—he would have been frowned upon.
      It would be out of order to discuss the Redcliffe-Maud Report, the recommendations of which may or may not be adopted. However, that is no reason for the Government to say, "We cannot do what the Statute obliges us to do"—which is still the position while the Bill is not law—"and we will, therefore, do nothing."
      Any decisions of Parliament which may affect the political fortunes of one party or

      1209
      another are generally referred to an impartial body. Mr. Speaker's Conference decides a number of matters which it would be wrong for the Government of the day, with their majority, to introduce, perhaps unfairly to the Opposition and the constitution of the country.
      For many years the Boundary Commission has had the task of deciding the boundaries of the various constituencies. Its recommendations have been subject to modification, but that has not meant completely redrawing its suggestions or ignoring them. It is obvious that anyone who considers matters of this kind from a purely political point of view could give great advantage to his party, and any Government who do this are bound to be criticised, whether or not the grounds for their action are justified.
      In this case the Government are carrying out a task which Parliament placed on an entirely impartial body. This body worked for three or four years to decide the complicated changes that should be made. Now, with the exception of London, its work is being thrown away.
      I represent a constituency which is half in the Greater London area and half in Surrey. It is difficult to consider a constituency like mine from the boundary point of view because one must deal with the part that is in the Greater London area in a London context, although the remainder is not large enough to be a constituency by itself. I suppose that it would be possible to go right down to the coast in respect of constituencies for Surrey, Sussex and Kent, drawing an arbitrary line on the way, or saying that the sea should be the boundary.
      The Government are bound to come up against difficulties of this kind and that is why they should leave the whole issue to the Boundary Commission. There are difficulties with constituencies becoming larger and with hon. Members having to represent more people. On the other hand, other constituencies are becoming smaller, resulting in some hon. Members representing only a handful of constituents. The Commission is able to consider these difficulties and work out the best solution.
      It is a negation of duty for the Government not to adopt this method of impartially redrawing boundaries, which frequently need examination. The excuse of the Redcliffe-Maud Report does not
      1210
      hold water because that Report cannot become law for some time. If changes occur later, let them occur. In the meantime, these boundaries need attention because of ever-changing populations and constituencies.
      New towns spring up and the population shifts, particularly to the South. The Boundary Commission should keep a constant eye on this movement. Instead, however, the Government are shrugging their shoulder, are dealing with Greater London and a few other areas, but are refusing to deal with the rest of the anomalies that exist. That is why many people say that they are rigging the rules to suit themselves.
      Mr. Antony Buck: I am saddened by this Committee stage. I was sad before I heard the Home Secretary's argument against the Amendment, and I feel even more sad having heard it.
      I am particularly sad because legislation sponsored by the Home Secretary is usually in a category somewhat different from most of the legislation that comes before the House. As a rule, the Home Secretary deals with matters akin to law and order, assisted by the Law Officers, who, I regret, are not in their place today. Generally speaking, the right hon. Gentleman deals with matters relating to quasi-constitutional affairs.
      Party political considerations usually play little part in the issues we are discussing. That can be said of virtually all the Measures which have been sponsored by the Home Secretary in recent years. We have had legislation from him on, for example, gaming, and hon. Members on both sides have been able to work to improve the law on a nonparty basis.
      The Chairman: Order. I am finding difficulty in understanding how the hon. Gentleman can relate these remarks to the Amendment.
      Mr. Buck: I will make it clear with great rapidity. Mr. Irving.
      Legislation dealing with gaming, immigration appeals and the Parliamentary Commissioner—all matters on which I had the privilege of serving in Committee—were dealt with in a non-party way. It saddens me to think that we

      1211
      should be considering a Bill of fundamental constitutional importance without that spirit being able to pervade our proceedings. In all the other cases it was generally agreed that legislation was required.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the Amendment.
      Mr. Buck: If accepted, the Amendment would go some way to restore the bi-partisan feeling that should exist on matters relating to quasi-constitutional affairs. Its acceptance would not entirely heal the breach, however, because we disagree fundamentally with this legislation.
      6.0 p.m.
      It was outrageous for the Home Secretary to argue in the way he did against the Amendment because his views were against the whole of the Bill. He said that we had not had any interim Orders since 1964, but before that there was a large number. In 1956 an interim Order affected my constituency marginally and ironed out anomalies in boundaries between my constituency, the Maldon constituency and the Saffron Walden constituency. There have not been such Orders since 1956 because it was realised by the Boundary Commission that, according to the Statute, in a short time there would have to be a full comprehensive review. By 1969 the Commission, by Statute, had to present the Report. So the argument about there not being interim reports falls to the ground. It makes one suspicious and sad when the present attitude is taken to this Amendment.
      Another effect of rejecting the Amendment would be to take the matter out of the hands of independent bodies and leave it solely to the ipse dixit of the Home Secretary. This is a bad feature of the Bill, but the Amendments would go some way to restoring the position. If the Amendments are not accepted and no good reason is given for their rejection, the position will be fossilised. In future we should have some mechanism whereby small anomalies which develop between constituencies can be ironed out on the

      Division No. 309.]

      AYES

      [6.3 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Alldritt, Walter

      Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

      Albu, Austen

      Anderson, Donald

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      basis of recommendations put forward by an independent body. We have not had any cogent argument against the Amendments. I hope that even at this late stage the Home Secretary will see fit to accept this Amendment.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The Committee proceeded to a Division—
      Sir David Renton (Huntingdonshire): On a point of order, Mr. Irving. Of course it is in your discretion whether the Motion for the closure should be accepted. I do not know whether you have finally exercised your discretion, but I put it to you that this is an extremely important debate. It did not start until 4 o'clock and, although we have had a reply from the Home Secretary, a number of other points have been made to which we have had no answer. I was hoping to wind up on behalf of the Opposition and to press the Under-Secretary, who I assumed would reply, to answer further points which have been made. A most extraordinary proceeding is being followed. It is nothing but "Callamandering".
      The Chairman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Chair endeavours to take into account all considerations.
      Mr. F. V. Corfield (Gloucestershire, South): On a point of order. This is a very important constitutional issue. We have not even had the courtesy of the presence of the Home Secretary during the latter part of this debate. He has left it to hon. Members opposite to listen without making any reply to points raised.
      The Chairman: Order. The question, "That the Question be now put", has been put.
      The Committee having divided: Ayes 269, Noes 228.

      Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Gregory, Arnold

      Murray, Albert

      Barnes, Michael

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Neal, Harold

      Barnett, Joel

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Newens, Stan

      Baxter, William

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip

      Bence, Cyril

      Hannan, William

      Oakes, Gordon

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Harper, Joseph

      Ogden, Eric

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Oram, Albert E.

      Blackburn, F.

      Haseldine, Norman

      Orme, Stanley

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hattersley, Roy

      Oswald, Thomas

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Hazell, Bert

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

      Boston, Terence

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Boyden James

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Padley, Walter

      Bradley, Tom

      Henig, Stanley

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Palmer, Arthur

      Brooks, Edwin

      Hilton, W. S.

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Park, Trevor

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

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Buchan, Norman

      Howie, W.

      Pavitt, Laurence

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

      Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Pentland, Norman

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

      Cant, R. B.

      Hynd, John

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Jackson, Col n (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Randall, Harry

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Rankin, John

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Rees, Meriyn

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Cronin, John

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

      Dalyell, Tam

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

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Jones, J. Idwai (Wrexham)

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

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrdington)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Kelley, Richard

      Roebuck, Roy

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

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

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Lawson, George

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rowlands, E.

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Ryan, John

      Delargy, Hugh

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

      Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

      Dell, Edmund

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Dempsey, James

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Dewar, Donald

      Lipton, Marcus

      Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

      Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Dickens, James

      Loughlin, Charles

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

      Dobson, Ray

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

      Doig, Peter

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Driberg, Tom

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Silverman, Julius

      Dunn, James A.

      McBride, Neil

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Dunnett, Jack

      McCann, John

      Slater, Joseph

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      MacColl, James

      Small, William

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

      McGuire, Michael

      Snow, Julian

      Eadie, Alex

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Edelman, Maurice

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Mackie, John

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Ellis, John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      English, Michael

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Symonds, J. B.

      Ennals, David

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Taverne, Dick

      Ensor, David

      Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

      Evans, Albert (Islington S.W.)

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

      Thornton, Ernest

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Manuel, Archie

      Tinn, James

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

      Mapp, Charles

      Tomney, Frank

      Fernyhough, E.

      Marks, Kenneth

      Tuck, Raphael

      Fitch, Harold

      Marquand, David

      Urwin, T. W.

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Varley, Eric G.

      Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirEric (Islington, E.)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Vai)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Wallace, George

      Ford, Ben

      Mendelson, John

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Forrester, John

      Millan, Bruce

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Fowler, Gerry

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Weitzman, David

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

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

      Wellbeloved, James

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Molloy, William

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Moorman, Eric

      Whitaker, Ben

      Ginsburg, David

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Whitlock, William

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Moyle, Roland

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Witson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Winnick, David

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Dr. M. S. Miller and

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Woof, Robert

      Mr. Charles R. Morris.

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Wyatt, Woodrow

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Galbraith, Hn. T, G.

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Astor, John

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Monro, Hector

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

      Glyn, Sir Richard

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Goober, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      More, Jasper

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Balniel, Lord

      Goodhew, Victor

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Gower, Raymond

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Batsford, Brian

      Grant, Anthony

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

      Murton, Oscar

      Bell, Ronald

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Neave, Airey

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Gurden, Harold

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Biffen, John

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Nott, John

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Blaker, Peter

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Body, Richard

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Hastings, Stephen

      Pardoe, John

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Hawkins, Paul

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Hay, John

      Peel, John

      Braine, Bernard

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Percival, Ian

      Brewis, John

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Peyton, John

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Heseftine, Michael

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hiley, Joseph

      Pounder, Rafton

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Bryan, Paul

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

      Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Buck, Antony (Colchester)

      Holland, Philip

      Pym, Francis

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hordern, Peter

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Burden, F. A.

      Hornby, Richard

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Hunt, John

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Carlisle, Mark

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Channon, H. P. G.

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Chataway, Christopher

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Clark, Henry

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Clegg, Walter

      Jopling, Michael

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Cooke, Robert

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Sharples, Richard

      Corfield, F. V.

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

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

      Costain, A. P.

      Kerby, Capt. Henry

      Silvester, Frederick

      Craddock, Sir Beresford (Speithorne)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Crouch, David

      Kimball, Marcus

      Smith, Dudley (W 'wick & L'mington)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Kitson, Timothy

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Lambton, Viscount

      Speed, Keith

      Currie, G. B. H.

      Lane, David

      Stainton, Keith

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Dance, James

      Lawler, Wallace

      Stodart, Anthony

      Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Tapsell, Peter

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

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

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Dean, Paul

      Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

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

      Longden, Gilbert

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Lubbock, Eric

      Temple, John M.

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      McAcdden, Sir Stephen

      Thatcther, Mrs. Margaret

      Doughty, Charles

      Mac Arthur, Ian

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Drayson, G. B.

      Maolean, Sir Fitzroy

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Eden, Sir John

      McMaster, Stanley

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Emery, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Waddington, David

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Maddan, Martin

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

      Marten, Neil

      Walters, Dennis

      Eyre, Reginald

      Maude, Angus

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Fisher, Nigel

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Mawby, Ray

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Fortescue, Tim

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Foster, Sir John

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Worsley, Marcus

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Wright. Esmond

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Wylie, N. R.

      Mr. R. W. Elliott and

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Younger, Hn. George

      Mr. Anthony Royle.

      Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

      Division No. 310.]

      AYES

      [6.15 p.m.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Maude, Angus

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Fortesoue, Tim

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Foster, Sir John

      Mawby, Ray

      Astor, John

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Baker, w. H. K. (Banff)

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Balniel, Lord

      Glyn, Sir Richard

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Monro, Hector

      Batsford, Brian

      Goodhart, Philip

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Goodhew, Victor

      More, Jasper

      Bell, Ronald

      Gower, Raymond

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &Fhm)

      Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Biffen, John

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Gurden, Harold

      Murton, Oscar

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Neave, Airey

      Blaker, Peter

      Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury

      Nott, John

      Body, Richard

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Osborn, John (Haflam)

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Hastings, Stephen

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      Braine, Bernard

      Hawkins, Paul

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Brewis, John

      Hay, John

      Page, John (Harrow, w.)

      Brinton, sir Tatton

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Pardoe, John

      Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Peel, John

      Percival, Ian

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Peyton, John

      Bryan, Paul

      Hiley, Joseph

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Buck, Antony (Colchester)

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Pounder, Rafton

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Burden, F. A.

      Holland, Philip

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Hordern, Peter

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Hornby, Richard

      Pym, Francis

      Carlisle, Mark

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Hunt, John

      Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Channon, H, P. G.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Chataway, Christopher

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Clark, Henry

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Clegg, Walter

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Cooke, Robert

      Jopling, Michael

      Royle, Anthony

      Corfield, F. V.

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Costain, A. P.

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Scott, Nicholas

      Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Kerby, Capt. Henry

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Crouch, David

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Sharples, Richard

      Crowder, F. P.

      Kimball, Marcus

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

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Silvester, Frederick

      Currie, C. B. H.

      Kitson, Timothy

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Lambton, Viscount

      Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

      Danes, James

      Lane, David

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Speed, Keith

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Lawler, Wallace

      Stainton, Keith

      Dean, Paul

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Deodes, Rt. Hn, W. T. (Ashford)

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

      Stodart, Anthony

      Dlgby, Simon Wingfield

      Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

      Tapscli, Peter

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Longden, Gilbert

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Doughty, Charles

      Lubbock, Eric

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

      Drayson, G. B.

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Mac Arthur, Ian

      Temple, John M.

      Eden, Sir John

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Emery, Peter

      McMaster, Stanley

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

      Maddan, Martin

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Eyre, Reginald

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Waddington, David

      Fisher, Nigel

      Marten, Neil

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      The Committee divided: Ayes 230, Noes 270.

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Wylie, N. R.

      Walters, Dennis

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Mr. R. W. Elliott and

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Worsley, Marcus

      Mr. Anthony Royle.

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Wright, Esmond

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Ensor, David

      McCann, John

      Albu, Austen

      Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

      MacColl, James

      Allaun, Prank (Salford, E.)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      McGuire, Michael

      Alldritt, Walter

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

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Anderson, Donald

      Fernyhough, E.

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Finch, Harold

      Mackie, John

      Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Bagier, Cordon A. T.

      Ford, Ben

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Barnes, Michael

      Forrester, John

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

      Barnett, Joel

      Fowler, Gerry

      Manuel, Archie

      Baxter, William

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mapp, Charles

      Bence, Cyril

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Marks, Kenneth

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Garrett, W. E.

      Marquand, David

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Ginsburg, David

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Bishop, E. S.

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Blackburn, F.

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Gregory, Arnold

      Mendelson, John

      Boston, Terence

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Millan, Bruce

      Boyden, James

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Bradley, Tom

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Hannan, William

      Molloy, William

      Brooks, Edwin

      Harper, Joseph

      Moonman, Eric

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

      Harrison, waiter (Wakefield)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

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

      Haseldine, Norman

      Moyle, Roland

      Buchan, Norman

      Hattersley, Roy

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

      Hazell, Bert

      Murray, Albert

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Neal, Harold

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Newens, Stan

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Henig, Stanley

      Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip

      Cant, R. B.

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Oakes, Gordon

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hilton, W. S.

      Ogden, Eric

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      O'Malley, Brian

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Oram, Albert E.

      Coleman, Donald

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Orme, Stanley

      Concannon, J. D.

      Howie, W.

      Oswald, Thomas

      Conlan, Bernard

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

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Padley, Walter

      Cronin, John

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Hynd, John

      Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Dalyell, Tam

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Park, Trevor

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

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

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Davits, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Davies, Hot (Gower)

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Pentland, Norman

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

      Delargy, Hugh

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

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Dell, Edmund

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

      Dempsey, James

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

      Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

      Dewar, Donald

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Price, WilIiam (Rugby)

      Dickens, James

      Kelley, Richard

      Randall, Harry

      Dobson, Ray

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

      Rankin, John

      Doig, Peter

      Lawson, George

      Rees, Merlyn

      Driberg, Tom

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Dunn, James A.

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

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

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Eadie, Alex

      Lipton, Marcus

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

      Edelman, Maurice

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Roebuck, Roy

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Ellis, John

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      English, Michael

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Rowlands, E.

      Ennals, David

      McBride, Neil

      Ryan, John

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Symonds, J. B.

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Sheldon, Robert

      Taverne, Dick

      Whitlock, William

      Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Thornton, Ernest

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

      Tinn, James

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

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

      Tomney, Frank

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Silverman, Julius

      Urwin, T. W.

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Varley, Eric G.

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Slater, Joseph

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Winnick, David

      Small, William

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Snow, Julian

      Wallace, George

      Woof, Robert

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Wyatt, Woodrow

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Weitzman, David

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Wellbeloved, James

      Dr. M. S. Miller and

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Mr. Charles R. Morris.

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Whitaker, Ben

      Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. Mr. Irving. We on this side realise that we are bound to accept—and we must, at any rate at this stage, loyally accept—the Ruling which you gave in accepting the Closure, but I wish to raise the question of the conduct of the Government Chief Whip in moving it. I put this to you, Mr. Irving, as the protector of minorities in the House. It is true that, after the Home Secretary had spoken, I intervened briefly, as I thought it only courteous to the Home Secretary to indicate the feeling which we had about what he said, but we were all on this side looking forward to hearing my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) wind up the debate.
      The point which I put to you, Mr. Irving, is that there is no precedent for a Government Chief Whip, however new in office, moving the Closure before there has been a chance for the Opposition to reply fully to the debate. I submit that it is wholly unprecedented, and I trust that the Government, having gerrymandered the constituencies, do not intend to try to gag debate.
      Hon. Members: Disgraceful.
      The Chairman: Order. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to deal with the point of order. I understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken. I did not see the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) rising. For the rest, the Chair cannot speak for the Patronage Secretary.
      Sir D. Renton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Irving. You are perfectly correct in saying that you had not seen me rise. The principal reason why I had
      1222
      not risen was that there were still four hon. Members on this side trying to catch your eye. The debate had not lasted an excessively long time. Nearly all the speeches had been short. In any event, even if I had had it in mind—which I had not at that moment, as I have made plain—to rise to catch your eye, I would have been frustrated by the alacrity of the the Chief Whip in moving the Closure.
      The Chairman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—
      Mr. Cranley Onslow: Further to that point of order—
      The Chairman: Order.
      Mr. Onslow: On a point of order—
      Hon. Members: No.
      The Chairman: Order. The Chair must be allowed to hear. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not reiterate the point which has already been made.
      Mr. Onslow: I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Irving, to the fact, so that you may bear it in mind for future reference—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that the effect of the premature moving of the Closure by the Government Chief Whip was to deny opportunity to speak to several hon. Members who represent constituencies with electorates of over 85,000.
      The Chairman: Order. We cannot debate the decision of the Chair.
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order.
      The Chairman: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not reiterate the point which has already been made. We cannot debate the decisions of the Chair, or the conduct of the Patronage Secretary, on points of order.
      Mr. Onslow: Further to that point of order—
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. Could you clarify the Ruling you gave just now, Mr. Irving? In reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), you made a comment to which you obviously attach significance, that you had not seen my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) rise. Does it follow that it is in your experience contrary to precedent and custom in the House for the Closure to be moved or accepted before there has been a winding-up speech on a constitutional Bill from the Opposition spokesman on an Opposition Amendment?
      The Chairman: Order. I cannot enlarge on my decision or the remarks I made.
      Mr. John Peyton: It is a little difficult for us who sit on the humble benches behind my right hon. and learned Friend to understand the significance of all this. I am in no way challenging your Ruling, Mr. Irving, but, as I understand, if my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) had risen—and the fact that he did not do so was a matter of great regret to us—the debate might have continued.
      The Chairman: Order. I cannot offer to the hon. Gentleman an explanation that I refused to the right hon. Gentleman. The next Amendment selected is—
      Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order. May I ask you to give a ruling and help the Committee, Mr. Irving? You said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) did not rise, and that if he had done so the debate would have continued.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Sir D. Glover: For the further guidance of the Committee, do we now understand that in any further debate the Front Bench speaker must rise on every occasion to give an indication that he wants the debate to continue?
      The Chairman: I am sorry. I cannot discuss the decision I have taken.
      Mr. Reginald Maudling: On a point of clarification. I am not quite clear whether the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend had not appeared to you, Mr. Irving, to rise, was relevant to your decision.
      The Chairman: It was a fact that I offered to be helpful. I cannot elaborate any further. The next Amendment selected is Amendment No. 3—
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not seek to press me further on a point on which I have ruled. I cannot discuss the same point of order again.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Would it help you in the discharge of your important functions, Mr. Irving, which it is the desire of every right hon. and hon. Member to do, if in a future case, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) intimated to you informally that it would be his desire in due course to make a winding-up speech?
      Sir D. Renton: While I am grateful for the courteous and helpful suggestion made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), I feel obliged, in fairness to you, Mr. Irving, to point out that if such an informal intimation were made by me to you I would not dream of making it until I was assured that hon. Members on the back benches on both sides had at least been given an opportunity—by which I mean a reasonable opportunity—to catch your eye and address the Committee.
      The Chairman: Order. The Chair on all occasions tries to take into consideration all relevant matters. I cannot go any further than that. Amendment No. 3. Mr. Quintin Hogg.
      Mr. John Hall: On a point of order. The whole Committee must defer to your Ruling, Mr. Irving. No one would dream of questioning it.
      Hon. Members: Sit down then.
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that in that event the hon. Gentleman will not go on to do just that.
      Mr. John Hall: I am not questioning your Ruling, Mr. Irving, but I would like some guidance. I think that hon. Members on both sides are very interested in some of the forthcoming Amendments—
      The Chairman: Order. I cannot take up the time of the Committee in giving guidance to hon. Members in this way. Mr. Hogg. Amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Edward Heath rose—
      Hon. Members: Oh.
      The Chairman: Order. Mr. Edward Heath.
      Mr. Heath: On a point of order. Has it not long been the custom in the House that a right hon. or hon. Member has the right to ask the Chair for guidance? Is there are precedent for refusing that guidance?
      The Chairman: Order. The Chair endeavours to be helpful whenever possible, but it is a long-standing practice of the Chair not to rule hypothetically.
      Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order. Is it not a fact that there are many precedents of this sort? But in any case the Chair is the recipient of the will of the Committee. My right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary moved the Closure, Mr. Irving, and you accepted the Motion, and whether or not you saw anybody on the other side of the Committee rise is not relevant.
      Hon. Members: Oh.
      The Chairman: Order. I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman what I have said to Members on the other side of the Committee. The Chair endeavours at all times to take into consideration all relevant factors.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      The Chairman: Order. We must proceed.
      Mr. Michael Heseltine: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Irving. As Members will wish to speak on the large number of Amendments still ahead of us, so that my hon. Friends and I can try to decide whether or not to intervene in one debate or another, may I ask you to say whether it will be your practice
      1226
      to accept movement of the Closure on all the different debates yet to come?
      The Chairman: Order. I cannot give guidance hypothetically in this way.
      Mr. William Baxter: I distinctly heard you, Mr. Irving, calling Mr. Quintin Hogg on two or three occasions—
      Hon. Members: Order.
      Mr. Baxter:—the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I distinctly heard you name Mr. Quintin Hogg—and I repeat that. Mr. Hogg is not rising in his place to move the Amendment that you called upon him to move—
      Mr. Hogg rose—
      Hon. Members: Oh.
      The Chairman: Order. I cannot speak to the Committee while there is a noise. The hon. Gentleman is addressing me on a point of order.
      Mr. Baxter: I distinctly heard you call a Member to move a certain Amendment, Mr. Irving. If that Member fails to do so I submit that you should then put the Amendment to the Committee, because we are having tedious repetition of bogus points of order, and I think that it is the duty of the Chair to see that our business is conducted in a proper manner. I respectfully suggest that as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not rise you now put the Amendment to the Committee.
      Sir D. Glover rose—
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to call the Amendment.
      Mr. Hogg: I distinctly heard the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) mention me by name. Is it not the invariable custom of the House for the Chair alone to use the name of a Member and then only when he has disobeyed the ruling of the Chair? May I accordingly ask for your protection, Mr. Irving?
      The Chairman: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly correct. If I did not hear the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire refer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman by name, I apologise. I should like to call the right hon. and learned Gentleman now.
      Mr. Peter Emery: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Irving? A number of Members of the Opposition have to represent the views of constituents considerably affected by the last Amendment and the Bill. May I therefore ask—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating the point of order with which I have already dealt.
      Sir D. Clover rose—
      Mr. Emery rose—
      The Chairman: Order. Unless the hon. Gentleman is introducing new matter, I cannot hear him.
      Mr. Emery rose—
      Mr. Hogg: On a point of order.
      The Chairman: Order. I wished to give the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) the opportunity to complete his point of order, if he is coming to a genuine point.
      Mr. Emery: I am sorry, Mr. Irving, but I had not finished my submission. A number of us have to represent constituents who are concerned with this major constitutional issue and who are affected by the outcome of the Amendments. As this is a major constitutional issue, may we have your guidance about how our constituents' views may be heard in the Chamber if the Closure is moved as it was just now?
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating what other hon. Members have already said.
      Mr. Ridley: Would you, Mr. Irving, rule on the point raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell)? He put to you the supposition that the Patronage Secretary had only to rise in his place and move, That the Question be now put, for you to accept that Motion. Would you confirm that it is customary not to accept the Closure until all hon. Members seeking to catch you eye have done so, especially when the debate has run for only two hours, which is a very short time on a major constitutional Measure, and when many Members whose constituencies are directly affected have been seeking to catch your eye? Would you confirm that the right hon. Gentleman was totally wrong?
      The Chairman: What I said to the right hon. Gentleman was that in accepting any proposal of this kind the Chair, in the exercise of its prerogative, takes into consideration all the relevant matters.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order. I accept entirely what you have said, Mr. Irving, but would you go further and repudiate the doctrine of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell)? Is it not a fact that the Chair must act impartially between both sides of the Committee and not simply accept the will of the majority? Will you make that clear to the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to have forgotten the function of the Chair in protecting minorities?
      The Chairman: I thought that my answer to the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) made it perfectly clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that the Chair, in the exercise of its responsibility, takes into account all the relevant matters.
      Captain Walter Elliot: With reference to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), may I put it to you, Mr. Irving, with the greatest respect, that your earlier Ruling concerned whether or not our Front Bench spokesman should be given the opportunity to speak? I think that we all recognise the importance of Front Bench spokesmen winding up the debate, but, as my hon. Friend said, the Bill affects many constituencies in ways which are different for each. May I therefore put it to you that the Closure which was moved by the Chief Patronage Secretary deprived many of us of the opportunity to speak?
      The Chairman: Order. I cannot enlarge on what I have said.
      Mr. John Hall: You were kind enough to agree a little while ago. Mr. Irving, that it is the normal custom for the Chair to give guidance to hon. Members in helping them to decide what their conduct should be during a debate. We are faced with a considerable difficulty and so far, for one reason or another, you have not found it possible to give that guidance. You will know that there are matters for discussion on the Amendments which arouse considerable feeling

      1229
      and which affect many constituencies and people living in them. The Members concerned are expected—
      The Chairman: Order. With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman is repeating exactly what his hon. Friends have already said. Mr. Edward Taylor.
      Mr. John Hall rose—
      The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a fresh point to submit to me, I shall be happy to hear him.
      Mr. John Hall: With the greatest respect, I am endeavouring to obtain from you, Mr. Irving, guidance which you have so far not found it possible to give.
      I should like to adduce reasons why it should be possible, and perhaps why you would feel it possible, to give that guidance. Many hon. Members will wish to speak in the debates on matters of grave constitutional importance which do not often come before us. Are we to understand that when the debate has been running for a comparatively short time—in this case, just over two hours—you will accept the Closure if the Patronage Secretary moves it, or will you—and this is for the guidance of those of us who wish to speak—be prepared to allow the debate to continue while an appreciable number of Members are still anxious to speak?
      The Chairman: Order. It is a longstanding practice that the Chair should not indicate beforehand what its decisions are likely to be.
      Mr. Hordern: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Irving? You were kind enough to tell the Committee that one of the reasons you took into account when you allowed the Closure to be put was that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) had not risen in his place. Does this not lead to a very difficult position for back benchers, which is that the Patronage Secretary has only to rise in his place and move the Closure and the competition between him and my right hon. and learned Friend to leap to the Dispatch Box makes discussion from the back benches absolutely impossible?
      The Chairman: Order. The Chair endeavours to exercise its responsibilities by taking all factors into account.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: As there are many Amendments to discuss on many important issues which will arise, would it not be in order for you informally to remind the Government what happened the last time they tried to use jack-booted Closure tactics on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill?
      Mr. William Deedes: Further to the point of order. May I put to you a very real difficulty, Mr. Irving, which may well occur again? It arises in this sense. There are two kinds of hon. Members endeavouring to catch your eye in the debates, those with particular interests arising from the Bill and those of us who wish to put points of more general character. I am among this latter category. I felt it right, in the last debate, to withhold the speech I wished to make until those with particular interests had had an opportunity of pressing their points of view. This, I think, was in the mind of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). This will occur again and I venture to put to you that it is not an unreasonable basis on which some of us should conduct the debate.
      The Chairman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
      Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Irving, are we not in the unsatisfactory situation now when I, and a great many of my hon. Friends do not know whether, when the next debate takes place, we should keep our eye on the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) or on the Chair? In other words, we do not know whether the Chair will accept the Closure moved by the Patronage Secretary if my right hon. and learned Friend is bobbing up and down in his seat. I think that you must give a firmer ruling to my hon. Friends, otherwise we will be jumping up and down when any hon. Member is speaking, and I am sure this will not be satisfactory for the business of the Committee.
      The Chairman: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman in having to keep his eye on more than one hon. Member at a time. The Chair is in an even greater dilemma than that, because it has to keep an eye on a very large number of hon. Members. I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.
      Sir D. Renton: On a point of order. Does this mean that in future, whoever happens to be waiting on the Front Bench to reply to the debate must always keep a weather eye open for the approach of the Patronage Secretary, since his presence is likely to mean that the debate will rapidly be closured? If that is so, may I say that it is something quite new and utterly intolerable.
      The Chairman: Order. Mr. Quintin Hogg.
      Hon. Members: Oh.
      The Chairman: Order. The Chair has endeavoured to take note of all that has been said. The Chair has a very difficult responsibility, and I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will allow the debate to continue.
      Mr. Corfield: On a point of order. You have said that you have attempted to take account of all relevant factors, and we accept that, Mr. Irving. Could we be told whether, among the relevant factors, those were points that were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery)? This is very important. Would it be too much to ask for an answer?
      The Chairman: Order. I have made it clear that I cannot elaborate on comments that I have already made.
      Mr. Cyril Bence: Further to that point of order. Since, during the last three hours, only about a third of the hon. Members opposite have been here—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and as we have now had a half hour of nonsense from the Opposition, would you like to give directions that the bar is closed?
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Members will not take up the time of the Committee with matters which are not points of order.
      Mr. Martin Maddan: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) about those hon. Members who wish to make general points as opposed to those who wish to raise constituency points, a ruling was sought from you and
      1232
      you gave no guidance to me at all, Mr. Irving. Is it not a fact that the general courtesies as between hon. Members are such that we like to give way to someone whom we think has a particular point which ought to be heard? How are we to know whether we are to give way or whether we are to make our general points if we have no idea of the length of the debate on very important issues of this sort?
      Is it too much to ask you, in these circumstances, for guidance as to the time to be given to particular Amendments? Would that not be a courtesy which the Chair could extend to the Committee?
      The Chairman: Order. I would like to help the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot elaborate further on what I have said—
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that the Committee will allow the debate to proceed.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Mr. Peyton: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who suggested that for a large part of the afternoon these benches had not been occupied, may I say that they have been very fully occupied by many hon. Members who failed to secure an opportunity to take part in the debate? The hon. Gentleman then went on as he sat down, to make a remark about closing the bar.
      Mr. Bence: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Peyton: Perhaps you would be able to help the hon. Gentleman to explain to the Committee whether that was a technical remark addressed to members of the legal profession, or whether it was meant to contain a sinister but characteristic innuendo.
      Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. A moment ago, in replying to another point of order raised by one of my hon. Friends, you said, quite rightly, Mr. Irving, and the Committee will sympathise with this, that the Chair had a very difficult job to do. May I draw to your attention that on this constitutional Bill many hon. Members have a very difficult job to do in looking after their constituents. Will the Chair bear this fact in mind?
      The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member.
      Mr. Heath: We recognise that the Chair has been placed in a very difficult position, and that the Chair wants to go on to the next Amendment, ensuring that the Committee has an opportunity to make progress on the Bill. But do not the points of order which have been raised during the past 35 or 40 minutes show that the Committee is in a difficulty on this major constitutional Bill? Whether the Government like it or not, there are a considerable number of Amendments, which we understand are in order, on which there will be major debates, and on which the Government have tried, in my experience without any sort of precedent, to curtail effective discussion.
      To have the first debate on the first day of the Committee stage of a major Bill curtailed by the Government Chief Whip after only two hours' discussion is, in my view, unprecedented. I am quite prepared to make allowances for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary is new and inexperienced, but he has acted in, I believe, a highhanded way for what is now proving to be a very authoritarian régime. I suggest that the Committee will better be able to make progress and give proper consideration to the Bill if the Government allow us proper time to examine the Amendments.
      The Chairman: Mr. Quintin Hogg. Amendment No. 3.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. Hogg: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 10, after 'State', insert:
      'after consulting the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the relevant Boundary Commission'.
      I have been waiting patiently to catch your eye, Mr. Irving, for a little time. I understand that we are discussing with this Amendment No. 35, in line 14, leave out ' it appears ' and insert:
      'the Boundary Commission whose area includes that part represents'.
      No. 5, in line 18, at end insert:
      (4) The Secretary of State shall, at least once in each calendar year, consult the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of each Boundary Commission as to the desirability of making an Order in Council under subsection (2) above in respect of their area.
      1234
      and No. 6, in line 20, after 'State', insert:
      'after consulting the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the relevant Boundary Commission',
      all of which stand also in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do not know whether you would allow us to have a separate Division on Amendment No. 5, which raises a slightly different point, but which, I accept, could be discussed with the others.
      The Chairman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me time to consider that matter?
      Mr. Hogg: Certainly, Mr. Irving.
      The Home Secretary was good enough to express gratitude to me for the tone in which I moved Amendment No. 1, and I hope that I will move Amendment No. 3 in exactly the same tone. But, of course, the kind of progress we can make in any form of Committee stage must, to some extent, be conditioned by the response the Government make to the conciliatory tone adopted by the Opposition Front Bench.
      I am sorry that the Patronage Secretary has left us so soon, but in his absence I say to the two Secretaries of State who are sponsoring the Bill that, whatever may be the position as regards the Chair, there is no rule of order which compels the Patronage Secretary at any given moment to move the Closure. He may do so and the Chair may accept it, but the Patronage Secretary is not bound to do so—and there have been Patronage Secretaries who have been wise enough to know that it is not always pm-dent to try and gag a minority, especially when that minority is trying to put forward serious arguments upon a complicated and important constitutional Bill.
      It may often happen—and I ask the Home Secretary to tell the Patronage Secretary this when he favours us with his presence again—that the Government of the day make better progress with a Bill by being conciliatory when conciliatory arguments are addressed to them than by trying to ride roughshod over the minority, which, in any event, is affected with deep feelings of resentment at the position in which we are being placed.
      Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was conciliatory—I

      1235
      accept that fully—but he just was not convincing. His arguments just did not hold water.
      Mr. Hogg: That is a matter of opinion which we fully debated. I am only saying that the arguments which do not appeal to the Home Secretary appeal to a very large number of us, and the only point I am seeking to make to him is that if, instead of giggling in a frivolous manner when arguments are addressed to him in a conciliatory tone, he were to concede now and again that he could conceivably be wrong and the Opposition right, he could make better progress. If he behaves himself, I will find it easier to put arguments to him.
      These Amendments depend upon a single broad conception which I will now seek to put to the Committee. They give the opportunity to the Government yet again to demonstrate their sincerity, if any, about the Bill. I am sorry that the Home Secretary has now left us, too. It is like the 10 little creatures sitting on the wall—they go away one after the other so that one can never address consecutive arguments to them. I must address myself, therefore, to the Under-Secretary of State.
      On Second Reading, the attitude of this side of the Committee was that the thing to do, even at the price of a little later inconvenience, was to introduce a total review. The Government said, "No. We must wait for Redcliffe-Maud." We voted on that. We had not changed our minds, but we were in the minority and were beaten. Next, we said that if we could not have a general review, let us keep Clause 2(3) in the Bill in order that, from time to time, the Boundary Commissions, in their impartiality, might make particular reviews where the situation locally becomes intolerable. We said, in effect, "If the Government are genuine in their desire for the principle of the Bill, they will surely accept this Amendment".
      We were greeted with the astonishing retort from the Home Secretary, "But this is a general review that you really want. You do not want these particular reviews. They are impossible. Therefore, we must have a general review or nothing, and since we have rejected a general review you must have nothing."
      1236
      Amendment No. 3 and the others in this group are designed to meet that very point. Being beaten on the Amendment No. 1 by the machine-made Government majority, who do not listen but only vote, we are faced here with the necessity of direct action. If we are not to have a particular review, but may have a general review, let us see that the general review is properly conducted. That is the purpose of these Amendments and it is, as I have said, again a test of the Government's sincerity. We say to the Government, "If your argument, which we do not find convincing, on Amendment No. 1 is right, let us assume that it is right and then accept Amendment No. 3."
      Under subsection (2), the Government can reactivate the general review, which they say is necessary—or rather, to put it more precisely, the Secretary of State can reactivate it. If that is the way the Government want it, let us look at the conditions under which they do it. As the Bill stands, the position is that the Secretary of State alone has the power to reactivate. We heard a lot about the sovereignty of Parliament on Second Reading, but there is no sovereignty of Parliament here, because subsection (3) limits the power of the Secretary of State to reactivate the Boundary Commissions to those cases where Parliament makes a positive recommendation by a Resolution of both Houses.
      In other words, subsection (3) is a brake on the Secretary of State and not a spur to activity, and this is our complaint about it. The Secretary of State can do nothing, and, if the Secretary of State does nothing, Parliament is powerless under subsection (3). It cannot initiate anything.
      What are we to do about this obvious drafting error in the arrangements made by the Secretary of State? Our answer is that the right hon. Gentleman by the terms of the Bill should be made to consult the Boundary Commission about the exercise of powers under subsection (2) for the purposes of bringing the draft Order in Council under subsection (3). Although the Secretary of State is very conscious of his own virtue, we are not so conscious of it; we no longer trust him to operate the electoral machinery, and I doubt whether the country will trust him, unaided by us, to operate the electoral machinery.

      1237
      Under subsection (1), which we seek to amend, the action of the Secretary of State may not take place for the next three years. Unless he moves—and we are seeking to devise means of goading him into a little activity—this will go on from year to year to a minimum of 1979 and a maximum of 1984. We know that there will have been a General Election at least by mid-1971. Who will be the Secretary of State in 1972? Not, I expect, the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the position. I dread to think who it might be, but I doubt whether it will be a person who commends the unadulterated enthusiasm of the Labour Party.
      Therefore, the Amendment is directed especially to the possibility that the Labour Party, in 1972, may get a Secretary of State whom it endorses a little less enthusiastically than the right hon. Gentleman. We want to put a safeguard on the impartiality of the Secretary of State for 1972 and, surely, we are doing a great kindness. We shall, perhaps, be a little ready to draw precedents from the way in which we have been treated this afternoon when there is a Conservative Secretary of State sitting behind the Government Dispatch Box. We are trying to help the Labour Party in opposition, as it will be by then.
      We want an impartial body to put a curb on the Conservative Secretary of State who is goaded by just indignation and, perhaps, legitimate desire for revenge. We want the Boundary Commission to hold him in check, an impartial body with Mr. Speaker in the chair, a High Court judge in the deputy chair and other respected and impartial persons looking on. What can be wrong, if the Government's influence is an honest one, in putting the Boundary Commission in charge, and giving it an influence in the general review which, according to the Secretary of State's argument, must now precede any particular amelioration of our distorted electoral pattern?
      The proposal is, therefore, in the interest of the whole Committee. We want it till 1971, or the next General Election, whichever is the earlier, and hon. Members will require it after that. Amendment No. 3 proposes that after the words "the Secretary of State" there shall be inserted the words:
      1238
      "after consulting the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the relevant Boundary Commission."
      The Secretary of State includes the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to the appropriate Commission, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to the other Commissions.
      The numbering of Amendment No. 35 is a mistake. It was put down in printing under Clause 2, but it is obviously an Amendment to Clause 1, and the mistake has now been corrected. It is a consequential drafting Amendment.
      Amendment No. 5 provides that
      "The Secretary of State shall, at least once in each calendar year, consult the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of each Boundary Commission as to the desirability of making an Order in Council under subsection (2) above in respect of their area."
      7.15 p.m.
      If the right hon. Gentleman's argument on the last Amendment was in the least sincere, genuine and honest, what can be wrong with that? He is not bound to do more than consult the Boundary Commission. If he feels that he can resist the pressure of the Boundary Commission with another Parliamentary majority, perhaps he can resist it, although the fact of his so resisting it will be known.
      Although I do not want to anticipate Amendment No. 4, which is due for separate discussion after these Amendments are voted upon, and can be decided separately, if Amendment No. 4 were accepted too, the Secretary of State would not be able to drag his feet about moving an Order in Council, because a time limit would be set upon his delaying. That will be a further improvement when the time comes.
      I press the Government to accept this group of Amendments because, from their point of view, there can be no objection to them. They merely put the Secretary of State in his unfettered discretion as it now is under an obligation to consult those who may be trusted to operate the electoral machinery in an impartial manner. If the Secretary of State was genuine in what he said on the previous Amendment, he must in logic be bound to yield to my pleas this time. If not, we shall know what to think.
      Mr. Walter Clegg: I wish to support the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for

      1239
      St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) by referring to a particular case.
      My right hon. and learned Friend argued that the Amendments would be a help to the Secretary of State. I sincerely believe that this is so. The Secretary of State will have to take some rather delicate decisions under Clause 1(3)(a), which provides that the Secretary of State:
      "shall lay before Parliament a draft of such an Order in Council for any part of the United Kingdom as soon as it appears to him that it would not, by reason of the prospect of local government reorganisation there, be premature to do so".
      A delicate situation might arise in the Prime Minister's constituency of Huyton. The Minister of State at the end of the Second Reading debate said that the change in the Prime Minister's constituency was small. It is described by the Boundary Commission as a major change, taking out about 28,000 voters, and is far from being small. It could be an embarrassment to the Home Secretary if he found that "it would not, by reason of the prospect of local government reorganisation there, be premature to do so".
      The Home Secretary, in arguing on the previous Amendment, said that one of the difficulties in the constituency of Meriden was that, under the Redcliffe-Maud proposals, part of Meriden would fall into a metropolitan area and part into a unitary authority. I can assure the Home Secretary that that difficulty will not arise with Huyton. The part that is being taken from Huyton is Kirby, and Huyton itself will go into the same Liverpool metropolitan district. There is no reason, once the Bill becomes law, why the Home Secretary should not immediately present to the House the draft of an Order relating to Huyton. The terms of that Order as unamended could apply directly to Huyton. It will be a great test of the Government's sincerity if when the Bill becomes law the Home Secretary makes it his duty to lay before the House such an Order. Perhaps he could do it the next time he is not asked to a meeting of the inner Cabinet.
      The Home Secretary would be protected against having to take delicate decisions himself if he had to consult the Boundary Commission. If the Boundary Commission said that changes in Huyton
      1240
      could go ahead, the Home Secretary would need to lose no sleep about it. But if he takes the decision himself, the Prime Minister might think that the Home Secretary had the needle in for him, and he probably would not be far wrong. These are cogent reasons why the Home Secretary should accept these Amendments.
      [Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]
      Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I wish to address my remarks to Amendment No. 6. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Scotland in his place, since I wish mainly to address my remarks to him.
      I wish to refer to Clause 1(4) of the Bill since the Explanatory Memorandum says
      "The suspension"—
      that is, the suspension of the Boundary Commission's Report—
      "will apply also to the reports of the Boundary Commissions for Scotland and Northern Ireland unless in either case the Secretary of State takes action, in accordance with subsection (4), before the end of March 1970 to implement the 1969 Report."
      I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland some direct questions. What in this context does "unless" mean? What consideration will he bear in mind if he decides to lay an Order before the House giving effect to one or more changes in the boundaries of the constituencies of Scotland? I am sure that he has paid a great deal of attention to the report of the Boundary Commission about Scottish constituencies as it has gone into a great amount of detail. Will he go back to the Boundary Commission to consult it before laying an order?
      There are 71 constituencies in Scotland. At least 21 are mentioned in the Report as needing major revision. Part of the Home Secretary's reason for throwing out the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions for England and Wales was that the Redcliffe-Maud Report had been received and it was not possible to implement it. The Royal Commission on local government changes in Scotland has not yet reported. One reason to be adduced for the Secretary of State for Scotland not taking any action is the fact that Wheatley has not reported. If Wheatley reports within the foreseeable future, and before March

      1241
      1970, will the Secretary of State then come before the House to lay Orders to implement the reports so far produced?
      The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Could the hon. Gentleman help me by indicating which Amendment he is discussing? At the moment he appears to be debating on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Baker: With great respect, Mr. Gourlay, when I opened my remarks I said that I was referring principally to Amendment No. 6. Will the Secretary of State take into account any changes recommended by the Wheatley Commission before laying an order and then consult the chairman and deputy chairman of the relevant Boundary Commission? We are entitled to know what is in the mind of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The subsection was not put in the Bill merely for fun. It could obviously be implemented if the Secretary of State were so disposed.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: I wish also to support the Amendments, and particularly those parts which require that the Home Secretary should consult the chairman and deputy chairman of the Boundary Commission at least once in each calendar year.
      These Amendments are vital because, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) so rightly said, we can no longer trust the Home Secretary in any constitutional matter. Therefore it is necessary, as proposed in the Amendments, to bring in some impartial body which at least can attempt to influence him.
      It is most surprising that the Home Secretary did not have the courtesy to be present during the debate when my right hon. and learned Friend was speaking.
      Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was here during the whole of the previous debate.
      Mr. Carlisle: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman was here then. My comment was that he failed to be here during the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone when he moved these Amendments. It is surely part of the normal courtesies
      1242
      between both Front Benches that that should happen. [Interruption.] At least it has drawn back into the Chamber the Patronage Secretary.
      A person convicted of an offence must be present during the whole of the trial. When the Home Secretary chooses to act unlawfully and illegally, as he has done in the Bill, he should be present during the whole of the debate. We cannot any longer trust the Home Secretary to carry out his statutory powers.
      Since there is no means of having interim reports, it would appear that the earliest date upon which we shall see a full report is 1979. Remembering that the Boundary Commissions took four years to report, the earliest time at which we can now expect a review of boundaries in 1984. On any view, there will be at least three, and possibly four, elections before that date arrives. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) shakes his head, but I assure him that is what Clause 1(2) says. It says that there shall be no interim report before the Commission makes its next report, which it is required to start in ten years' time. If it does that, we shall have had three or four elections before getting a report, and in that time abnormally large seats will have grown even larger and abnormally small seats will have become even smaller.
      7.30 p.m
      The only way in which we can get an earlier report is if the Home Secretary chooses to use his powers under subsection (3). We are dependent on the actions of the Home Secretary for a decision whether there shall be a review of boundaries at any reasonable time, and it is in that connection that we wish to put some pressure on the Home Secretary by requiring him to consult the chairman and deputy chairman of the relevant Commission.
      As it stands, subsection (3) says that no order shall be made unless it has been laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State. It goes on to say that the Home Secretary
      "… shall lay before Parliament a draft of such an Order in Council … as soon as it appears to him that it would not … be premature to do so".
      What faith can we put on those words with a Home Secretary who ignores a statutory provision which at the moment

      1243
      requires him to take action as soon as may be? Under the 1949 Act, he is required to lay reports before this House. He chose to disregard that statutory duty. Equally, it is feared that he will choose to disregard his statutory duty under this Measure. In view of that, it is vital that the Boundary Commission should be brought in, with the Speaker of the House of Commons and the learned High Court judge having to be consulted. If the Home Secretary chooses to ignore their opinions, it will very soon become known that he is acting in defiance of their advice.
      My second point comes back to the question of consulting every year. If the Government are sincere in their views on this Bill, they could carry out certain parts of the Boundary Commission's Report at any stage. In the city of Manchester, the Exchange division is down to 18,000 electors. Next door to it, the Cheetham division is down to 30,000 electors. Both are Labour seats. The Boundary Commission's recommendation was that they should be amalgamated. The Government have decided not to implement that. Similarly, the Scotland division of Liverpool has 30,000 electors. The Exchange division has 34,000. The Boundary Commission recommends a new seat called Scotland-Exchange, amalgamating the two. They are both Labour seats. Again, the Commission's recommendation is not to be implemented.
      In both cities, the seats are included in the metropolitan areas recommended by Redcliffe-Maud, and no possible argument carrying any weight, based on the Redcliffe-Maud Report, especially in view of what the Government are doing in London, can be advanced against carrying out the recommendations of the Boundary Commission in those two respects.
      If the Home Secretary had to consult the Boundary Commission every year, presumably Mr. Speaker and the learned High Court judge would say to him, "You have a duty to lay orders before Parliament so long as local government reorganisation makes it appropriate. What about these two in Manchester and these two in Liverpool? They are not affected by local government re-organisation." In that way, we might get part of the Boundary Commission's Report
      1244
      implemented, thanks to the pressure and efforts of the impartial chairman and deputy chairman of the Boundary Commission. But can we be sure that the Home Secretary has any intention to act in that way?
      The Redcliffe-Maud argument is one which can be used either way. It is one that the Home Office uses in either way. It says, "We cannot go on with the Boundary Commission changes because of Redcliffe-Maud." Then it sends a circular to local authorities on the Children and Young Persons Act saying, "We are putting forward proposed planning areas which will divide the country into 12. We appreciate that they have no relevance to the possible alteration of local government boundaries in the future, and at some stage in the future they will have to be amended But we propose at the moment"—presumably because the alteration in local government boundaries is so far in the future—"to go ahead with setting them up with no relation to Redcliffe-Maud."
      If the Redcliffe-Maud Report has any relation to the time scale in any of these matters, will the Under-Secretary of State tell us on what basis the Government go ahead with that Section of the Representation of the People Act which says that a person may no longer be a representative of a local council unless he lives within the area, and which removes from councils those who live outside the existing local boundaries but who live within the boundaries recommended by the Redcliffe-Maud Report? If there was any sincerity in the argument that any change had to wait for the adoption of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals—
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the Amendment.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Mr. Carlisle: Although a number of my hon. Friends shout "No", I must bow to your Ruling, Mr. Gourlay, and concede that I was getting wide of the mark.
      I was trying to point out that these Amendments are required because it is necessary to have an impartial check on the actions of the Home Secretary. One of the reasons is that the right hon. Gentleman is using the Redcliffe-Maud argument against implementing the

      1245
      Boundary Commission proposals. However, that is found to be wholly illogical when one considers that in other parts of their policy, such as the Representation of the People Act, the Government go ahead with their proposals irrespective of changes which will come about as a result of Redcliffe-Maud, presumably because they are in the interests of their party.
      It may be that the present Home Secretary will no longer be in office when this Measure comes into force. However, it will be a check on future Home Secretaries. In constitutional matters, such a check should be imposed on the executive of any party. The actions of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the Boundary Commission show how vital that check it. It is for that reason that I hope very much that the House will pass these Amendments.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. I should indicate that the Chairman has considered the request of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) for a separate Division on Amendment No. 5 and has acceded to it.
      Mr. Deedes: I fully share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) in supporting this group of Amendments. The more that we are able to transfer decisions to the chairman and other members of the Commission from the Home Office, the more reliable and trustworthy will they be.
      I address myself in particular to Amendment No. 35, which seems to raise a distinctive point. In effect, it will enable the Commission to take the initiative and make an impartial judgment about when a change is needed which will be substituted for the political judgment of the Home Secretary. The Commission's judgment is likely to be based not on political considerations, but physical ones, and it is on those that I wish to concentrate my remarks in regard to this group of Amendments.
      I want to draw attention to the problem of the expanding towns. This subject has so far not been ventilated. We are talking of physical requirements which may lead the chairman and other members of the Commission to consider that changes are necessary, and these will
      1246
      probably be the principal cause of such decision.
      A number of my hon. Friends are seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Gourlay, because they sense that the problem in their constituencies will arise through the rate of growth not only at present, but during the next five or 10 years—or some period we do not know—in which boundaries are in suspense. I plead no special interest. An expanding town is part of my responsibility, but the arrangements proposed do not lead me to indulge in any special pleading.
      I want to put this physical point to the Under-Secretary, and I hope that the Home Office will take it on board Some of these places are increasing their population by 5,000, 7,000, and even 10,000 people a year. Speaking for my constituency, it is about 3,000 to 5,000 a year. I can think of other places—I will not name them, because hon. Members can speak for themselves—where the expanding towns are growing at the rate of about 10,000 people a year.
      There are areas of rapid growth, as yet only on the map, such as Milton Keynes and Peterborough. I will not include Ipswich, because I believe that this has been cancelled as an area of rapid growth. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) has already spoken about his constituency.
      This is a new physical factor in the development of this country, which seems to underline the need for giving the Boundary Commission special powers to take the initiative to bring, if it sees fit, specific recommendations to the attention of the Home Secretary.
      What unnerves me about the replies that we have so far had from the Government is that they are nearly all couched in terms of the present. I have not heard one speech from the Government Front Bench which appears to take on board what conditions will be in five or seven years in some of these places. That is the period we are really discussing. A good deal has been said about how long it may take to implement the proposals of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, but a good deal of uncertainty must prevail. However, I will not develop that point, because it is not relevant to the Amendments.
      The physical changes, in particular in the expanding towns, seem relevant to

      1247
      the need for the right of the Commissions to make independent intervention when physical requirements, as opposed to political conditions, appear to demand it. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will tell us whether any estimates have been given to the Home Office of the kind of figures about which we may be talking.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I should bring to the right hon. Gentleman's notice that the rules of the Commission—not what is desirable—require the use of current electorates and do not ask it to make recommendations on the basis of electorates as they will be in five or ten years' time.
      Mr. Deedes: I am supporting Amendment No. 35, which seeks to give the Boundary Commissions initiative in this matter and power to make recommendations. I am suggesting that the rate of growth in some of these centres will require the Commission to take that initiative. That is why I am pressing the point. Does the Under-Secretary accept it?
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. I am arguing that if the full Boundary Commission's Report were to be implemented now it would be done on the basis of a rule which states that the Commission has to take into account the electorate for 1965. Therefore, all I am pointing out—and I am not attempting to be funny or smart—is that this may be desirable, but it is not in the rules at present. I concede that I have overplayed my hand to some degree, but not in the sense of the rules.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Deedes: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I still stick to mine. The considerations that I am discussing show the need for greater flexibility and power to revise or recommend revisions in particular cases which, for physical reasons, will be more acute in the period immediately ahead than certainly the Home Office appears to suspect.
      The physical evidence in the areas to which I am relating my remarks suggests that we ought to be increasing the facilities for review and greater flexibility, not reducing them. The effect of the Bill, at a time of enormously rapid growth in
      1248
      some of these expanding towns and areas that I have in mind, is to make them less flexible and less adaptable to the changes which should be carried out. That supports my belief and that of my hon. Friends that there are political, not social and physical, considerations behind the Bill.
      Sir D. Walker-Smith: I should like to follow what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has just said. The first of the two main reasons that should commend this group of Amendments to the Government is the need for flexibility and expedition, which my right hon. Friend so admirably analysed. I can certainly add my testimony, not only from a general point of view but from a constituency point of view. On Second Reading, I mentioned that mine is a large constituency with an electorate of over 85,000, but, nevertheless, I am not among those who have made representations that it should be made smaller.
      Looking at the situation in the context of what will happen if there is no flexibility and expedition, my constituency provides a very good example of this—not only has it over 85,000 electors now, but it is increasing at a rapid rate in the way that my right hon. Friend described. This applies to many parts of the constituency, but more particularly because there is a vast overspill development scheme by the Greater London Council which, in a few years, will add a very large population indeed.
      If there is no machinery for expedition and flexibility, we are dealing with a minimum period of eight years and a possible period of 14 years. If anything, with characteristic moderation, my right hon. Friend understated rather than exaggerated the effect of the time factor. Even at the minimum period—and certainly at the maximum period—my constituency will obviously exceed the 100,000 mark—the figure which has attracted this specialised attention in the Bill.
      That is only one illustration, which no doubt may be matched by others, of an existing large constituency just too small to come within the provisions of the Bill but which, by reason of special factors, such as the one that I have mentioned, is expanding at a far more than average rate.

      1249
      Given the provisions of the Bill, there can be no possible adjustment to cure the gross under-representation, as it will be, of these constituencies. I do not complain about seeking to represent a very large number of constituents. I do not mind answering their letters and advising them to the best of my abilities and doing all the things which Members do. I ask only one thing in return. When we go into the Division Lobbies, my constituents are under-represented, because my vote then only counts exactly the same as that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Lawler), who took his seat today, although I represent about six times as many people.
      If we really believed in the principle of the evaluation of votes according to electors, we should logically have to introduce a sliding scale for adjustment of the votes as they are cast in the Lobbies—
      Mr. Bence: Over the last 60 years, if we had had a sliding scale of representation of urban areas, we should have had a Labour Government all that period.
      Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Under the attractive scheme which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward, of a kind of card vote, he and I might have double votes to cast against the Closure when it is presently moved.
      Sir D. Walker-Smith: Double votes is an under-estimate. We would have much more that twice, and up to six times, as many votes as many hon. Gentlemen opposite—
      Mr. Bence: My electorate numbers 95,000.
      Sir D. Walker-Smith: So the hon. Gentleman is not standing again. They have driven him out. Of course, the hon. Gentleman's case is rather contrary to the majority of cases. We find considerable over-representation in many constituencies held by hon. Members opposite, no doubt because, in many cases, the people emigrate from those constituencies to seek better representation elsewhere.
      That is the first and very compelling reason why the Government should accept the Amendment. The second is that they should accept it with gratitude because my right hon. and learned Friend has done them a great service in giving
      1250
      them the opportunity not only to improve the Bill, which is important, but to improve their tarnished image in this matter—
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is too late. That cannot happen now.
      Sir D. Walker-Smith:
      "Betwixt the stirrup and the ground.
      … mercy I might, mercy I found."
      It might even give them the opportunity to salve their consciences, if those somewhat battered organs are still functioning.
      After all, the whole pattern of the law on this subject, in the 1949 and 1958 Acts was to remove all the decisions and consideration of Parliamentary boundaries as far as possible from the political arena and put it into the objective assessment of the Boundary Commission. This group of Amendments makes it possible to bring back the Commission into the arena which it properly occupied before, and from which it has been so improperly expelled by the Government's action in bringing forward the Bill.
      The Amendments, in giving the initiative to the Commission to make the recommendations with regard to the Order in Council which is contemplated under Clause 1(2), would go at any rate some way towards restoring people's faith in the objective workings of the system as it was intended. At the moment, it stands in these ominous words—"as it appears to him", that is, the Secretary of State. I never like those words in Statute. They are a relatively modern phenomenon in statutes, and an undesirable form of words, because they give far too much discretion to the Minister. This particular Minister has, unhappily, shown that his discretion cannot be relied on in the context of Parliamentary boundaries.
      The best defence which the Under-Secretary of State can make, if he will not accept the Amendments, is that he does not expect that, at the material time, his right hon. Friend will be the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State will be someone whose discretion can better be trusted. Having given the hon. Gentleman a possible defence, I exhort him not to use it but to realise the great merits of these Amendments and the great service they will do the Government in lessening the impression which they have

      1251
      given that they want to change the objective and considered pattern of dealing with these matters, from partisan motives.
      Mr. John Smith: I do not like the Bill at all. We have heard a great deal of sophistry from the Government side, but the issue is perfectly simple. The Boundary Commission, the umpire, has given its decision, and the Labour Government in power refuses to accept it, and is altering the rules. Whatever we may say, on this side or that, about this Amendment or that, the public will see that point. The Bill says that no action should be taken on the reform and no further reports should be submitted before the Boundary Commission's next general report. But the Pill gives the power to the Boundary Commission to make interim reports in London, where they are not needed, because the recommendations are to be adopted.
      That is what makes Amendment No. 5 so important, We are leaving the reform of representation subject to infrequent omnibus changes. They are about as effective and desirable as, for example, telling all nationalised industries that they must stop ordering any fresh equipment until a single decision has been made about what is the most suitable equipment for them all to have. It is no good telling the world to stop while we get it all sorted out. This is comparable to the muddles which I used to get into during the war when I was navigating an aircraft and temporarily did not know where it was. It was no use telling the pilot to stop while I took a little more time to do the sums to find out where we were.
      8.0 p.m.
      This brings me to the point enshrined in the Amendment, which is that we are dealing with a completely different pace of change. The pace may be too fast. We are constantly told by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Technology that progress is all in any direction. Perhaps the present pace of change does not suit people. For example, people may not want to change their jobs in a major way three times in their lives. Perhaps it does not make for human happiness for everybody to know that their places of birth will be demolished and made unrecognisable by the time they are 50.
      1252
      It is said that the Government are waiting for the Redcliffe-Maud Report on local government. We are always waiting for something. Is it thought that the Redcliffe-Maud Report will be the last one we shall ever have dealing with local governmnt? The lumbering machinery which the Boundary Commission must operate, and which is made more lumbering by the Bill, is unsuited to the pace of change which we have today.
      There is, therefore, something to be said for the piecemeal approach of the Bill, for it is worth recognising that, although it would have been a good plan to have started with a general change and to have proceeded thereafter with piecemeal changes, the Amendment would perpetuate that approach and I hope, therefore, that it will be accepted.
      Mr. Corfield: In concentrating on Amendment No. 35, I shall to some extent reiterate the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith).
      As drafted, subsection (3) gives the Home Secretary complete discretion to decide whether something appears to him to be appropriate. Unfortunately, none of us has any confidence that anything appears to the present Home Secretary as it appears to any other normal human being. I regret that we must address these remarks, which are bound to be critical, not only of the objectives of the Bill but of its motives, to the Under-Secretary, who we accept to be a truly honourable man. It is unfortunate that he must accept the opprobrium which should be directed elsewhere.
      If one studies subsection (3) and then glances through the list of proposals made by the Boundary Commission for England it becomes abundantly clear to any ordinary person that there are dozens of proposed changes which are due as of now and which would be in no way threatened by any proposal for local government change.
      For example, in my part of the world—the Bristol area and the South Gloucestershire fringe—no proposal in the Redcliffe-Maud Report or in the minority report of Mr. Senior or, indeed, in any other proposal put forward under

      1253
      the 1958 Act, has ever taken a form which would in any way cross with the proposals of the Boundary Commission.
      In my constituency we have an electorate of well over 80,000. This figure grows at the rate of more than 2,000 a year. Only this week I received a report from the county council saying that the development figures for the planned period, which ends in 1972, are unfortunately 20,000 people out, with the result that that 20,000 will be accommodated in my constituency. This means that within the next eight years we shall have this 20,000 plus an additional 2,000 a year, producing a constituency of 116,000 people as a minimum.
      The present ruling makes us adhere to the 1965 figures, but the Minister will observe, if he looks down the column headed "Gloucestershire", that for some reason best known to itself the Boundary Commission has included the ancient city and County of Bristol within the County of Gloucestershire. Further down the column, we see a reference to Bristol, Central, which is represented by one of his hon. Friends. That hon. Gentleman represented less than half the electorate, even in 1965, than I did, and certainly fewer people than I represent today; and his is a falling constituency. There are no grounds for postponing the alterations proposed for this area.
      Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, I have no particular wish to get rid of the rural district area of Warmley, which is the proposal. I do not think that, in terms of Conservative, Labour or Liberal, this proposal will make the slightest difference. The three rural districts are very much the same in their political pattern, and many of the people in them are my personal friends.
      If one is conscientious in wishing to help one's constituents—I appreciate that some hon. Gentlemen opposite have difficulty in understanding that term—one has one's work cut out in even a normal size constituency. In a larger constituency, the difficulties are greatly increased. For example, I have a feeling of guilt in that I know that there are a number of cases waiting on my desk which I should have examined today but which I have simply not had time to Peruse. Some are complicated and take a lot of reading.
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make only an incidental reference to this subject, rather than what appears to be a Second Reading speech. I trust that he will address his remarks to the Amendment.
      Mr. Corfield: I am endeavouring to represent my constituents, which I appreciate is rather an unusual performance for some hon. Members. [Interruption.] I represent a big constituency: It is becoming increasingly difficult for hon. Members so placed properly to look after the affairs of their constituents and at the same time make a contribution in this place.
      It is absolutely wrong that my constituents should have one-tenth of the representation in the House of Commons—they may have only one-twelfth or one-fourteenth before the next review—compared with people in some of the central urban areas.
      We are discussing a negation of democracy. It is even less democratic than the extraordinary habit, to which so many hon. Gentlemen opposite are addicted, of the block vote. I appreciate the enshrined rule which makes the Boundary Commission adhere to the figures for 1965, but even then the Commission came to the conclusion that my constituency was too big and that Bristol, Central was too small. But, of course, the latter is represented by a Socialist.
      It is difficult to comprehend how the Government can possibly expect us to swallow the rubbish which they have put forward in support of the Bill. It has been pointed out that we must keep an eye on the 1965 figures. But that is an argument for retaining the regularity of these reviews, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said, he has a new town which increases the electorate of his constituency by about 4,000 a year. I have not quite so much as that but with the extra 20,000 I shall have more in the short-term. This makes it essential to retain regularity.
      We should look at the 1969 position and decide what should be done under these conditions. The sensible thing to do is to look at over-large constituencies. We are in the position, certainly in areas such as Bristol, South Gloucestershire and North Somerset, where this can be done

      1255
      without affecting local government reform. I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us what sort of evidence the Home Secretary will look for before he decides whether it is appropriate for him to make an Order. Will he look at the figures as they are now or at the probable results for his party? If he could tell us of one good reason why the areas not affected by the Redcliffe-Maud Report where there are over-large constituencies should not have their boundaries changed, I would be more willing to accept the integrity of the Government: there is no evidence on which I can accept it now.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. George Younger: I support this group of Amendments because they would at least make a step towards bringing the Boundary Commissions back into the process of carrying out these changes. In spite of what has happened I ask the Government to reflect very carefully on how incredibly undesirable it must be for any political party to move away from an impartial decision on this sort of thing towards the making of such decisions by people who, with the best will in the world—and I do not hold that that is so in this case—are suspected of being politically motivated, although on some occasions they may not be so motivated.
      It would be showing only a minimum of respect to the Boundary Commissions if they were brought back into this matter. I deplore the absolutely disgraceful way in which they are being treated by the provisions of the Bill. The Under-Secretary looks pained and shakes his head, but I ask him to put himself in the position of one of the distinguished members of these Commissions. They have been asked to do this work and have carefully considered all the problems. They spent four long years doing their work and called before them at public inquiries all sorts of people, numerous lawyers, Members of Parliament and political agents, in many cases at expense to themselves.
      The common factor at all those inquiries were members of the Commissions who gave of their time and their expertise. Many of them are busy men. I wonder what they think after four years' work and all the expenditure when now
      1256
      they find that all their recommendations, with the exception of those relating to Greater London—
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is relating his remarks to the general principles of the Bill rather than to the specific Amendment before the Committee.
      Mr. Younger: I was adducing this as a compelling reason why under the Amendments the Boundary Commissions should be brought back into consideration. The Commissions have suffered a grievous insult at the hands of the Government. They have had their work thrown in their faces. I plead with the Government, even at this late hour, to recognise the work of the Commissions by bringing them back into the process so that they have to be consulted before Orders in Council are produced in this way. They should be consulted annually about where particular changes should be made.
      If the Government think that this is just an academic exercise and another way of producing a reason for putting forward a further group of Amendments, I ask how they would feel if they were in a minority and another Government used the power of majority to make changes contrary to a Boundary Commission's Report in this way. They would feel very aggrieved. As I said on Second Reading, none of us is devoid of original sin, but if I were an Under-Secretary, and were asked by a Prime Minister to produce a Bill of this kind, I would refuse point blank.
      Mr. Speed: I support the Amendments. I have been pursuing this matter not only for constituency reasons, but also for constitutional reasons, for some time. I have been invited by the B.B.C. and others to do broadcasts and to discuss these matters before we had the reports laid before the House and a statement by the Home Secretary a few weeks ago. I consistently took the line that I thought the Home Secretary would act honourably on the reports when they were presented to Parliament.
      Therefore, if I have reservations about these Amendments it is that even if we passed them, under this Administration I wonder whether that would be worth doing. I would be out of order to stray too far back to the previous debate, but

      1257
      if the Home Secretary were to bring back the Boundary Commissions as a check and restraint we should look at what the right hon. Gentleman is doing at the moment.
      If I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly when he was referring to my constituency not being treated in the same way as the constituency of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), he suggested that one of the reasons was that my constituency crosses what would be two unitary authorities if the Redcliffe-Maud proposals were accepted. If my researches are correct, the Home Secretary is creating a new constituency, South-East Hertfordshire, which crosses two unitary authorities, Nos. 49 and 50. Under Schedule 2, there are the constituencies of Hitchin and South Bedfordshire which are to be split up and to cross those unitary authorities. When an argument is used against me and the people I represent, and then I find that in the same Bill the argument is stood on its head, I am made to wonder what sort of checks we must have. One of those checks must be to try to bring the Boundary Commission in, for it is impartial. One member of the Commission is an expert on local government and he can look at these matters.
      I repeat that before the Bill was published I thought that the Secretary of State would act honourably. In our debates on the Representation of the People Bill, the Under-Secretary was more than helpful in replying to some Amendments, and I certainly thought that he would act honourably. As I could be so misguided and naive about that, it follows that even at this stage we must try to write some safeguard into the Bill so that, no matter which party is in power, the Boundary Commission can be brought into the picture to act as a jury in relation to the Home Secretary of the day.
      Having said all that, I shall support my hon. Friends in the Lobby, if the Government will not accept the Amendment. In view of what has happened about the 1949 and the 1958 Acts under this Government, I have my doubts whether even bringing this safeguard into the Bill would be any safeguard until we have a change of Government.
      Dr. Winstanley: My support, and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, for
      1258
      this group of Amendments is given not in the belief that these Amendments, if accepted, would put the whole position right or in any way achieve a wholly desirable situation, but merely because we think that this group of Amendments could go some way towards putting us into a satisfactory situation.
      I believe that there are three things which should be kept utterly separate from Government—the Press, broadcasting, and elections. Here we are dealing with methods of keeping elections separate from Government. We have devised a system. It so happens that I do not think that it is a terribly good system. I think that we could devise better systems, but we have devised a system with the Boundary Commissions. In other words, we have appointed an umpire.
      Once an umpire has been appointed, the only thing to do is to accept the umpire's decision totally and in all circumstances. I know that this is not a view which is universally held, and probably it is not held in all parts of the House of Commons. I nevertheless take the view that if that is the way in which elections and the organising of elections is to be separated from Government it should should be done properly and not partly.
      We have the proposal now to bring things back to the Home Secretary. This group of Amendments would bring the Commissions back in. I would rather see the Commissions take the matter over altogether, unless we were to move to a totally new system.
      A number of hon. Members have spoken about the important fact of requiring the periodic review because of the ebbing and flowing of populations in certain boroughs and cities. I believe that we could best provide for that by restoring multi-Member consituencies for certain boroughs so that a Member could be added when the borough got bigger or a Member could automatically be taken away if it got smaller. That would be an automatic adjustment which would not require the intervention of the House of Commons. If we are not to have that automatic method, let us at least have another one. The automatic method with which we have provided ourselves by appointing the Boundary Commissions

      1259
      is to enable them to make reports at periodic intervals. If that system is to work we must accept the reports. If we once tinker about with them, there will always be accusations of gerrymandering, whether ill-founded or not. The only way of avoiding such accusations, which are damaging to the prestige of Parliament, is in all circumstances to accept the recommendations of the Commission.
      My party will support these Amendments, but with that reservation, which I hope I have made clear.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: It will be interesting to see whether the Amendments would achieve the intentions which have been claimed for them by hon. Members.
      The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), who has very courteously explained why he cannot now be here, spoke about representation of the people and said that under Redcliffe-Maud there would be larger units and then the people who are now excluded would live inside the new larger units. That is true, but it does not invalidate the argument, however much right hon. and hon. Members may disagree with it, that in local government people should live inside the areas that they wish to represent.
      The hon. Gentleman also said that under Section 2(3) of the 1949 Act the next general reviews would come in the period 1979–84. That may be accepted as soon as it appears to the Secretary of State that it would not be inconsistent with the prospect of local government reform. I accept that what we are arguing about today is the wording and who else should come in. Nevertheless, what is at issue here is the advent of local government reform. The prospect of local government reform is the question which must be decided at some time in the 1970s.
      The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said that in considering boundary revisions more attention should be paid to the future size of the population. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about this in the context of what would happen under the Bill. Under the rules, with a slight variation the registration on which the existing report is based is that of 1965, four years ago. So there is built into this
      1260
      a large element of looking at the projected size of the population. The right hon. Gentleman was asking whether, given more sophisticated methods of knowing what was going on and knowing of the plans of local authorities, more attention should not be paid to the future size of population.
      I think that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) will find with regard to Chelmsley Wood that the report says that it did not take into account the projected increase in the size of population for the hon. Gentleman's area. The rules we apply at present are in terms of the existing situation, with only a marginal look at the projected size of population.
      Mr. Speed: The hon. Gentleman is quite right—there is this lack of flexibility—but the Boundary Commission then said that Section 2(3) of the 1949 Act is available. We no longer have that.
      Mr. Rees: I accept that the flexibility built into the existing system comes under Section 2(3), but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me the argument which I am putting that in terms of the existing rules made some years ago, there is more knowledge now of what is likely to happen to an area because of so much forward planning by local authorities. I take into account at the same time the point which the right hon. Gentleman made about new towns.
      The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith)—both of whom have been attracted away by more important matters, it seems—talked about under-representation, and the remarks of the hon. Member for Runcorn related to this point, too. After redistribution, there will be five constituencies in Scotland with an electorate of less than 30,000. I am told that the electorate of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will be about 31,000.
      Mr. Hogg: But does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the representation of Scotland is based on three factors which are wholly different from the situation in England? The first is the given number of seats provided by the Schedule, and, ultimately, by the Act of Union. The second is the different electoral quota based on that number

      1261
      of seats. The third is the wide geographical area of the constituencies to be represented. It is wholly wrong to draw that analogy.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Rees: I shall come back to that point. First, I apologise to the hon. Member for Ayr. I gave the wrong figure for his constituency. However, that does not derogate from the major argument regarding five constituencies with fewer than 30,000 voters. My point is that if we can argue that there can be small populations in certain parts of the country and that it is right to do it there, there is nothing intrinsically against some small constituencies.
      Half-humorously, I agree, the hon. Member for Meriden suggested that someone with 90,000 votes would be worth three votes compared with someone with 30,000. If for some reason we decide that certain parts of these islands should have smaller constituencies, the argument could apply that the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) is not worth as much as someone with 90,000 votes.
      Mr. Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman is making a silly point. The point which we are making is that in Scotland there are widespread and sparsely populated areas. In Birmingham, there is a constituency with 18,000 electors and nearby, in Meriden and Brierley Hill, there are 90,000.
      Mr. Rees: If it is right in some parts of the country, it is right here. That is the point I am making.
      Mr. Hogg: Cannot the Under-Secretary of State hoist on board that there is all the difference in principle between 18,000 people living in an area of one square mile and 18,000 people living in an area of about 70 square miles? If he cannot understand that, he cannot understand anything.
      Mr. Rees: The argument was put today in terms of what the Boundary Commission deals with, and, in my view, the analogy with what happen elsewhere can be drawn, if only temporarily, because of the changes which the Government have made.
      1262
      I come now to the Amendments in the order in which they are taken. Amendment No. 3 would require the Secretary of State to consult the chairman and deputy chairman of the relevant Boundary Commission before laying the reactivating Order. It does not seem that the Secretary of State of the day would have the benefit of the advice of the Boundary Commission before deciding whether it was premature to reactivate the Commission, as that is provided for elsewhere. It would provide, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman put it to us, that the Secretary of State
      "after consulting the chairman and deputy chairman of the relevant Boundary Comsion shall lay … as soon as it appears to him "—
      and that would mean that the moment for consultation does not arrive until it appears to the Secretary of State that reactivating the Commission would not be premature.
      There is nothing in Amendment No. 3 that would act as a prod to the Secretary of State of the day. It may be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that it would be a prod, but there is nothing in the wording to that effect. The Commission would be consulted only when the Secretary of State had decided to proceed. In any event, the full Clause would oblige the Secretary of State to lay the Order whether or not the chairman and deputy chairman of the Boundary Commission had any views as to difficulties, so consultation at that stage would certainly not be very helpful.
      I now come to Amendment No. 35. Subsection (3) obliges the Secretary of State to move for the reactivation of the Boundary Commission for any part of the United Kingdom
      " … as soon as it appears to him that it would not, by reason of the prospect of local government reorganisation there, be premature to do so;"
      The Amendment would require the Secretary of State to move as soon as the appropriate Boundary Commission represented to him that the prospect of local government reorganisation did not make it premature. The matter would be taken out of his hands. But I invite the Committee to consider the decision that is put into the hands of the Boundary Commission. Over the years, its job is to exercise its mind in drawing boundaries. It is a Boundary Commission. It is in

      1263
      no sense its job, nor could it be, to make a decision about the imminence or otherwise of local government reform.
      The question when it is right in accordance with the Bill to move for the reactivation of the Commissions depends on judgments of what facts are relevant and a knowledge of those facts. The decision may not be plain sailing. It may be a judgment as to what has happened, and it would mean a knowledge of what is going on as a result of the implementation of Redcliffe-Maud in whatever form that comes about. The Boundary Commission's job is to deal with the boundaries of constituencies, and it is not its job, or that of its chairman or deputy chairman, to make a decision of this kind.
      Mr. Richard Sharples: The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong. If he looks at page 52 of the Boundary Commission's Report for England and Wales under the heading "Northumberland", he will see that that is exactly what it did.
      Mr. Rees: It is not the job of the Boundary Commission to make a judgment about Government policy and the steps that follow when local government reform is taking place. This is a job for the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the duties of the Commission are laid down by the 1949 Act, and that these include the distribution of seats at parliamentary elections, and various matters including the total number of seats in each area, in this case England, to which the second Schedule of the Act applies? Does he not realise that makes absolute nonsense of the point he is making?
      Mr. Rees: The point I am making, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand if he looks at the Clause and his Amendment, is that the judgment that will have to be made is the imminence of local government reform, and it is not the job of the Boundary Commission to deal with that.
      Mr. Sharples: The hon. Gentleman will see on page 52 of the Report for England, under the heading "Northumberland":
      "We proposed that, pending the outcome of the Royal Commission's review of local govern-
      1264
      ment in England, the seven borough constituencies should be left unchanged …".
      That is exactly what it did.
      Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. What is at issue here for the reactivation is the imminence of local government reform which follows the Redcliffe-Maud Report.
      I take it that Amendment No. 5 must be considered as being closely knit with Amendment No. 35 in what the Opposition seek to do. Under Amendment No. 35 the original initiative for reactivating a Boundary Commission, as the Opposition put it, would lie with the Boundary Commission. It may be that Amendment No. 5 is designed to work with Amendment No. 35, so that before the Commission decided whether to represent to the Secretary of State that the time was not premature to reactivate the Commission, it would have had the advantage of consultation with him.
      On the other hand, the intention of the consultation may simply be to require the Secretary of State to obtain the advice of the Commission before deciding whether the moment has come. The Government's argument on this Amendment as on the previous Amendment is that it is not the job of the Boundary Commission to decide this matter. Its job is clear: it is to deal with electoral boundaries.
      Turning to Amendment No. 6, the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) asked a number of questions which would be more appropriately raised on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. The procedures which we have discussed in connection with Amendments Nos. 35 and 5 apply here. It is not the job of the Boundary Commission to play a part in England nor in Scotland. The Government's view is that all these Amendments should be negatived.
      [Sir HARRY LEGGE-BOURKE in the Chair]
      Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The reply of the Under-Secretary of State was very disappointing. He failed entirely to appreciate the tremendous importance in principle of the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), namely, that the purpose of the Amendment is to force the carrying out of an annual review. The matter should come before the Government, the House of

      1265
      Commons and the country for reconsideration.
      Even the Government recognise that we are faced with a real problem. They know perfectly well that, in view of the great changes in population taking place in different parts, to keep the country in a rigid framework of existing constituencies cannot go on for ever. We in the West Midlands, where things are happening at great speed, appreciate this problem. But the Government say—and we understand this very well because we have heard it so often—that we must tolerate the difficulties and injustices which arise because of the Redcliffe-Maud Report and the fact that they are to implement it. Nevertheless, we must consider as time goes on whether the difficulties and injustices in the electoral system have become too great. This is why the matter should be periodically examined.
      There are contradictions in the present system. Birmingham would like to know why London is being dealt with in one way and Birmingham in another way. From the point of view of the Redcliffe-Maud Report, there is no reason why Birmingham and Sutton Coldfield should not be dealt with. If there is, I should like to hear it. There is an anomaly in Birmingham which must be considered. There was a revision of all the wards some years ago.
      The Temporary Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but we are concerned with whether the Boundary Commission should be consulted at certain stages. The right hon. Gentleman must not go too elaborately into what he wishes it to be consulted about.
      Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate your point, Sir Harry. These contradictions may become more and more intolerable to the population.
      8.45 p.m.
      I invite the Committee's attention to the other side of the question. The Government have said that they intend to implement the Redcliffe-Maud Report. To what extent should we attach real credibility to a statement by the Government on such a subject? It used to be the practice that when a Government said that they were introducing a Bill they introduced it. We have seen recently
      1266
      that that is not now the case. Will the Government really implement their intention to carry out the Redcliffe-Maud Report? We should not attach credibility to their statement, and if we do not, there is great merit in forcing a regular annual review. If it seems in 12 months that the Government's determination over the Redcliffe-Maud Report has crumbled away, the whole situation will have changed. They would have no logical basis for failing to deal with the situations arising in constituencies.
      All hon. Members will realise, in considering this Amendment, that local government is an extremely difficult political subject. This Government might well quail before the pressure of realities from local councillors. There is a possibility that in a year or two we may find that the position of the Government over the Redcliffe-Maud Report has changed and we ought to have a periodic review so that we can come forward and get the necessary electoral reforms.
      Earl of Dalkeith: My reason for rising is not because the proposed changes of the Boundary Commission would make my seat about the safest Conservative seat in Scotland, because I have not decided whether I shall stand for it again. I rise now because I was so flabbergasted by the reply of the Minister a few minutes ago. What really left me almost lost for words was when he tried to make a comparison between the huge wide open spaces in the North of Scotland and the city centres. This was too absurd for words and showed that he had no understanding of problems. If he were to have his way the entire Liberal Party would not fit neatly into a taxi they would all be able to get into a bubble car—
      Dr. Winstanley: If the noble Lord means that the Scottish Liberal Members are members of such very high quality that it would be better if they represented more constituents, I earnestly support him.
      Earl of Dalkeith: It seems that unless the Government take note of these Amendments the Boundary Commission might just as well not have existed, If I had been a member of the Boundary Commission I would have offered my resignation forthwith. It makes the whole idea of the Commission pointless. The

      1267
      Minister, who has now deserted the sinking ship, no doubt to get some much-needed sustenance, talked about the imminence of local government reform. He cannot use this argument about Scotland because the Wheatley Commission, which is carrying out the same sort of investigation as the Redcliffe-Maud Committee has not even reported, and is not likely to report for some time. This is a case of Procrastination with a capital P. It highlights the reason why it is essential that the Government should accept these Amendments. This is because the time the local government reforms are implemented, what the Boundary Commissions have already recommended to us will be hopelessly out of date. This is a matter which must be kept up to date, and it cannot be done unless consultation takes place. That is why it is vital to support the Amendment.
      In view of the inaccuracy of the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to the size of the Ayr constituency, I merely express the hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will intervene to talk about the specific Scottish problems involved, which are slightly different from the English problems. While it is essential to take note of these matters from the English point of view, it is even more essential from the Scottish point of view because of the time lag which will take place in that the Wheatley Commission's Report is to come somewhat later.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I intervene to correct two points in the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith). First, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department immediately corrected his error about Ayr constituency, and his correction was accepted by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). Second, the hon. Gentleman has referred to my hon. Friend, in his absence, as going wrong on a large number of facts about small areas, but I remind him that the arguments had been put by the Opposition about large numbers as compared with small numbers. My hon. Friend knew perfectly well the point about the geographical aspects. That was quite clear, and had the hon. Member been present he would have realised it.
      Earl of Dalkeith: That is not how it was received by the Committee at the time, nor how it will be received by anyone reading HANSARD. We should support these Amendments strongly from the point of view of Scotland as well as England.
      Mr. Paul Hawkins: The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is a man for whom I have high regard, but I felt that he was very unhappy in making his speech. First, he sneered at the Amendments. I myself accept that they are not perfect, but if he could improve them and bring the Boundary Commissions in closer consultation we should be only too pleased. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman compared constituencies like mine, which is 48 miles by 35, has 115 polling stations and nearly 50,000 electors, with the centre of Birmingham or other big cities. That is ridiculous to compare 18,000 electors in a square mile with the sort of constituency which many rural M.P.s have to look after.
      This is a shabby Bill and the worst thing about it is that, having employed the Boundary Commissions for four years, at a cost of £100,000, the Home Secretary has rejected all their recommendations save those which he likes. I know something about the work of these Commissions, because I had to make representations to one of them and on appeal we won our case that we should not have added to my constituency another 30 by 25 miles. Imperfect though these Amendments may be, they are essential. Although it would be only the third line of defence, we must have an impartial body standing between the Home Secretary—this one in particular, I am afraid—and the electorate so as to ensure that the electorate can be fairly represented.
      In this time of rapid change, we must have the powers of these Amendments. All over England, there is rapid change and movement of population and electorates, which is why we want the Commissions to check up these matters every year. We must realise that certain areas are growing much faster than others. There are the new towns, and places like East Anglia which is growing rapidly and will continue to grow more rapidly than any other area.

      1269
      I live and work in East Anglia, I represent an East Anglian constituency, and I have served in local government for 20 years. In this area there is a continuous movement of population. In the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Report, Norfolk remains as a unitary area—[An HON. MEMBER: "What has this to do with boundaries?"] I have no doubt that Sir Harry will tell me when I am out of order.
      Mr. Stanley Orme: Stick to the point.
      Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. If hon. Members will speak from a recumbent position, it is almost impossible to hear the hon. Member who has caught your eye, Sir Harry. Will you keep them in order, please?
      The Temporary Chairman: I have much sympathy with the point put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I was listening very hard to the hon. Member who had the Floor. I should be grateful if hon. Members would avoid speaking from a sitting position.
      Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. May I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is customary in Committee to leave the chairmanship and points of order to the Chair rather than to shout across the Floor in a raucous voice.
      Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order. Is not it the right of any hon. Member to raise with the Chair a point of order of a genuine character? Unless I am told by you, Sir Harry, not to do so, I propose to continue as I have in both Houses of Parliament for the past 31 years.
      The Temporary Chairman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in saying that any hon. Member has a perfect right at any time to raise legitimate points of order. May I suggest to the Committee that it would be helpful if, when a Ruling has been given, it was accepted without further comment. Mr. Hawkins.
      Mr. Hawkins: Thank you, Sir Harry.
      I was trying to draw attention to the assistance which these Amendments will give to my area because of the great movement of population which will take place in East Anglia, particularly in Nor-
      1270
      folk in the near future. I would refer to the peculiar position of Norwich, a city of about 80,000 electors which has two Members of Parliament and which it is proposed should retain two Members of Parliament. The Boundary Commission will in the near future need to look closely into Norwich and its surrounding area to see whether an alteration should be made in its representation. This group of Amendments would greatly assist areas such as this in allowing the electors to be properly represented. It is almost as big a task to represent a constituency with 115 polling stations covering an area of 48 by 35 miles as to represent a tightly enclosed constituency of 100,000.
      We have heard from the Under-Secretary of State that he cannot implement the recommendations of the Boundary Commission because he expects the Redcliffe-Maud Report to be implemented within the next few years. As chairman of my local county council parliamentary and local government committee, I had a time-table with the idea that the Redcliffe-Maud Report would be coming out in January. The report appeared on 11th June, yet the same time-table has been adhered to by the Government that we must report by October. That means that we have only a couple of months in which to do our thinking, but it surely is not a valid reason to hold up the Boundary Commission's Report. I urge my hon. Friends to support this group of Amendments.
      9.0 p.m.
      Dr. Reginald Bennett: It seems that the Government are determined to over-rule the Boundary Commission. I support the contention of my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) that any member of the Boundary Commission would be entitled to resign and to refuse to serve any longer after having been treated in this scurvy way. What is the point of having a Boundary Commission if the Government are to act in total disregard of its findings? This is why it is necessary that the Bill should contain some safeguards as presented in this group of Amendments, to requiring consultation with the Commission before any decision is made about redrawing constitutional boundaries. This is a matter of choosing between sense and nonsense; it also involves considerations of

      1271
      fair play of which the electorate are not entirely ignorant. However, the Home Secretary is determined on this process.
      When he introduced the Bill I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether heed would be paid to present local government boundaries in the plans which he intended to put before the House and which are before us today in Committee. He assured me that this would be so. But, in fact, it cannot be so. My own constituency and the area round Portsmouth give a clear indication of this. As is well known, the Redcliffe-Maud Report, in that particular instance, makes no difference to the provisions recommended by the Boundary Commission. The whole of the proposals of the Commission in my constituency and the neigbourhood of Portsmouth could be put into operation without any inconvenience arising from the Redcliffe-Maud Report. There is no valid reason why the Boundary Commission should be ignored in this particular case.
      The solution that is being proposed in the Bill shows crass disregard for the Commission. The attempt to form three constituencies out of two, in defiance of the Boundary Commission's recommendations, means that there will have to be a central omelette composed of bits cut off from Fareham urban district, the City of Portsmouth, and Havant and Waterlooville urban district. After that has been done that mess of an omelette cannot be unscrambled and that administrative chaos will be forced to exist until the ominous year 1984. This is the basis for my complaint that these provisions in the Bill fly in the face of the sensible report by the Boundary Commission. The provisions are not only futile, but also very damaging.
      The Temporary Chairman: I must ask hon. Members in the Committee to try to relate their remarks to the Amendments on the Notice Paper, and in this particular case to the arguments in favour of or against consultation with the Boundary Commission at various stages.
      Dr. Bennett: I am sorry, Sir Harry. I thought that I was making it clear that lack of consultation leads to these sorts of provisions.
      1272
      In the event of adequate consultation with the Boundary Commission such an absurdity as the dismemberment of the township of Fareham could not take place. This is why I argue so strongly that periodical consultations should continue with the Commission, which would have avoided the administrative chaos which is bound to result as a result of the Bill's provisions.
      Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) has spoken about omelettes and scrambled eggs, and who better than he to talk about those? However, no amount of consultation in the world will deal with the scrambled egg which will be created in his constituency.
      I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), who spoke of the Minister's making sneering remarks. I did not actually hear the hon. Gentleman sneer, but he was contemptuous of our efforts to make sure that there should be consultation and warning at regular intervals. I do not know whether the Minister meant to give that impression, but it was one that I gained, as apparently did my hon. Friend.
      The hon. Gentleman suggested that we have not got our Amendments right and should have done better. However, we have not had much time between Second Reading and Committee. After four years of work by the Boundary Commission, we have had four days in which to work out the details necessary to get our Amendments right. They are in order, otherwise they would not be being discussed, though some of us know of the fight which had to be put up before we could even get them discussed. Now that we have them, they are the best which could be produced in the time available.
      In any case, it is not good enough for the Minister to say that the drafting of our Amendments is imperfect and then go on to make a lot of play about this or that not being quite as it should be and that the effect which we wanted will not be achieved by our words. All that the Government have to do, if they take that view of an Amendment, is to accept it in spirit and say that they will produce better words at a later stage. The Minister was simply wasting time, though I cannot think why he should want to waste time.

      1273
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) made a passionate appeal to the effect that the unsatisfactory situation in Birmingham must not be allowed to continue for longer than necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) put a similar query on behalf of his city.
      Our Amendments provide for regular consultation, which is needed in these days of rapid change. I was unconvinced by what the Minister said about these changes in population being known to the Boundary Commission in any case. He implied that they were all part of some great national plan which was known about well in advance. He suggested that, because of the planning of new towns, and so on, it was known where increases of population were likely to occur.
      How easy it is to knock that argument on the head. We live in an age of rapid change, an age in which communications have a great influence on our lives. We have constituencies which are enormous in area, but have very small electorates. If communications were better, it would be easy to get from one end of such a constituency to the other, but with so many railway lines closed today the problem is very different from what it was.
      Then we had the odious comparison of Scottish constituencies with English ones of similar size. I do not want to upset my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies. They are a splendid but rather small group. However, there are plenty of hon. Members opposite who represent very small constituencies in Scotland and, if the Minister wanted to stray on to the vexed question of Scottish representation, it might have been better if he had undertaken to give consideration to a formula for Scotland which is of such great advantage to his own party, with all those tiny seats in industrial areas, each with a Labour Member. However, I am sure -that I would be out of order if I strayed further in that direction.
      The Minister mentioned all these reports having a great effect on the life of the country. The Redcliffe-Maud Report has been mentioned in almost every speech, although it was not available in full form in the Vote Office due to a failing of Her Majesty's Government.
      1274
      But we do not have to take into account only the Redcliffe-Maud Report. This series of Amendments is designed so that the Minister will not have the difficulty of using the Redcliffe-Maud Report as an excuse, or the lack of the Wheatley Report as an excuse in another direction, not forgetting Tress, on the South-West and whoever it was that reported on the South-East, nor the long forgotten National Plan or the Development areas or quasi-development areas and so forth. If the Amendments are accepted we should have regular consultations between the right hon. Gentleman and the Boundary Commission which would get us out of these difficulties.
      In conclusion, I want to refer to the city which I have the honour to represent in part, because I have put down an Amendment about it. The shifts and changes in population in Bristol would he better taken care of if this group of Amendments was accepted. We have a constituency of less than 40,000. That is not a satisfactory situation. It is not 40,000 going up; it is 40,000 going down. It is the decaying centre of the city which can be given new life if parts of it are put into the lively parts of the city as recommended in the Commission's Report.
      No doubt the Home Secretary will wind up the debate.
      Mr. Callaghan indicated dissent.
      Mr. Cooke: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It is disappointing to think that we shall not hear from him. The right hon. Gentleman has a fine record in much of the other work that he is doing. He should not lend himself to this highly dubious Bill—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Squalid."] One of my hon. Friend's says "Squalid." "Gerrymandering" is another word which has been used to describe it. However, I say that it is a dubious Bill.
      If the right hon. Gentleman one day hopes to play an even greater part in the nation's affairs—it would be embarrassing if I said more than that—he would do well to dissociate himself—from the Bill I suppose that that is asking too much—but certainly he might temper the attitude of the Government in resisting these Amendments.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I came prepared with two speeches on the Amendments; a short one which I was going to give if the Chief Whip had not put in an appearance, and a long one if, by some mischance, I was caught on my feet when the Government Chief Whip was in the Chamber. Since he has departed, I propose only to give the short speech.
      I have three reasons for strongly supporting my right hon. and hon. Friends on these Amendments.
      First, if there is consultation with the Boundary Commission it is more likely than otherwise that we shall be able to prevent electoral scandals. We have a number of electoral scandals at the moment. We had the pleasure of welcoming the consequence of one of them in the House this afternoon. I believe that if there had been effective consultation and the Secretary of State had done his job when he should have done it, the election which took place in the miniature constituency in Birmingham, which has presented us with a very agreeable colleague this afternoon, would not have taken place.
      The strongest argument for consultation is to prevent scandals of this kind and to prevent a situation where the hon. Member who took his place on the Liberal bench this afternoon was able to bring the whole of his electorate to sit in the public gallery to watch him take his seat. Consultation, possibly, would prevent electoral scandals.
      My second reason for supporting these Amendments is that we, on this side, have more faith in the honour and integrity of the Boundary Commissions, which we wish to have consulted, than in our present political Ministers, or, indeed, in any political Minister.
      9.15 p.m.
      The Government's case—and it has been deployed with passing ability from the other side of the Committee—is that we should trust the Secretary of State. That is essentially what they are saying in seeking to strike out these Amendments. But why should we trust the right hon. Gentleman? What has he done that would lead us to repose in him the faith that is requested in the Bill as it stands? I should trust the right hon. Gentleman from here to the moon and back. [HON. MEMBERS: "Leave him there.") I should
      1276
      in no way impugn him personally. I do not think that anyone in the House would wish to do that to him personally, but in his public—
      Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: In the circumstances in which we find ourselves today with this gerrymandering, I should not trust him.
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. Before this goes any further, I think that we had better get back to the Amendments.
      Mr. Callaghan: I should not want to create division between the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend. I suggest that he agrees with his right hon. and learned Friend. It will make it much easier.
      Mr. Griffiths: I was giving the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt. If he prefers not to have it, it is up to him.
      The object of consultation is to demonstrate that we place more trust in the Commissions than we do in political Ministers. The present members of the political Ministry have cheated. They have broken promises. They have gone back on almost everything they have said. They have a record of political malfeasance which is a national disgrace, and it is against that background that we are asked to place faith in them. I submit that it would be very much wiser if we interposed between the people of this country, and, indeed, Parliament, and that group of untrustworthy political Ministers the Commissioners in whom people place more faith than they do in political Ministers of either party.
      Why is it that we are seeking to consult the Commissioners? The simple answer is that we have confidence in them. There is ample reason for having confidence in the Commissioners. They have done their job very well. The whole report is an admirable document. These men, who have laboured hard and long, are men of undoubted integrity and impartiality. They are honourable men, and I have no doubt that the British people vastly prefer to put their faith and their confidence in the Commissioners than in hon. Gentlemen opposite.
      It is therefore right that we should consult the Commissions, and we should, by statute, oblige Ministers to consult

      1277
      honourable impartial referees. The objection which the British people will have to the Government's rejecting the Amendments is that they have refused to accept the referee's verdict, and in Britain one of the standard rules is that one accepts what the referee says. What we are proposing here is that when there are proposals to change constituency boundaries, the referee shall be consulted, and not the captain—or the vice-captain, shall I call him?—of the opposition team.
      Those are my first two reasons—to avoid electoral scandals, and to ensure that there is consultation with those whom the people trust, and not solely with those whom they distrust.
      But there is a third reason, and it has been alluded to by a number of my hon. Friends. Amendment No. 5 would lay a statutory duty on the Government to review the boundaries not less than once each calendar year. Surely it is right that they should consult the Boundary Commission, and know what they are talking about, at least once every twelve months. Change is taking place rapidly in so many constituencies. Indeed, I understood that one of the extraordinary reasons for the selective employment tax was redeployment of labour. If labour is being redeployed all over the country, it is vital that the Commissioners should be consulted at not less than yearly intervals so that there is a fair balance between the population pattern and the constituencies.
      An example is my own constituency. There are several expanding towns in it. One is Haverhill, which only seven years ago, had a population of 4,000. Today, it is 11,000. It is proposed that in two or three years it will rise to 15,000, and in 10 years it may be 20,000. I do not believe that the people of Haverhill or West Suffolk will be satisfied if it is left only to political Ministers to determine whether there should be a boundary review. It is essential to have honourable experienced and impartial men, such as the Commissioners, who should be consulted at least once a year.
      The Government pretend that justice is being done. They know quite well that it is not, but, irrespective of that, it should be seen to be done. What is important is that, if the Commissioners are regularly consulted and the people know that they
      1278
      are consulted, any future Secretary of State, Conservative or Socialist, will be more easily able to justify his proposals to the House. It is not possible to justify them without consultation with the Commissioners. Therefore, the Amendment should be accepted.
      Mr. John WellsMy hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) laid great stress on the honourable position of the Commissioners and the fact that the British people trust them. Although I have listened closely to what he said, my own feeling is that the British people are blissfully unaware of the existence of these Commissioners. Because they are unaware, they may well trust them.
      The Commissioners are faceless men of the best sort, carrying out their duties with absolute impartiality. They listen to the requirements and political emotions of the ordinary man in the street. The Commission held an inquiry in my constituency two years ago and listened to almost every point of view, of the political parties, women's institutes and all sorts of other social groups, about why they should or should not have their polling stations and centres for electoral purposes in a particular district. Everybody who gave evidence was impressed with the thoroughness of the Commission's work.
      So my hon. Friend is right to say that the people trust the Commissioners, but he is wrong to imply that they know who the Commissioners are. The fact that the Commissioners are faceless in the best sense may be the best guarantee that they are trustworthy.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would my hon. Friend not agree that many people accept the verdict of the referee even when they do not know him?
      Mr. Wells: Of course. That is the trouble with the present Government. My hon. Friend will remember the trouble which a previous Home Secretary had, who is now Lord Stow Hill. He got into some difficulty over a little episode and went along to the other place. I look forward to my former constituent becoming Prime Minister in about 10 Labour Governments from now. I hope, therefore, that he will not fall into the gerrymandering way of Lord Stow Hill and be pushed along the corridor.

      1279
      Amendment No. 5 suggests that the Commissioners should be consulted once every calendar year. The mobility of the population has received much attention from hon. Members. Houses are springing up throughout South-East England and some constituencies are being greatly enlarged. [Interruption.] I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that there are more council house dwellers in my constituency than there are electors in the entire Birmingham, Ladywood constituency, and the same may apply to Manchester, Exchange.
      If the Commissioners were consulted each year this mobility of electors would be helped. People should be in touch with units of reasonable size and, as a result, more in touch with their Parliamentary representatives. For this reason I strongly urge the Home Secretary carefully to consider Amendment No. 5. I appreciate that he does not like its wording, but he has ample opportunity to accept its spirit and redraft it at a later stage.
      The Bill has yet to go to another place. It is possible that their Lordships will do their duty and reject the Measure lock, stock and barrel. A yearly review would be to the advantage of not only hon. Members in their work on behalf of constituents, but those who try to run politics in the constituencies. We should have a more realistic size of unit and this would inevitably cause some rethinking about the Scottish anomalies. I regret that there is not even a Scottish Minister, let alone a Law Officer for Scotland, on the benches opposite to give advice to the Home Secretary, who, I trust, will give careful thought to Amendment No. 5.
      9.30 p.m.
      Captain W. Elliot: Hard knocks are exchanged in Parliament when we indulge in political in-fighting, and, generally speaking, we are prepared to take them. We are, of course, always on the lookout when dealing with the Prime Minister, who misses no opportunity of hitting below the belt.
      In the few years that I have been an hon. Member there have been two occasions when I have felt ashamed of our proceedings. The first was when the Home Secretary's predecessor forced through the London Government Act,
      1280
      which had the effect of extending the rule by one year for Labour-controlled councils. The second occasion is today. I find the display of sanctimonious hypocrisy on the part of the Home Secretary deplorable. The supreme upholder of the law in this country now demonstrates how he will rig it to suit his party for electoral purposes. That nauseating spectacle makes me ashamed of proceedings in this House.
      I want to demonstrate the value of these Amendments by showing what changes will be made in my constituency and relating them to the changes which will take place in years ahead. My constituency will have a major change made to it. Of course, I must accept that. At present in the constituency I deal with four authorities: Greater London Council, a borough council, a county council and an urban district council. I have never found that a disadvantage. One writes one letter and sends it to different addresses. Under the redistribution I shall deal with only two councils, Greater London Council and the borough council. I suppose that to the Home Secretary that looks very tidy. In the old constituency the electorate was 67,000 and in the new constituency there will be 61,000 electors. On the whole, although that is a major change which will affect me in a way, it does not change the constituency very much. It was recommended by the Boundary Commission, so I must, and do, accept it.
      Looking round the country, I see that there will remain in existence all sorts of constituencies some of which are far too big and some far too small. This is due to the rapid expansion of new towns and the movement of industry about the country, which will get worse. That is why I support this group of Amendments. They would enable the worst anomalies to be corrected. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) that in these days of rapid change it may be that piecemeal change is the best way of going about the matter. In any case we are getting piecemeal change in this Bill. I accept what it does in my constituency, but I cannot accept the absurd amomalies which will be left in existence in the country. I hope that in the end the

      1281
      Home Secretary will accept these Amendments.
      Mr. Doughty: The only disagreement that I have with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) is that he used a phrase with which I proposed to start my speech. The expression is that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. I regret that this Bill does not do justice and particularly that, unless these Amendments are allowed justice will not be seen to be done. [Interruption.] Justice is not improved by silly noises.
      Mr. Roy Roebuck: I am sorry that I have upset the hon. and learned Member. I was merely quoting correctly. If he wishes to produce quotations he should at least quote correctly.
      Mr. Doughty: My quotation was perfectly correct, that justice should be seen to be done. If every matter is to be judged, first, one must not only be completely impartial but be seen to be so. That is why in the past questions of boundary changes, which could be rigged by the Government at any time to suit themselves, have always been decided by an impartial body, namely, the Boundary Commission.
      Under the Bill, if these Amendments are not accepted, it will be the Secretary of State who will lay the Orders. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman will do so; he may not be there. It will be some time before the Orders are laid, and it may well be a conservative Secretary of State who will lay the Orders under the Bill when enacted. I am sure that he would wish to see that justice was done in those circumstances.
      That is why these Amendments seek to ensure that the Home Secretary of the day should, before laying the Orders, have consulted the Commission. What is wrong with that? Because of the tremendous anomalies between constituencies, one of these Amendments seeks to secure that the Secretary of State should consult the Commission every year. That would enable the House of Commons to be kept up to date with the necessary changes that have to be made as the population changes over the whole country.
      I will not go through the rigmarole of how the population is moving from North
      1282
      to South, how some areas are thinning out, and how others are filling up. Every hon. Member knows that changes are taking place in population everywhere. This involves changes in constituencies. I will not go through the tremendous differences in the figures. Some hon. Members have to deal with over 100,000 constituents.
      The Bill will not change that situation. It will merely mean that the Government of the day—at present, this Government—must bear the odium for being responsible and for using their majority, because it is not a free vote, to alter the boundaries of various constituencies. Everybody will think, and will say it because they think it, that the Government are doing it for their own advantage. That is not justice being done. Hon. Members on this side and the millions of electors will say that justice has not been done unless these Amendments are accepted.
      Mr. Michael Heseltine: I declare an interest in asking for this general review to take place once a year, in that I was one of those who would have lost their constituencies if the original proposals of the Boundary Commission had been implemented. It was a sacrifice that I was asked to make to ensure that the country at large was better served by the proposals of the Commission. I would reluctantly have been prepared for the proposals to have been implemented so as to achieve a more equitable distribution.
      It is gravely distressing to anybody in my situation, in view of the sacrifice we would have been prepared to make, to find that the Government, in a situation where we would have acted unselfishly, are acting selfishly.
      There is facing all those who live in South Devon an acute problem.
      Sir D. Glover: I hope that my hon. Friend will believe me when I say that he has presented the one valid argument, which the Government have not produced, for the Bill's not being implemented—that is, that the whole House of Commons would have been distressed if he had lost his seat.
      Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is more than kind. I am not sure that he would carry the Government with him on that point, any more than on a large number of others.

      1283
      I want to tell the Committee about a particularly difficult problem now facing the whole population of South Devon as a result of a large number of conflicting recommendations about the future of that area. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides will understand the anxiety which I feel. We have now reached a point at which the recommendations of various organisations have gone full circle.
      Not long ago, we began with the Report of the original Boundary Commission, which would have had the effect of removing altogether the Tavistock constituency as it now exists. I need not go into the broad argument for that. Various recommendations followed thereafter from a variety of conflicting sources, and anxiety was created among the population of the area about the way in which they were to be governed in the future. The reasons are to be found in the various economic arguments and policies advocated, first, by the Hunt Commission, then by the Regional Planning Council in Bristol, and then in the form of conflicting arguments from the county council and Tavistock Rural District Council as to the future economic development of Tavistock itself.
      Broadly, the argument hinges on whether Tavistock should be regarded as part of Plymouth or still be contained in the wider area of Devon County. The latest recommendation which we in the South-West have had to consider is that of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, that Tavistock should be regarded as part of Plymouth.
      There are many people living in the area who would sympathise with the view that Tavistock is economically dependent on Plymouth and will remain so in any foreseeable circumstances. That being the case, until some steps are taken which recognise the economic dependence of Tavistock on Plymouth, Tavistock will find itself in a vacuum. The situation has been greatly worsened recently by the Government's decision to create an intermediate development area in Plymouth which excludes Tavistock. Tavistock's great difficulty is that it is cut off from large areas of England by Dartmoor.
      The only way to reach Tavistock in the winter is to go round the North Down—
      Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order, Sir Harry. What has this to do with the Amendment? I should be grateful for your guidance.
      The Temporary Chairman: I have repeatedly, throughout this debate, reminded hon. Members that they must relate their remarks to the question whether the Boundary Commission should be consulted at various stages. I am waiting to hear the hon. Gentleman do that.
      Mr. Heseltine: I was about to come to the nub of the argument, Sir Harry, which, I am sure, many hon. Members understood if they followed what I had to say so far instead of bouncing to their feet to try to curtail my speech.
      The point is that unless there is a decision about the future of Tavistock and whether it is to be included in Plymouth, Tavistock will be in a vacuum. In that part of South Devon, we urgently need revisions to boundaries to make clear which way the future of the area is to go.
      Mr. John Mendelson rose—
      Mr. Heseltine: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but it is important to explain the argument before questions are raised on detail. The argument is crucial because we are not able, by the various powers available to us, to persuade the Government to accept—
      Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Sir Harry. Will you point out to hon. Members opposite that, as we are in Committee, there is no reason why they should not make a speech if they wish to intervene?
      The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well. It is not for me to tell hon. Members when to try to speak or to volunteer.
      Mr. Heseltine: In South Devon, we are hoping that whatever organisations consider the future of the area they will be able to take action relatively quickly so that conclusions may be reached so as to consolidate the views of people living in the area and make it possible for them to persuade the Government to include Tavistock within the economic circumstances prevailing in Plymouth.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. John Mendelson: I have been listening with great interest and sympathy to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. Is not the logical conclusion of his remarks that the Government are wise to await the outcome of the deliberations of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission in solving the problems of the area and then to have a redrawing of the Parliamentary boundaries?
      Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Member, since he has asked a question which leads precisely to my next point. It is to indicate how serious to my constituents is the delay and the inability of an annual review to rectify the matter.
      In many parts of the town of Tavistock the unemployment level is 5·5 per cent. and represents 8 per cent. of the total unemployment level in that area. [Interruption.] The shattering thought that exercises the minds of hon. Members on this side of the Committee is that three or four years ago—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman on a constituency point of this kind, but I must ask him to relate his remarks to whether or not the Boundary Commission should be consulted.
      Mr. Heseltine: Very well, Sir Harry. I was hoping that the Boundary Commission could review the South Devon area year by year so that if it were found to be necessary to redraw the Parliamentary boundaries within the Plymouth area it could do so without waiting for the delays which were implied in the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
      I am appalled with the prospect of three, five or even 10 years' delay before any redrawing of the boundaries can take place there. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh at the unemployment levels we are suffering. They would not have laughed four years ago when they sat on this side of the House. The unemployed do not laugh, and the sooner hon. Members opposite realise that the better chance they will have to command some respect in the country.
      I am not saying that there should be any form of compulsion upon the Home Secretary to make him review the situation of the boundaries. I am merely
      1286
      asking that there should be somebody who, every year, can nudge him in the ribs to tell him that there is a real problem which he is ignoring and indeed shelving by refusing to accept the Amendment. [Interruption.] I suppose that it is the greatest tribute to the sanctimonious behaviour of the Home Secretary that throughout the land he has earned himself the title of St. Gerrymander.
      [Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]
      Sir D. Glover: During the last few minutes the Committee apparently has got itself rather excited, but we ought to realise that we are debating a matter of supreme constitutional importance, not only to each hon. Member, but to every constituent in the nation. It is, therefore, right that we should carry out our discussions in a sober manner.
      This is the most sordid Bill which has come before us for a very long time. The idea that the Home Secretary, of whatever party it may be, should be responsible for the reallocation of majorities or constituencies is fraught with enormous dangers. All the indications are that the Labour Party will not be in power all that much longer.
      Quite unjustifiably the Government have a healthy suspicion of the Tory Party. Do they not realise that by the Bill they are giving a Tory Home Secretary exactly the same power as they are taking themselves—a power which, I believe, should not be given to any political individual to deal with these sorts of problems'? These problems should be looked at by a neutral, non-political organisation. Having said that, I should explain, because many hon. Members do not read these reports with the assiduity we like to think we do, that I dare say there is a good deal of support in my constituency for the action the right hon. Gentleman is taking.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend allow me?
      Sir D. Glover: Certainly not. I must remain within order. I am out of order if I cannot address the Chair—and the Chair at the moment cannot listen to the remarks either of myself or of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls).
      Captain W. Elliot: On a point of order. Is there any significance about the simultaneous arrival of yourself in the Chair, Mr. Irving, and the arrival of the Patronage Secretary on the Front Bench?
      Hon. Members: Disgraceful.
      The Chairman: Order. I cannot say more on that subject.
      Sir D. Glover: I was explaining, Sir Sydney, why my constituents, certainly the Tories among them, are somewhat glad that the Home Secretary has taken this action. But I do not think that this is the way the House of Commons should approach these matters. That is the nub of my argument for the Amendments and the power they would bestow.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does not my hon. Friend think it timely, in view of what we can see in the Chamber, that the Patronage Secretary should be reminded that the hon. Members for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) and Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) have started to enter into the discussion and should be allowed to continue it?
      Sir D. Glover: If I can remain in order by replying to that intervention, Sir Sydney, perhaps I can merely comment that the so-called Patronage Secretary has surely had a salutary lesson in how the Committee reacts. So I do not think that he has come into the Chamber to curtail our very important discussions, but to listen and learn from the weighty arguments for the Amendments.
      I was citing the case of my own constituency and, perhaps, if I were to be given the powers that lie in this Bill, I would naturally do the things which would be most favourable to my party in my constituency. We heard speeches from hon. Members making constituency points. We are not children, Sir Sydney. Let us be honest; we are politicians and, naturally, politicians basically want to get the situation most favourable to them.
      Mr. Roebuck: Speak for yourself.
      Sir D. Glover: I will speak for the hon. Member, as well. If the hon. Member wishes to contribute he can follow me and make a powerful case to refute my arguments. He need not intervene
      1288
      from a sedentary position, which seems to be his favourite posture [Interruption.] He is so uncertain of his seat that he does not want to leave it for a moment to make a speech.
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to the Amendment. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not share the honour with him of being a knight.
      Sir D. Glover: I think that I may now be permitted to refer to the Amendment, Mr. Irving. May I say that I did not think that you had the title of "Sir", but my hon. Friends assured me that you had, and I was a bit embarrassed as to whether to call you one thing or the other. Knowing your supreme talents, I felt sure that my hon. Friends were right.
      I apologise very sincerely, because I certainly would not try to make a joke at your expense. I hope that you understand. I will now revert to calling you Mr. Irving, which, I must say comes off my tongue much more easily. If I can be frank, the Home Secretary's proposals are very popular with the Conservatives, as what he is doing is favourable to the Conservative Party in Ormskirk. It means that my constituency will not be affected and that I will be here, and that the Prime Minister, with luck, will be here in the next Parliament.
      If the proposals of the Boundary Commission had been carried out neither of us could have been here—it would have been a marginal business for both of us. However, the relevant point is that when I became the Member for my constituency it had an electorate of 53,000. Today, it has nearly 80,000 and as a result of what the Home Secretary is doing, before the next review it will almost certainly be over 100,000—it will have doubled in 25 years.
      This cannot be the right way to run our electoral system. It must be gerrymandering, or "Callamandering", or whatever the word is. I do not agree with the recommendations of the Commission, but I would sooner accept what I consider to be a disastrous decision by the Commission about my constituency than have these decisions made on a political basis, as they will be made. On the whole, it is only too likely that a Boundary Commission, however carefully it

      1289
      carries out its activities, will make one or two mistakes. The House of Commons in the 1949 and 1958 Acts has given the Home Secretary—
      It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

      Division No. 311.]

      AYES

      [10.0 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

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

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Albu, Austen

      Eadie, Alex

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

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Edelman, Maurice

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Alldritt, Walter

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

      Anderson, Donald

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Archer, Peter

      Ellis, John

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      English, Michael

      Kelley, Richard

      Ashley, Jack

      Ennals, David

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

      Ensor, David

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

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Lawson, George

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

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

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Fernyhough, E.

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

      Barnes, Michael

      Finch, Harold

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Barnett, Joel

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Bence, Cyril

      Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Foley, Maurice

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Binns, John

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Bishop, E. S.

      Ford, Ben

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Blackburn, F.

      Forrester, John

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Fowler, Gerry

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      McBride, Neil

      McCann, John

      Boston, Terence

      Freeson, Reginald

      MacColl, James

      Boyden, James

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      MacDermot, Niall

      Bradley, Tom

      Gardner, Tony

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Ginsburg, David

      McGuire, Michael

      Brooks, Edwin

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

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

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

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

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Mackie, John

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

      Gregory, Arnold

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Buchan, Norman

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Maclennan, Robert

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

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

      Cant, R. B,

      Hamling, William

      Manuel, Archie

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hannan, William

      Mapp, Charles

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Marquand, David

      Coleman, Donald

      Haseldine, Norman

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hattersley, Roy

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Hazell, Bert

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Cronin, John

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mendelson, John

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Henig, Stanley

      Millan, Bruce

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hilton, W. S.

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Hobden, Dennis

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

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Hooley, Frank

      Molloy, William

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Moonman, Eric

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Howie, W.

      Moyle, Roland

      Delargy, Hugh

      Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Dell, Edmund

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Murray, Albert

      Dempsey, James

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Neal, Harold

      Dewar, Donald

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Newens, Stan

      Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

      Hynd, John

      Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip

      Dickens, James

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Norwood, Christopher

      Dobson, Ray

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

      Oakes, Gordon

      Doig, Peter

      Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

      Ogden, Eric

      Driberg, Tom

      Janner, Sir Barnett

      O'Malley, Brian

      Dunn, James A.

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Oram, Albert E.

      Dunnett, Jack

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Orme, Stanley

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Oswald, Thomas

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Motion made, and Question put,
      That the Proceedings on the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.——[Mr. Harper.]
      The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 235.

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

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Roebuck, Roy

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Wallace, George

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Rowlands, E.

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Park, Trevor

      Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Weitzman, David

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Pavitt, Laurence

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

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

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

      Whitaker, Ben

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Pentland, Norman

      Silverman, Julius

      Whitlock, William

      Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Slater, Joseph

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

      Small, William

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Stone house, Rt. Hn. John

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Randall, Harry

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Rankin, John

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Rees, Merlyn

      Symonds, J. B.

      Winnick, David

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Taverne, Dick

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A,

      Richard, Ivor

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

      Woof, Robert

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

      Wyatt, Woodrow

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

      Thornton, Ernest

      Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

      Tinn, James

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Tomney, Frank

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

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

      Tuck, Raphael

      Mr. J. D. Concannon.

      Urwin, T. W.

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Dean, Paul

      Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

      Astor, John

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

      Holland, Philip

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

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Hordern, Peter

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Hornby, Richard

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Doughty, Charles

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Balniel, Lord

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Hunt, John

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Drayson, G. B.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Batsford, Brian

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Eden, Sir John

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos & Fhm)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

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

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Biffen, John

      Emery, Peter

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Crinstead)

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

      Jopling, Michael

      Blaker, Peter

      Eyre, Reginald

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Farr, John

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Body, Richard

      Fisher, Nigel

      Kerby, Capt. Henry

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Fortescue, Tim

      Kimball, Marcus

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Foster, Sir John

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Braine, Bernard

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

      Kitson, Timothy

      Brewts, John

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Lambton, Viscount

      Lane, David

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Lawler, Wallace

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Glover, Sir Douglas

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

      Bryan, Paul

      Glyn, Sir Richard

      Longden, Gilbert

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

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Lubbock, Eric

      Buck, Antony (Colchester)

      Goodhart, Philip

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Goodhew, Victor

      MacArthur, Ian

      Burden, F. A.

      Gower, Raymond

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      McMaster, Stanley

      Carlisle, Mark

      Grieve, Percy

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Channon, H. P. G.

      Gurden, Harold

      Maddan, Martin

      Chataway, Christopher

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Maginnis, John E.

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Clark, Henry

      Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

      Marten, Neil

      Clegg, Walter

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Maude, Angus

      Cooke, Robert

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

      Mawby, Ray

      Corfield, F. V.

      Harris, Reader (Heston)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Costain, A. P.

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Crouch, David

      Hastings, Stephen

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Crowder, F. P.

      Hawkins, Paul

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Monro, Hector

      Currie, G. B. H.

      Heseltine, Michael

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Dance, James

      Hiley, Joseph

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

      Rees-Davies, w. R.

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Murton, Oscar

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Waddington, David

      Neave, Airey

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Nott, John

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Walters, Dennis

      Onslow, Cranley

      Royle, Anthony

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Osborne, John (Hallam)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      Sharples, Richard

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Silvester, Frederick

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Cl'theroe)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Peel, John

      Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

      Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick

      Percival, Ian

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Peyton, John

      Speed, Keith

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Stainton, Keith

      Worsley, Marcus

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Wright, Esmond

      Pounder, Rafton

      Stodart, Anthony

      Wylie, N. R.

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Tapsell, Peter

      Younger, Hn. George

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Prior, J. M. L.

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

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Pym, Francis

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Mr. Jasper More and

      Quennel, Miss J. M.

      Temple, John M.

      Mr. Anthony Grant.

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No. 2) BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
  Sir D. Glover: I hope that I shall be permitted to apologise to the Committee. During the Division I had a good deal of "stick" from my colleagues because, Mr. Irving, when I referred to you by your wrong title, I had not realised that you had received a far greater honour than that by which I referred to you. I would like to take this opportunity of saying, "Congratulations", on a very well-deserved honour.
  The Chairman: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will now come to the Amendment.
  Sir D. Glover: You took the words out of my mouth, Mr. Irving. At exactly that moment I ceased my tributes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] I am addressing the Chair.
  I come to the meat of the Amendments. I said briefly before the Division that I thought that it was very dangerous for any political organisation to give the power of boundary and constituency changes almost—[Interruption.] Order, order. May I have the attention of the Home Secretary? It is very dangerous for any political party to allow the reorganisation of constituencies—[Interruption.]
  1294
  If the Chief Whip does that again, Mr. Irving, I shall have to ask for your protection.
  10.15 p.m.
  The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will speak to the Amendments now.
  Sir D. Glover: With respect, given the opportunity, I shall be delighted to—[Interruption.] The Committee has just witnessed a disgraceful performance. We are engaged on a debate which affects the powers of the Home Secretary to a great degree. The Bill proposes to give him powers which even he is probably doubtful about taking. In a free vote, hon. Members would probably vote against them, yet the Home Secretary has such contempt for the Committee that he goes out in the middle of the debate. That shows how this sort of power can warp the integrity of individuals. Until the Home Secretary introduced the Bill, he was a man for whom I had the highest respect. The fact that he has introduced the Bill has lowered that respect enormously.
  Why has the right hon. Gentleman resisted these Amendments? Does he think that it is right that the Home Secretary of the day—not the Cabinet—should have the power to decide whether or not a constituency should be dealt with? That supreme power will lie in his hands. Very rightly, from the point of view of the House of Commons, we suggest by these Amendments not that the Home Secretary should be compelled to make any

  1295
  changes of constituency boundaries or electorates, but that the Commission should remain in being and continue to make representations to the Home Secretary which he can ignore if he wishes. With the prodding that the Commission would give him, he would have an extra force behind him to keep the constituencies in some sort of order.
  The Redcliffe-Maud Report has been bandied about a great deal today. However, I do not think that the Committee has taken fully into account what that report will involve. I do not know what other hon. Members have found in their constituencies, but in mine and in others that I have visited the worry in local government circles is about what these changes will involve. I am not saying that the House may not eventually accept the Redcliffe-Maud proposals. It may not. But there is no justification for saying that these proposals are likely to become law.
  The Prime Minister, in a very Prime Ministerish statement—which means that it was rather like a snake going across the grass—said that the Government accepted the principle of the Redcliffe-Maud Report. But, whatever may happen to the electoral fortunes of the political parties at this moment, no bookmaker would lay odds of more than 10 to 1 against the party opposite being in power two years from now. Therefore, when we ask: when will the Redcliffe-Maud proposals be implemented? We are not just dealing with the party opposite. We are dealing with the whole fulcrum and thinking of political life.
  I do not know what view the Conservative Party will take about the Redcliffe-Maud Report. It may welcome half of it, reject half of it, alter it, take consultations, and produce a reform of local government which bears no relation to the proposals that have been produced.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the Amendment, which is concerned with consulting the Boundary Commission and, in particular, the chairman and deputy chairman.
  Sir D. Glover: If I am allowed to develop my argument, it will be seen that I am speaking to the Amendment.
  1296
  The premise on which the Home Secretary and the Government have based their case is not a firm one. We are not talking about four years before implementation and the Boundary Commission starting its work again and perhaps finishing the whole within seven years. We are now talking about no radical change of constituency boundaries as a result of the Bill, unless it is altered, for the next 15 years.
  That means that the bulk of constituencies will not have been changed for 30 years. Therefore, it is only common prudence for Parliament to put into the Bill a Clause which will give the Commission some power and ensure that the Home Secretary of the day will have to take cognisance of the changes that will go on in the next 15 years. That is the whole basis of these Amendments.
  Take the Prime Minister's seat—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can take it where he likes! With the voting age being reduced to 18, the Prime Minister's constituency has an electorate of about 100,000. It is one of the fastest growing communities in the North-West of England. The Prime Minister's constituency has 13,000 voters between the ages of 18 and 21. No other constituency in the North-West has more than 10,000. Therefore, it is a young community which will grow rapidly. I forecast that, leaving these boundaries as they are today, long before the next changes of boundaries take place under the global reviews about which the Home Secretary talks in another 15 years, that constituency will be 120,000 to 125,000 strong.
  Surely any sensible political machine would ensure that, in a Bill of this kind—I am not criticising the basic principles of the Bill, because I should be out of order—the Home Secretary of the day should be presented every year with what was happening in the over-large or over-small constituencies. I should think that it was a common duty of prudence that any Home Secretary, of whatever political party, would want once a year—I am a very moderate man and I should not mind if it was once in two years—a review from a neutral body—not his civil servants—which would say, "Mr. Home Secretary, we think that you ought to know that the Huyton, or the Wokingham, or the Haverhill constituency has now grown to 110,000. The constituency next door has

  1297
  an electorate of 85,000. Therefore, we think that you ought to produce a narrow order to deal with this immediate problem." Unless that is done we shall find our electoral system in the next 15 years completely and utterly out of control.
  I do not understand why the Home Secretary and his colleagues are not in favour of accepting these Amendments.
  Mr. James Dance: Could my hon. Friend give my constituents a little advice? If the Government refuse to accept the Amendments, what will happen to a place like Redditch which takes a large amount of overspill from Birmingham? What are my constituents to do if we are faced with this obstinacy on the part of the Front Bench opposite?
  Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has highlighted what I was referring to. I presume that during the next 15 years that constituency will continue to grow, but under this Bill the Home Secretary will have no authority, no compulsion, and no direction from the House of Commons or from anybody else to take any action at all.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that an over-all review was urgent. He then said, and contradicted his statement, that because of Redcliffe-Maud it would not be appropriate to carry it all out, and therefore it was not possible to make selective changes, and therefore we do nothing at all. That means that, with very few exceptions, constituency boundaries will be the same as they were 15 years ago, which takes us back to 1954. It means that in 1984a very appropriate date for a Government of the present sort—when the pigs have taken over control we shall have constituencies of 125,000 or 130,000, but a place like Ladywood will have an electorate of probably 5,000.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is no longer on the Amendments, which are concerned with consulting the Boundary Commission for Orders in Council, or the chairman and deputy chairman.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: My hon. Friend has been talking about constituencies of the future. Is he aware that
  1298
  I represent 127,000 electors, the largest constituency in the United Kingdom, and that they are content with their representative?
  Sir D. Glover: My hon. and learned Friend, who always makes pungent remarks when he interjects, is an admirable Member. He is able to look after 100,000 or more electors, but he must realise that the bulk of us do not have his qualities. I have heard hon. Members today saying that they find it a burden to look after 70,000 electors. My hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) told us how much easier he found it to look after the 50,000 electors in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East than he did the 73,000 electors in Brierley Hill. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend's interjection invalidates my argument.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham), who represents so many constituencies—constituents—
  Sir Knox Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman has had a very good dinner.
  Mr. Lubbock:—is so preoccupied with his duties at Westminster that he cannot look after his constituents? They have had to come to me to get a telephone booth installed in Areema Drive, Dunmurry?
  10.30 p.m.
  Sir D. Glover: When the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—
  The Chairman: Order. Both hon. Gentlemen are straying from the Amendment.
  Sir D. Glover: I thought that the hon. Member was about to make a relevant argument. He always damages his own case. I thought that it was a long tradition that hon. Members did not interfere in the constituency affairs of other hon. Members.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I realise that my hon. Friend wants to press on with his argument, but would he dwell a little more on his interesting point about the Prime Minister's constituency? Does he think that any consultation with the Commission could possibly save that seat?
  [Mr. ARTHUR PROBERT in the Chair.]
  Sir D. Glover: The difficulty is that, although on a free vote of the House, 90 per cent. of the votes would be against the Prime Minister, anything might happen in politics. But if the boundary changes had been implemented, the Prime Minister's might have been a very marginal seat. Despite it's being detrimental to me and my constituents, I would have fought, had I spoken on Second Reading, for the full implementation of the Commission's recommendations—
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I bet the hon. Gentleman would.
  Sir D. Glover: I would. Once they get over the heat and burden of this debate, hon. Members will accept that.
  I would far rather these decisions were taken by a non-political body. It is a very slippery slope when these decisions begin to be made politically. When hon. Members opposite sneer, and their Front Bench takes these debates lightly, I wonder how long it will be before they bring in a Bill to prolong the life of this Parliament. They "fiddled" the local government elections, they "fiddled" Northampton, they are "fiddling" this Bill. Why should they not extend the life of this Parliament?
  This is the biggest political scandal of the last 35 years. This is the worst gerrymandering Government which the country has seen this century, and I do not think that we have seen the worst yet. When we see their attitude towards these matters, can the people feel safe? Can they feel that these issues will be dealt with in a neutral, non-party way? Of course not, and the Bill is proof of that.
  The Amendment modestly suggests the insertion of these words:
  "Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the submission of reports under section 2(3) of that Act (reports relating to particular constituencies)."
  If the Whips were not on hon. Gentlemen opposite, they would all support that simple proposition.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Probert): Order. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he has just quoted from an Amendment which was discussed and dealt with some time ago. I trust that he will address his remarks to the Amendment under discussion, namely, Amendment No. 3.
  Sir D. Glover: I accept your reprimand, Mr. Probert, which was justified. I have made so many notes on my Notice Paper that I quoted from Amendment No. 2 in error. However, Amendment No. 3 is equally modest, for it would insist on things being done
  "… after consulting the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the relevant Boundary Commission."
  Mr. John Mendelson rose—
  Sir D. Glover: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman, who gets full of fury when we are discussing economic matters, should take more interest in the constitutional issue which we are debating.
  Mr. John Mendelson rose—
  Sir D. Glover: No. I am not in one of my more generous moods tonight. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take the matter seriously, instead of just sitting there laughing, he will no doubt have an opportunity to make his own speech when I have finished.
  Is the Committee suggesting that the Home Secretary should not have any advice except of a biased political nature? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrow, West—
  Mr. John Page: I protest. When I tried to intervene last my hon. Friend had described the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) as the hon. Member for Harrow. Now he has referred to that hon. Gentleman as the hon. Member for Harrow, West, the constituency which I represent. Although the constituency of Harrow, East will not disappear under the Bill, the present Socialist hon. Member who represents it certainly will.
  Sir D. Glover rose—
  Mr. Roebuck rose—
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. The Chair is endeavouring to listen intently to what is being said. If the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) does not give way the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) must resume his seat.
  Sir D. Glover rose—
  Mr. Roebuck rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I appeal to the hon. Member for Harrow, East to resume his seat if the hon. Member for Ormskirk is not giving way.
  Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member who has now resumed his seat, which he should never have left—
  Mr. Roebuck rose—
  Sir D. Glover:—which he will lose at the next election—
  Mr. Roebuck rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Sir D. Glover: If the hon. Member wishes to intervene to make a contribution to the debate, as we are in Committee, he can seek to catch your eye, Mr. Probert, to make a powerful speech destroying the argument of the hon. Member for Ormskirk.
  Mr. John Mendelson: That would not be difficult.
  Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member for Penistone says that it would not be difficult. All right, have a go.
  Mr. Roebuck: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. May I appeal to hon. Members to address the Chair? I appeal once again to the hon. Member for Harrow, East, if the hon. Member for Ormskirk does not give way, to resume his seat.
  Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order, Mr. Probert. Would it not assist the progress of the Committee if the hon. Member for Ormskirk is not to give way kindly to look—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member is so careless of the conventions of the House that he will not
  1302
  give way would it not be better if he did not make provocative remarks?
  The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order.
  Sir D. Glover: I shall treat the intervention of the hon. Member with the contempt it deserves.
  I was trying, and finding it more and more difficult, because apparently the party opposite is not seized of the importance of this constitutional matter, to make a speech on an important constitutional matter. It is entirely wrong for this sort of power to be put—not in the hands of the Cabinet, for in the Cabinet there would be some safeguard because there would be disagreement—in the hands of the Home Secretary, one man. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he? "] This is a power which this House should not give to one individual without very great thought.
  These Amendments are solely designed to provide a very modest change. They have very little power, but at least they ask the Home Secretary to see that the Commission remains in being and that he should have consultations with the chairman and deputy chairman. Then when he was attacked in the House he would not be able to plead ignorance. He would have to admit that he had been informed by the chairman of the Commissioners that a new situation had arisen. He would not be able to say that he had no cognisance of it and it was not his responsibility so he was not proposing to do anything for another 15 years.
  All that the Amendments are designed to do is to produce very small safeguards for the constitution of the country. It ill behoves the party opposite to take the line it is taking and which shows what it is—unfit to govern.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Roebuck: I shall disappoint hon. Members opposite because I shall make a cogent speech, and a short one. I understand that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) is known among young Conservatives in his constituency as an old sweetie. After the speech we have heard from him tonight, it is small wonder that we on this side regard him as an old English humbug. He has addressed the Committee for a considerable time, mostly out of order, and he sought to make a most outrageous case to the effect—
  Sir C. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Probert. Is it in order for an hon. Member to call another hon. Member a humbug?
  Sir D. Glover: From the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) I take it as a compliment.
  Mr. Roebuck: The hon. Gentleman is always grateful for a compliment, from whatever source it comes.
  Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Probert. I have heard no answer to the point of order which I raised.
  Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Probert. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) to say that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) was mostly out of order, as you, Mr. Probert, were in the Chair, and we all rely upon you to keep hon. Members in order?
  The Temporary Chairman: During the time that I have been in the Chair it has been very difficult to hear what has been said. What I have heard from the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has been in order. I hope that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) will confine himself to the Amendments.
  Mr. Roebuck: Exactly, Mr. Probert; I have to set a good example to the Opposition.
  I wish merely to defend the case which has been made by my right hon. Friends.
  1304
  To suggest that the very sensible and logical method which they have put forward for reorganising constituencies eventually is a measure of political gerrymandering is a most outrageous statement by the Opposition. The fact that they indulge in such allegations clearly demonstrates the bankruptcy of their case. I do not think that I should remain, as you suggest I should, Mr. Probert, within the bounds of order if I were to attempt to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk.
  I want to address myself, in conclusion, to the intervention of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), who made some of his typical offensive remarks about my constituency. The appearances in the House of Commons of the hon. Member for Harrow, West are as rare as his appearances in his constituency.
  Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Probert. Many of us who are very concerned about this constitutional issue are interested not in personalities but in constituencies. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) to continue in that vein, which has nothing to do with the Amendments?
  Mr. Roebuck: Further to that point of order, Mr. Probert. I had resumed my seat. I have nothing more to say.
  [Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]
  Mr. Sharples: It is, perhaps, a reflection upon the way in which the Government have conducted this debate that the only hon. Member whom they could persuade to speak in their support was the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck). We can judge the standard of the Government's case from the speech the hon. Gentleman has just made.
  I would not wish to cut short the large number of my hon. and right hon. Friends who still wish to take part in this debate, but I thought it would be convenient for me to intervene at this stage.
  It was unfortunate that the Home Secretary did not take part in this debate and has been here for only a short time while the debate has been taking place. He left the Chamber shortly after my

  1305
  right hon. Friend got up to move this bunch of Amendments. The Committee has been treated—and few hon. Members opposite were here to listen to it—to an unfortunate speech by the Under-Secretary. I say warmly that I have great respect for him, but in his speech on this group of Amendments he was certainly not up to the standard we have come to expect of him. He will particularly regret the remarks which he made about Scotland, in trying to relate the situation which exists in Scottish constituencies to that of the very small English constituencies such as Ladywood.
  I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to put the hon. Gentleman right as to the entirely different situation which exists in Scotland, arising out of the Act of Union. I am sure that the Secretary of State fully appreciates the very different considerations which exists in the number of Scottish seats and other relevant circumstances, compared with the English constituencies.
  The purpose of these Amendments is—
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): It has nothing to do with the Act of Union, because we departed a long time ago from the number of seats set down in the Act of Union.
  Mr. Sharples: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that the situation in Scotland derives from the Act of Union and that the number of seats there is laid down firmly by Act of Parliament.
  The purpose of the Amendments is to some extent to restore to the Boundary Commission the responsibility which lies on it in deciding matters of electoral reform. The Government, by this Bill, have removed virtually the whole of the Boundary Commission's powers. The Amendments compel the Government at least to consult the Boundary Commission before introducing electoral changes and changes in boundaries.
  I should have thought that it was common ground on all sides of the Committee that, whatever hon. Members may think about timing of elections or anything of that kind, the business of the machinery and the running of the machinery of the elections which return us all to Parliament should have been
  1306
  taken outside the scope of the political machines.
  I should have thought that would be common ground, no matter which Government happened to be in office. But frankly, as has been pointed out by several of my hon. Friends, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), we on this side cannot trust this Government at present to act impartially in this matter. We have had far too much evidence of their lack of impartiality in their attempt to rig the wards in Northampton constituency and borough and in the postponement, for electoral advantage, of the local elections for the London boroughs. We had the Representation of the People Bill, in part of which at least the Government overrode the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference and introduced measures designed to improve their own electoral situation.
  The Amendments would compel the Home Secretary to consult the Boundary Commission before considering the possibility of laying Orders in Council. I see no reason why the Government should resist an obligation upon them to consult this impartial body. Second, they would compel the Government formally to consult the Boundary Commission once a year. If the Boundary Commissions are to continue in being or have any meaning whatever, it would be right for the Government to consult them at least once a year with regard to their continuing duty. Third, they would compel the Government to consult the Commission in particular about whether any reorganisation of local government has gone far enough to warrant a general review in the area covered by the Commission. Fourth, they transfer back—this is one of the most important effects—to the Boundary Commission the decision on whether a general review of boundaries should take place.
  The Under-Secretary of State said that the Boundary Commission was not capable of making that decision. But it is the duty clearly laid upon the Boundary Commission by Act of Parliament. Section 1 of the 1949 Act begins:
  "For the purpose of the continuous review of the distribution of seats at parliamentary elections, there shall be … permanent Boundary Commissions …".
  Section 2 begins:
  "Each Boundary Commission shall keep under review the representation in the House

  1307
  of Commons of the part of the United Kingdom …".
  It is for the Boundary Commission, as was made clear in the report on England, to decide the timing of the reviews. It is this power which the Government have removed from the Commission and which one of the Amendments would restore.
  The second point which the Under-Secretary of State made was that the Boundary Commission was not able to take into account changes which might be coming into effect. I referred in an intervention to what the Commission said about reorganisation in Northumberland:
  "We proposed that, pending the outcome of the Royal Commission's review of local government in England, the seven borough constituencies should be left unchanged in spite of the disparities in their electorates".
  That makes clear that the Boundary Commission, as a body of sensible people, is perfectly capable, just as capable as the Government, to take into account the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission or any other commission which might have reported on local government boundaries.
  The Under-Secretary's advice to his hon. and right hon. Friends to reject the Amendments has exposed the myth behind the Government's suggestion that the reorganisation should be put off until after the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission have been implemented. The only suspicion one is left with is that at the back of the Government's mind is not a proposal that this should be temporary but a proposal that they themselves should be able to decide, without consultation with any impartial body, when reviews should take place, and that they should be able to decide that such reviews should take place

  Division No. 312.]

  AYES

  [11.0 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Binns, John

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cant, R. B.

  Alldritt, Walter

  Blackburn, F.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Anderson, Donald

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Archer, Peter

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Boston, Terence

  Coleman, Donald

  Ashley, Jack

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Conlan, Bernard

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Boyden, James

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Bradley, Tom

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Cronin, John

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Brooks, Edwin

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

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

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Barnes, Michael

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  Barnett, Joel

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

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Bence, Cyril

  Buchan, Norman

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

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

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  at times and in circumstances which are to the electoral advantage of the Government happening to be in power. This is a proposition that the whole Committee should reject. We have had no satisfactory answer from the Under-Secretary, and when the time comes to divide I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Amendment in the Lobby.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Mellish rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Hon. Members: Disgraceful.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The Committee proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Heath: Can you tell the Committee, Mr. Irving, what is going on? We cannot hear a thing.
  The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be seated and covered. If I can help him, I have put the Question on the Closure. I am now taking Tellers, and his party has put its Tellers in.
  Mr. Rippon: On a point of order. Mr. Irving. We cannot hear what you said.
  The Chairman: Order. What I explained to the Committee was that I had put the Question on the Closure to the Committee, that I was now accepting Tellers, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party had put its Tellers in.
  The Committee having divided: Ayes 270, Noes 235.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

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

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Pentland, Norman

  Delargy, Hugh

  Kelley, Richard

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Dell, Edmund

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Dempsey, James

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

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Dewar, Donald

  Lawson, George

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Dobson, Ray

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Doig, Peter

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Rankin, John

  Driberg, Tom

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Dunn, James A.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Richard, Ivor

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Loughlin, Charles

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Eadie, Alex

  Luard, Evan

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Ellis, John

  McBride, Neil

  English, Michael

  McCann, John

  Roebuck, Roy

  Ennals, David

  MacColl, James

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Ensor, David

  MacDermot, Niall

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Rowlands, E.

  Faulds, Andrew

  McGuire, Michael

  Ryan, John

  Fernyhough, E.

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Finch, Harold

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mackie, John

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  Mackintosh, John P.

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

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Maclennan, Rober

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Foley, Maurice

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Silverman, Julius

  Ford, Ben

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Forrester, John

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

  Slater, Joseph

  Fowler, Gerry

  Manuel, Archie

  Small, William

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mapp, Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Freeson, Reginald

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Marquand, David

  Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Gardner, Tony

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Ginsburg, David

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Taverne, Dick

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mendelson, John

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Millan, Bruce

  Thornton, Ernest

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Tinn, James

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Tomney, Frank

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

  Tuck, Raphael

  Harper, Joseph

  Molloy, William

  Urwin, T. W.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Moonman, Eric

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Haseldine, Norman

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wallace, George

  Hazell, Bert

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Moyle, Roland

  Weitzman, David

  Henig, Stanley

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wellbeloved, James

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Murray, Albert

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Neal, Harold

  Whitaker, Ben

  Hooley, Frank

  Newens, Stan

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip

  Whitlock, William

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Howie, W.

  Ogden, Eric

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  O'Malley, Brian

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orme, Stanley

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Hunter, Adam

  Oswald, Thomas

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Hynd, John

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

  Winnick, David

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

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

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Woof, Robert

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Park, Trevor

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Mr. J. D. Concannon and

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

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Balniel, Lord

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Batsford, Brian

  Blaker, Peter

  Astor, John

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

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

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Body, Richard

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Biffen, John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Braine, Bernard

  Hastings, Stephen

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Brewis, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Peel, John

  Bryan, Paul

  Hiley, Joseph

  Percival, Ian

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

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Peyton, John

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Burden, F. A.

  Holland, Philip

  Pounder, Rafton

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Hordern, Peter

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Hornby, Richard

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hunt, John

  Pym, Francis

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Chataway, Christopher

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Clark, Henry

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Clegg, Walter

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Cooke, Robert

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Corfield, F. V.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Costain, A. P.

  Jopling, Michael

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Crouch, David

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Royle, Anthony

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kimball, Marcus

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dance, James

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Scott, Nicholas

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kitson, Timothy

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Dean, Paul

  Lambton, Viscount

  Sharples, Richard

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

  Lane, David

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

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Silvester, Frederick

  Doughty, Charles

  Lawler, Wallace

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Longden, Gilbert

  Speed, Keith

  Eden, Sir John

  Lubbock, Eric

  Stainton, Keith

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

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

  Mac Arthur, Ian

  Stodart, Anthony

  Emery, Peter

  Mackenzie, Alasdar(Ross & Crom'ty)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

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

  Eyre, Reginald

  McMaster, Stanley

  Temple, John M.

  Farr, John

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Fisher, Nigel

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maddan, Martin

  Tilney, John

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maginnis, John E.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Foster, Sir John

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

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

  Marten, Neil

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Maude, Angus

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Waddington, David

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Walters, Dennis

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Gower, Raymond

  More, Jasper

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Grant, Anthony

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Grieve, Percy

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Worsley, Marcus

  Gurden, Harold

  Murton, Oscar

  Wright, Esmond

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Wylie, N. R.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Neave, Airey

  Younger, Hn. George

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Nott, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

  Division No. 313.]

  AYES

  [11.10.p.m

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Astor, John

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempsted)

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

  Balniel, Lord

  Amery Rt. Hn. Julian

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  The Committee divided: Ayes 234, Noes 268.

  Batsford, Brian

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Neave, Airey

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Gurden, Harold

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Nott, John

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Biffen, John

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Blaker, Peter

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Body, Richard

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hastings, Stephen

  Peel, John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Percival, Ian

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Heald, Rt. Hn, Sir Lionel

  Peyton, John

  Braine, Bernard

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Brewis, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pounder, Rafton

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

  Kill, J. E. B.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Bryan, Paul

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Pym, Francis

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

  Holland, Phillip

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Hordern, Peter

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hornby, Richard

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Burden, F. A.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Hunt, John

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Carlisle, Mark

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rippon, Rt. Hot. Geoffrey

  Chataway, Christopher

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Clark, Henry

  Jopling, Michael

  Royle, Anthony

  Clegg, Walter

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Cooke, Robert

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Scott, Nicholas

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Costain, A. P.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Sharples, Richard

  Crouch, David

  Kimball, Marcus

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

  Crowder, F. P.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Silvester, Frederick

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Kitson, Timothy

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lane, David

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Dance, James

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Speed, Keith

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lawler, Wallace

  Stainton, Keith

  Dean, Paul

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

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

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

  Stodart, Anthony

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Longden, Gilbert

  Tapsell, Peter

  Doughty, Charles

  Lubbock, Eric

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

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

  Drayson, G. B.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Temple, John M.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Eden, Sir John

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Tilney, John

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

  McMaster, Stanley

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Emery, Peter

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. -Hn. Sir John

  Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

  Maddan, Martin

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maginnis, John E.

  Waddington, David

  Farr, John

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Walters, Dennis

  Fisher, Nigel

  Marten, Neil

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maude, Angus

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Fortcscue, Tim

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Foster, Sir John

  Mawby, Ray

  Wiggin, A. W.

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

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  More, Jasper

  Worsley, Marcus

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Wright, Esmond

  Goodhart, Philip

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Wylie, N. R.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Cower, Raymond

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Grant, Anthony

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

  Murton, Oscar

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  Grieve, Percy

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Anderson, Donald

  Ashley, Jack

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Archer, Peter

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Alldritt, Walter

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Gregory, Arnold

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Barnes, Michael

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Moyle, Roland

  Bamett, Joel

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Bence, Cyril

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Murray, Albert

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Neal, Harold

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hamling, William

  Newens, Stan

  Binns, John

  Harper, Joseph

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip

  Bishop, E. S.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Blackburn, F.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Oakes, Cordon

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Haseldine, Norman

  Ogden, Eric

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hattersley, Roy

  O'Malley, Brian

  Boston, Terence

  Hazell, Bert

  Oram, Albert E.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Orme, Stanley

  Boyden, James

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Bradley, Tom

  Henig, Stanley

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

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Hilton, W. S.

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

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

  Hooley, Frank

  Palmer, Arthur

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

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Parnnell, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Park, Trevor

  Buchan, Norman

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

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

  Howie, W.

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pentland, Norman

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hynd, John

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Coleman, Donald

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Conian, Bernard

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Rankin, John

  Cronin, John

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Crosland, Bt. Hn. Anthony

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

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Richard, Ivor

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

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

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Lawson, George

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Rodgere, William (Stockton)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Roebuck, Hoy

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Dell, Edmund

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rowlands, E.

  Dempsey, James

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Ryan, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Loughlin, Charles

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Dobson, Ray

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Doig, Peter

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Driberg, Tom

  McBride, Neil

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Dunn, James A.

  McCarm, John

  Silverman, Julius

  Dunnett, Jack

  MacColl, James

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Slater, Joseph

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

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Small, William

  Eadie, Alex

  McGuire, Michael

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Edelman, Maurice

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mackie, John

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Ellis, John

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  English, Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

  Taverne, Dick

  Ennals, David

  Marion, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Ensor, David

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Faulds, Andrew

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

  Tinn, James

  Fernyhough, E.

  Manuel, Archie

  Tomney, Frank

  Finch, Harold

  Mapp, Charles

  Tuck, Raphael

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Urwin, T. W.

  Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  Marquand, David

  Varley, Eric C.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Foley, Maurice

  Mason, Rt. Km. Roy

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Wallace, George

  Ford, Ben

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Forrester, John

  Mendelson, John

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Millan, Bruce

  Weitzman, David

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Freeson, Reginald

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

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

  Whitaker, Ben

  Gardner, Tony

  Molloy, William

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Cinsburg, David

  Moonman, Eric

  Whitlock, William

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Winnick, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Mr. J. D. Concannon and

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Woof, Robert

  Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move,
  That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  It would be ungracious not to say that, in the time that we have spent so far, we have disposed of two sets of Amendments. In view of that, I hope that the Committee will accept the Motion.
  Mr. Hogg: I confess that, until this Motion was moved, I had been prepared to move the next Amendment standing in my name.
  I wonder whether the Home Secretary is being entirely candid with the Committee. I believe that he has moved this Motion because Government Business has been reduced to a shambles. It has been reduced to that shambles because of the handling of the debate by the Government themselves. It has been reduced to a shambles owing to the antics of the Government Chief Whip, who must be the biggest Parliamentary nincompoop for a hundred years—
  Mr. David Ensor: On a point of order, Mr: Irving. Is it in order for the Government Chief Whip to be referred to as a nincompoop by somebody who has been well known as a bell ringer?
  The Chairman: Order. "Nincompoop" is not an unparliamentary word.
  Mr. Hogg: I am grateful for your Ruling. Mr. Irving, against the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee.
  I have no more to say—[Interruption.]—except that I believe that the real purpose of the Motion is to muzzle Parliament and gerrymander the constituencies.
  Mr. Peyton: I rise to pay a polite but well deserved tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who, in proposing the first Amendment this afternoon, exercised the utmost of civility and restraint under very difficult circumstances. His reward was to be barely listened to at
  1318
  all by the Home Secretary, who obviously allowed a very natural and well justified shyness and diffidence to show only in a steady movement towards the door.
  Hon. Members: What is the point of order?
  The Chairman: Order. I hope that the Committee will hear the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Peyton: I am obliged, Mr. Irving, because some of the less discerning of the hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that I was speaking on a point of order. I am, of course, not doing so. I am speaking on a Motion which was proudly proposed by their right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who really has little of which to be proud. Not for the first time he has cooked the books—[Interruption.]—not for the first time he has been rumbled. and not for the first time he will fail.
  I regard the Bill as one of the severest catastrophes that can confront Parliament, because it represents an attempt unilaterally to alter the ground rules and customs which, if an assembly like this is to work at all, must be observed and changed only with general agreement. It would take more credulity than most of us have to accept that this change in the rules only accidentally favours one party. For that reason, I believe that most fair-minded people of all parties and of none will conclude that the Government have been driven to this really sordid shift of practice, surrounded by desperation and a desire to escape from the shackles of a situation which they have created. One's verdict can only be that those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No. 2) BILL

    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  11.31 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Peart.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart) rose—
  Mr. Harold Gurden rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot hear two hon. Members at once.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gurden: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. I understood that the Adjournment debate was to be for my speech and not for the Leader of the House. I am being asked to facilitate Government business by giving up my time. I would never have believed that I should help such a Government in such evil business. But if I am informed and guaranteed that I shall have equal time to put the case which I would have put on the Adjournment tonight, I will be prepared to help the House of Commons.
  Mr. Speaker: I have much sympathy with the hon. Member. I never promise anything. Mr. Peart.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Edward Heath: On a point of order. Would you kindly inform the House, Mr. Speaker, under what arrangement the Leader of the House is being called to address it when you have previously arranged and announced that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) had the subject for the Adjournment?
  Mr. Speaker: It is always the practice of the Chair to call the Front Bench, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Shouting does not help.
  Mr. Heath: With the great respect which is due to you, Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall in my time any precedent for a Member of the Front Bench being called when Mr. Speaker has allocated the Adjournment to an hon. Member. My hon. Friend said that if there were an undertaking that he would have equi-
  1320
  valent time for the Adjournment, he was prepared to give way to the Leader of the House. But no such undertaking has been given to him. Therefore, there is no reason why he should give way to the Leader of the House at this point
  Mr. Peart: On a point of order. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) was prepared to consider the convenience of the House, I am sure that representations made to you, Mr. Speaker, would be considered sympathetically.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): On a point of order. In view of your Ruling a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance? May I recall to you that on a previous occasion, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to make a statement and you had allotted the Adjournment to me, you clearly ruled that unless I gave way and surrendered by Adjournment, as I did, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not make a statement on the Adjournment on a matter of major importance? With respect, does not that Ruling cover my hon. Friend's point?
  Mr. Speaker: If I remember rightly, I ruled very diplomatically. I cannot pledge myself ahead, but I shall always look sympathetically on the case of an hon. Member who loses his Adjournment. I am jealous of the rights of back benchers in this House. Mr. Peart.
  Mr. Peart rose—
  Mr. Gurden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for your comment. May I, with respect, ask the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more specific in his guarantee. or his assurance—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: With all respect to the Leader of the House, he cannot give any guarantee at all. What the hon. Member must do is have some confidence in Mr. Speaker. Mr. Peart.
  Mr. Peart rose—
  Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, does not your Ruling mean that some other back bencher is to be deprived of his Adjournment half hour? Could

  1321
  not the Leader of the House give Government time to my hon. Friend for his Adjournment?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the most ingenious suggestion of the evening.
  Mr. Peart: With permission, I should like to make a short statement on business.
  In view of the rate of progress on the Committee stage of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill, the Government will ask the House to consider a timetable Motion. The Motion has been tabled—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. One thing that every hon. Member has in common, I believe, is preserving the good name of Parliament. Whatever one's opinions of the issues which divide the House, throwing Order Papers in the House does no good to one side or the other. Mr. Peart.
  Mr. Peart rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am with every hon. Member for the expression of feelings, but within a commendable field of restraint.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not correct that the Home Secretary a short time ago begged to report Progress and seek leave to sit again on the basis that we had made progress? How can the right hon. Gentleman be followed by the Leader of the House now saying that there has not been sufficient progress—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. That is a point of argument.
  Mr. Peart: The Motion has been tabled—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) will indicate audibly that he wishes to raise a point of order, it will help Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am trying to gather whether the hon. Member for Smethwick wishes to raise a point of order.
  Mr. Faulds: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Is it not within the possibility of your office to reprimand a little more
  1322
  forcibly than you have done?—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the hon. Member for Smethwick—[Interruption.]—in defence of the order of the House. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Peart: The Motion has been tabled—
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Has not the Chair inadvertently allowed the House to be led astray? A moment ago the Home Secretary begged leave to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. [Interruption.] It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that this side of the House did not vote against it because the general impression at this stage was that we should continue with the Bill in the normal way tomorrow. If the House had been told that the proposition was to be followed by a Guillotine, we might well have voted or acted differently. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot judge what the House would have done if it had known what was going to happen next.
  Mr. Peart: The Motion has been tabled and will be taken as first business at tomorrow's sitting. [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We can fight these battles in the Parliamentary way.
  Mr. Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a matter of sharp practice for the Government to indicate to the Opposition that we would be sitting again in normal precedent tomorrow and, without any indication at that time that there was likely to be a timetable Motion, then, the moment they have obtained the reporting of Progress, to move the Guillotine? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The question of the timetable must be taken tomorrow.
  Mr. Peart: I said that the Motion has been tabled and will be taken as first business at tomorrow's sitting. The business that we had arranged for tomorrow will be taken in the following order: Remaining stages of the Family Law Reform Bill [Lords], remaining stages of

  1323
  the Iron and Steel Bill and the remaining stages of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords].
  11.44 p.m.
  Mr. Heath: For most of us in this House, and for most of the time that we have been in the House, it was not permissible to interrupt business in order to make a statement. It is only in recent years that in matters of vital national importance and, on occasions, international importance, such as the occasion used some 18 months ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chair has accepted that at the time of the Adjournment there should be an interruption of business, and the hon. Member concerned with the Adjournment has voluntarily surrendered his time in the general understanding that it would be granted to him on some other occasion.
  The House has always accepted that a matter of vital national and international importance should have priority over whatever else was happening in the House. But what do we see tonight? We see no such situation. We have heard the most disgraceful abuse of the procedure of the House by the Leader of the House that, in my time in the House, I can recollect. He is abusing the Adjournment purely for party political purposes. What is the emergency which has forced the Leader of the House to come along at this time and take the Adjournment and announce a Guillotine on this Bill?
  The Home Secretary, in moving that the House should report Progress, said that it would be uncharitable to deny that the House had made progress on the Bill, It is well known that there are eight major debates on this Bill, which is of major constitutional importance. Today we have concluded two, and the Home Secretary has rightly and generously acknowledged that the House has done this, and done it before midnight. Yet the Leader of the House comes along and in the most inept phraseology, which proves that this is a bogus argument, says that because of a lack of progress he is to move the Guillotine tomorrow. What does this show? Only that the Government have no respect whatever for the traditional Parliamentary procedures, and are engaged in only one thing—trying to save their own life.
  1324
  We have had today, first, after only two hours' debate, an early Closure on two important Amendments, on the first day of the Committee on an important Bill. Not one hon. Member opposite can deny that this was an abuse, in the first instance, of the procedure of the House. We are engaged in discussing a Bill which, whatever one's views on it, is of major constitutional importance, which affects the citizen and his vote and the area in which he will carry out his obligations to the community. There is nothing more important in a democracy than this.
  The plain fact is that the Government, both in this Bill and in the procedure which they are employing, are engaged in what the late right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale would have described as a "squalid party manoeuvre". But his successor, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), has sat there throughout the day without saying a word. He and his colleagues are the first to lecture those in Ulster about the proper boundaries and proper voting procedures—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must learn to listen to what it does not agree with.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Member and his colleagues are the first to lecture the Rhodesians about "one man, one vote" and proper boundaries. Yet, in this House, he says not one word on a Bill of political and constitutional importance. In fact, in his view, morality and integrity apply to every part of the world except to himself and his own party.
  The Home Secretary has the solemn duty of being responsible for law and order in this country. He himself at this moment is in breach of the law of this country, in the way in which he has behaved over Boundary Commission Reports. Now he compounds that offence by the abuse of Parliamentary procedure which the Leader of the House has just announced.
  What about the Secretary of State for Social Services, who has rapidly beaten his exit? He was the man who would reform Parliamentary procedure to enable back benchers, the Opposition and minorities to influence the Executive. What has he done? He has connived in the worst use of the Guillotine in

  1325
  Parliamentary history. [Interruption.] So squalid has been his party manoeuvre that hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot even bear to have it discussed in the House of Commons.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Heath: The real nature of this Government is exposed. There are no depths to which they will not resort—[Interruption.] However dictatorial, however disreputable and however reprehensible, they will do it in a vain attempt to protect their own lives.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck rose—
  Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard a Government Whip move the Motion, That this House do now adjourn. I think that that was at least half-an-hour ago. Is it not the custom of the House that the Adjournment debate lasts for only half-an-hour? Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that the time for the Adjournment has expired?
  Mr. Speaker: I refrain from making any comment, except to say that it has not expired.
  Mr. Heath: For eight long weeks the Prime Minister and his colleagues, against the wish of the Home Secretary, were prepared to go on discussing important questions of industrial relations. I did not begrudge them that. But for rights affecting the votes of 36 million people in this country they are not prepared to go on for eight hours before imposing the Guillotine. [Interruption.]
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Heath: This is a disgraceful performance—this from a party which is supposed to pride itself on having fought through its history for the rights of the individual and for Parliamentary democracy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite—
  Mr. William Molloy: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Heath:—are gerrymandering the constituencies and now they are trying to abuse every right of Parliament. [Interruption.] However hard they try, they will come to regret this day because the electorate will surely dismiss any party which has so little respect for our traditional history and the rights of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  Several Hon. Members rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Whatever good this does to anybody, it does no good to Parliament.
  11.55 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: I am not quite sure how many more minutes the House is to debate these matters, but I think it would have been a good idea if the right hon. Gentleman had reserved these very powerful arguments he claims to have made for the debate which we shall have tomorrow on the Motion. We must be grateful that at last he has plucked up courage to mention Ulster. People have had their heads bashed in there, and people have had their civil rights taken from them. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House that there is something more important than any hon. Member. That is Parliament itself.
  Mr. Foot: Having plucked up his courage, having taken his courage in both hands and at last mentioned the name of Ulster—
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I regret having to interrupt the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), but he has suggested that certain civil rights have been denied to people in Northern Ireland. Would it not be reasonable to suggest to the hon. Member that never in the history of—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant Member must come to a real point of order. This looks like a point of argument.
  Mr. Foot: We all know the main purpose—
  Captain Orr rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Captain Orr, if it is a real point of order.
  Captain Orr rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I would hope that some hon. Gentlemen would think a little about Parliament itself. Captain Orr.
  Captain Orr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That was precisely the point I wished to make. Is it in order for the hon. Member to suggest that civil rights have been denied in a Parliament which has never dealt with matters concerning the boundaries of constituencies?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. Mr. Foot.
  Mr. Foot rose—
  Hon. Members: It is not a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker: I have already ruled that it was not a point of order.
  Mr. Foot: The second congratulation which I offer to the Leader of the Opposition is that after many months of silence on the subject he has plucked up courage to mention Rhodesia. He knows that the speech he delivered had nothing to do with the rights of Parliament or the boundaries. All he was concerned with was to try to make himself look like a
  1328
  Leader of the Opposition. His real difficulty is this—
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Emunds): On a point of order—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order, Mr. Eldon Griffiths.
  Mr. Griffiths: On a point of order Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the point of order.
  Mr. Griffiths: Mr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Griffiths:—about the nature of the debate in which we are at present engaged? As I understand it, we are discussing the Motion, That this House do now adjourn. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair conducts the debate. The debate is perfectly in order. Mr. Foot.
  Mr. Foot rose—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at one minute past Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Selective Employment Tax (Scotland)
  Selective Employment Tax (Scotland)
  Interest Equalisation Tax
  Interest Equalisation Tax
  Developing Countries (Capital Flow)
  Developing Countries (Capital Flow)
  National Savings
  National Savings
  Travel Allowance
  Travel Allowance
  Inland Revenue Computer Centre
  Inland Revenue Computer Centre
  Channel Islands (Defence and Overseas Representation Cost)
  Channel Islands (Defence and Overseas Representation Cost)
  Direct Personal Taxation
  Direct Personal Taxation
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Public Schools (Registration as Charities)
  Public Schools (Registration as Charities)
  Expenditure Overseas
  Expenditure Overseas
  Exchequer Stock
  Exchequer Stock
  Capital Sums (Interest)
  Capital Sums (Interest)
  National Debt
  National Debt
  Tax Districts
  Tax Districts
  Rhodesian Sanctions
  Rhodesian Sanctions
  Doctors (Bank Loans)
  Doctors (Bank Loans)
  Elderly Persons (Tax Liability)
  Elderly Persons (Tax Liability)
  Departmental Staff (Pay)
  Departmental Staff (Pay)
  Exchange Control Contraventions
  Exchange Control Contraventions
  Capital Investment
  Capital Investment
  Abortions (Foreign Currency)
  Abortions (Foreign Currency)
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Tax Relief Claims
  Tax Relief Claims
  New Capital Formation (Dividend Restraint)
  New Capital Formation (Dividend Restraint)
  Association of Consulting Engineers (Letter)
  Association of Consulting Engineers (Letter)
  Obscene Publications
  Obscene Publications
  Surtax
  Surtax
  Dividend Restraint
  Dividend Restraint
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
  Economic Expansion
  Economic Expansion
  Research
  Research
  Overseas Indebtedness
  Overseas Indebtedness
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Thorpe Marsh Power Station
  Thorpe Marsh Power Station
  Domestic Gas Consumption
  Domestic Gas Consumption
COAL
  Power Stations (Coal Consumption)
  Power Stations (Coal Consumption)
  Pollution Control
  Pollution Control
  Pithead Prices (Scotland)
  Pithead Prices (Scotland)
TECHNOLOGY
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  International Aircraft Projects
  International Aircraft Projects
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Salmon
  Salmon
  Boned Meat (Import)
  Boned Meat (Import)
  North Pennine Rural Development Board
  North Pennine Rural Development Board
  Roumania (Barter Deal)
  Roumania (Barter Deal)
  Milk Prices
  Milk Prices
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Burton Latimer, Northants
  Burton Latimer, Northants
  Immigrant Pupils
  Immigrant Pupils
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (PRICING POLICIES)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (PRICING POLICIES)
  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONERS
  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONERS
  SCANDINAVIA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  SCANDINAVIA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  EUROPEAN TRADE POLICY
  EUROPEAN TRADE POLICY
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (EFFICIENCY CONSULTANTS)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (EFFICIENCY CONSULTANTS)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Unemployment (Nottingham Area)
  Unemployment (Nottingham Area)
  Junior Clerical Workers
  Junior Clerical Workers
  European Economic Community (Trade Unionists' Exchanges)
  European Economic Community (Trade Unionists' Exchanges)
  Unofficial Strikes
  Unofficial Strikes
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Risley Remand Centre (Mr. Grewal)
  Risley Remand Centre (Mr. Grewal)
  Bailiffs and Private Detectives
  Bailiffs and Private Detectives
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Conservation Areas (Norfolk)
  Conservation Areas (Norfolk)
HOUSING
  Housing Subsidies Act, 1967 (Interest Rate)
  Housing Subsidies Act, 1967 (Interest Rate)
  Housing Revenue Accounts (Rate Fund Contributions)
  Housing Revenue Accounts (Rate Fund Contributions)
  Tower Blocks
  Tower Blocks
  Improvements and Conversions
  Improvements and Conversions
  Bricks
  Bricks
POST OFFICE
  Giro
  Giro
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Bricks (Central Scotland)
  Bricks (Central Scotland)
  Anti-Explosion Device
  Anti-Explosion Device
SCOTLAND
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pension Fund Accounts
  Pension Fund Accounts
HEALTH
  Immigrant Doctors
  Immigrant Doctors
  Mass X-Ray (Gravesend)
  Mass X-Ray (Gravesend)
  Births (Haringey)
  Births (Haringey)
  Disabled Persons (Aids)
  Disabled Persons (Aids)
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
HOSPITALS
  Hospital Schemes (Exeter Area)
  Hospital Schemes (Exeter Area)
  Abortions
  Abortions
BOARD OF TRADE
  Trade Figures
  Trade Figures
  Republic of Ireland (Tariff Reduction Timetable)
  Republic of Ireland (Tariff Reduction Timetable)
TRANSPORT
  Manchester (Rapid Transit Study)
  Manchester (Rapid Transit Study)
ROADS
  Public Utilities (Reinstatement of Road Surfaces)
  Public Utilities (Reinstatement of Road Surfaces)
  Kendal Link Road
  Kendal Link Road
WALES
  Mentally Ill Patients (Newport)
  Mentally Ill Patients (Newport)
  Motorways (Expenditure)
  Motorways (Expenditure)

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

PRIMARY SCHOOL NEEDS
LORD BELSTEAD: 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 what is the latest estimate of the increase in the numbers of maintained primary school pupils between 1968 and 1972; and what effect this estimated increase will have on school building costs during the same period.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the latest estimate is 430,000. To provide new school places for this number costs nearly £110 million. Adequate provision has been made for pupil increases in these years in school-building programmes which are already announced up to 1970–71.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. Is it a correct deduction from the figure she has given that the increase is about 10 per cent., which is 3 per cent. more than the increase for the whole previous decade? May I also ask the noble Baroness whether she can give a little more information, first about the amounts for improvements and replacements within that £110 million, and, secondly, about the amount to be spent on minor works, as compared with previous years?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I am afraid that I have not a breakdown of the figures in the way he has asked. However, I shall be happy to send him the details. The estimate is based on the Government Actuary's most recent projection of live births which I would assume are on the increase.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness one further supplementary question? With the primary school numbers rising so steeply, is it Government policy that there will come a moment, before the raising of the school-leaving age, when there will have to be a large extra increased projection of capital into primary schools?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that again I cannot give him a precise answer. It follows from the figures I have given that a reconsideration is called for, and I think this is reflected in the Answer to the next Question, which touches on another point relative to the school-building programme.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS: INCREASE IN PUPIL NUMBERS
2.38 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: 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 what is the latest estimate of the expected increase in the numbers of maintained secondary school pupils between 1968 and 1978, and in which three years within this decade the greatest increases in these numbers may be expected.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, between January, 1968, and January, 1978, approximately 1¼ million. The greatest yearly increases during this period are expected to be 367,000 in 1973, 123,000 in 1974 and 132,000 in 1975.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those figures. Am I right in thinking that they are really incredible, showing nearly a 50 per cent. increase—three and a half times the rate of the previous decade? I should like to ask two other supplementary questions. First, do Her Majesty's Government know exactly in which areas it is likely that the sharpest increases will occur when the school-leaving age is raised? Secondly, do Her Majesty's Government envisage any necessity for expanding further education facilities to help schools to cope with the sharp increases in the three years concerned?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, when the noble Lord refers to "area" I take it that he means area of age rather than the geographical area.
LORD BELSTEAD: That is so, my Lords.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, as the noble Lord will appreciate, the increase is due to three points: the raising of the school-leaving age; the increasing tendency for children to stay on at school voluntarily beyond the age of 16, and the larger secondary school age groups. So far as his other point is concerned, I think the noble Lord can assume that Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the factors, particularly as at the moment there is an inquiry going on into further education and the needs which we shall encounter.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, may I ask one further supplementary question? The noble Baroness has kindly given me the three years in which the sharpest increases will occur. One of those years is, of course, the year in which the school-leaving age goes up, but the other two are not. I must ask, therefore, whether the Government are confident that the necessary resources are available to cope with this incredible increase which includes the time when the school-leaving age is to rise?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is well aware of the position. He is spending a great deal of time and giving a great deal of attention to this area of expenditure. I appreciate that the figures involved are substantial, and I am sure the Government are well aware of the various problems that have been outlined.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness I must ask her if she is aware that what is worrying people is not whether the right honourable gentleman is aware but whether he is confident?

RETAIL PRICES INDEX AND WINE PRICES
2.42 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will amend item number 202 in the Index of Retail Prices so as to include all wines.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, the expenditure of households on table wines is already included in the weight given to wines in the Index, as the noble Lord is probably aware. Because an item is not separately priced in the Index it does not mean that it fails to affect it. It is sufficient to price a selection of items chosen so that their price movements, taken together, can be regarded as representative of the price movements of goods and services as a whole. In this instance, movements in the price of all wines are at present represented by movements in the prices of sherry. However, the Department of Employment and Productivity is looking into the possibility of including table wines among the items priced for the Index of Retail Prices.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which is very obscure, but I think in fact meets my point.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? Is there not a danger of public confidence in the objectivity of the Index being undermined by the seeming omission of items in common use which suffered an impost in price in the last Budget in terms affecting the cost of living?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I think this House is well aware that the Index and the whole structure of the standard of living figures is a complex statistical exercise calling for considerable erudition. If noble Lords press me on this matter, I shall retreat and offer to write to them. I do not think the public normally has a great deal of confidence in statistics because they do not understand them, and I have no doubt that further airing

899
of this point in this House would not improve that confidence.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord take this point? If the Index were explained in such a way that the public could see the effect upon it of new tax imposts, possibly the public's confidence in these figures would be increased.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, having had a brief education prior to answering the Question to-day, I take leave to doubt whether the time is available thoroughly to educate the public in this matter. I think it is a very difficult task indeed.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does not my noble friend think that the inclusion of table wines as a matter of common usage would undermine confidence in the Index?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers that point, may I ask him whether the number of persons using table wines is so small that the introduction of that element would altogether mislead the great mass of people?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the point is—also in answer to my noble friend—that the study which is going on now in the Department of Employment and Productivity is precisely to come to a conclusion as to whether the inclusion of prices of selected table wines in the Index is statistically sound or not. This is the question which is being posed and to which I hope an answer will be forthcoming.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, following the supplementary question of the noble Lord opposite, can the Minister confirm that price movements of whisky and gin are already included in the Index. and calculated regularly? Surely the inclusion of normal table wines, which are much less expensive, would not under-mine public confidence?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am very sorry, but I do not know whether whisky and gin are included. I will inform the noble Lord in writing.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can assure us that the Index figures are suffi-
900
ciently flexible to allow for huge increases in indirect taxation, such as added value, which the Party opposite are proposing to put into operation if they come to power?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the Index refers to current prices, not to future prices.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, am I to understand that these wines are included in the standard of living Index related to old age pensioners?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the standard of living Index is an index figure relating to the current cost of living. It is not affected by consideration as to whether a person is old or young.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Then is the answer in the affirmative, that wines are related to old age pensions?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the answer is as I gave it.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can my noble friend clarify this a little? Is there not a separate Index figure for old age pensioners, the one I recently saw published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, that is another question.

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT: PROGRESS OF TEST FLIGHTS
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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, following the completion of the first 50 hours of test flight of the Concorde prototypes, a statement can now be made on progress up to date.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the results of flight testing so far are most encouraging. Both prototypes have behaved well in flight, and on take off and landing. The engines and systems have performed well, and for such an early stage in testing, reliability has been excellent.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that

901
encouraging reply, may I ask if he could advise us whether it is the intention to carry out further demonstration flights over cities up and down the country, and also whether any agreement has yet been reached on the flight path for supersonic trials and will this be published?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the possibility of further demonstration flights is being considered. No decision has been taken. Of course, it is not desired to interfere in any way with the programme of research and development, but it is something which is being borne in mind. No decision has yet been taken on the flight path for the testing at supersonic speeds.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one further supplementary question? Could he tell us when it will be possible for the two Governments concerned to announce whether or not this aircraft comes up to the desired specification?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Earl will realise, there is a programme here, and so far the results, as I said, have been encouraging. But the real test will come when the aircraft flies at twice the speed of sound. It is anticipated that 001 will fly supersonically in the Autumn and Mach 2 in the second quarter of next year. On the basis of these flights it will be possible to say whether estimates are matched by performance.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, could the noble Lord advise us whether any firm agreement has yet been reached with our French partners on the preproduction stage of the aircraft?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. There will be two pre-production aircraft, 01 and 02. which follow 001 and 002, one to be built in Filton and one to be assembled in Toulouse. Agreement has been reached on those two; also on three production aircraft. But the programme from thence on, from the fourth production aircraft onwards, is now under consideration.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there has been any evaluation by the Government of the impact of the sound of Concorde on the public over whom it passes?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there is a constant evaluation of this. Whether it is conclusive in one direction or another is a matter of opinion. But again, it will be something on which opinions can be more firmly reached when the aircraft has flown supersonically.

TATE GALLERY EXTENSION
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of saying that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement this afternoon at a convenient moment after half past three on the extension to the Tate Gallery.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
YORK CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

LEGAL AID (EXTENSION OF PROCEEDINGS) REGULATIONS 1969
2.54 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1969, be approved. These Regulations implement the recommendations of my Advisory Committee on Legal Aid, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, is the distinguished Chairman, that legal aid should be extended to certain proceedings in the magistrates' court and to proceedings partly for defamation. They fall into five groups, and they are each a small group of cases in which it is fairly obvious that legal aid ought to apply but, for one reason or another, mainly I think accidental, it does not.
The first is in respect of proceedings, partly in respect of defamation. Successive Governments have taken the view,

903
with which my Advisory Committee agree, that it would not be a good thing to extend legal aid to proceedings for defamation. We do not want a great many actions brought on legal aid to decide who said what over the backyard fence; and so the existing Regulations exclude proceedings wholly or partly in respect of defamation. This wording has thrown up the sort of case which I think cannot have been contemplated at all: a man perfectly properly gets legal aid to bring a perfectly proper case, say for wrongful dismissal. The defendant then files a counterclaim alleging defamation. Thereupon the proceedings become proceedings partly in respect of defamation, so the unfortunate plaintiff loses his legal aid to bring his wrongful dismissal action. That is an obvious anomaly and should be cured.
The second kind of case is under Section 2 of the Children Act 1948, which empowers a local authority to pass a resolution vesting parental rights over a child in itself; for example, on the ground that the parents are unfit to have the conduct of bringing up their own children. For some reason, legal aid has not hitherto applied to this type of case. There are not many cases, but I think all your Lordships would agree that there are few more serious things which can be said of a parent than that he or she is unfit to bring up his or her own children, and for such a case proceedings in legal aid ought to be available.
Thirdly, there are two rather exceptional kinds of maintenance cases. Legal aid is at present available for obtaining or enforcing maintenance orders, but, again, I suspect, probably because nobody had thought of it, it is not available in two particular kinds of cases for subsequent variations where either the order has been made in the High Court but is registered in a magistrates' court, or the original order was made either in Scotland or in Northern Ireland and is registered in an English or Welsh magistrates' court. These Regulations would make it available to those cases.
Fourthly, the Supplementary Benefits Commission can bring proceedings under Section 23 of the Ministry of Social Security Act against persons who
904
fail to maintain their dependants and where the defendants have claimed or been paid benefit by the Commission. Similarly a local authority which has provided accommodation for a person's dependants can bring proceedings against that person to recover the cost of having done so. Although these proceedings are closely analogous to maintenance proceedings, legal aid is not available in respect of them at present. These Regulations remedy that by making it available to those against whom these proceedings are brought.
Lastly, one can apply for an adoption order, either in the High Court, in the county court or in a magistrates' court. Legal aid is available in the High Court and in the county court, but not in the magistrates' court. There are cases where a parent or guardian wishes to contest an adoption order and the court is invited to dispense with that person's consent. These Regulations make legal aid available to both parties where the court is asked to dispense with consent under Section 5 of the Adoption Act 1958. I think most people would agree that while there may not be many of these adoption cases, particularly against the will of a parent, they are matters of great concern both to the prospective adoptors and to the parents, and that accordingly legal aid should be available in the magistrates' court as it is in the High Court and in the county court.
My Lords, the cost of these extensions is but little. The total cost of all five is estimated to be in the region of £2,670 a year, and that is all. The Order has already been affirmed in the other House and it has been examined by your Lordships' Special Orders Committee, who report:
"That the Draft Regulations do not raise important questions of policy or principle;
"That they are founded on the precedent of previous Regulations made under Section 1 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949;
"That in the opinion of the Committee the Regulations can be passed by the House without special attention."
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1969, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID (EXTENSION OF PROCEEDINGS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 1969
3.0 p.m.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) (Scotland) Regulations 1969 be approved, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has explained the purpose of the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1969 which relate only to England and Wales. The Scottish Regulations make a similar provision for the extension of the Legal Aid Scheme in Scotland to cover proceedings which are partly in respect of defamation or verbal injury. Such proceedings are at present excluded from the Legal Aid Scheme in terms of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 and it is, therefore, possible for a legally aided pursuer to lose his entitlement to legal aid if the defender enters a counterclaim for defamation or verbal injury. My right honourable friend, having sought the opinion of the Law Society of Scotland, accepts the view of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee that in these circumstances the pursuer should continue to be entitled to receive legal aid and has accordingly made these Regulations. As with the corresponding Regulations for England and Wales it is only in the case of proceedings in which such a counterclaim is made that the extension of legal aid in Scotland to proceedings partly in respect of defamation or verbal injury will apply.
Provision is made in the Schedule to the corresponding Regulations for England and Wales for the extension of legal aid to certain types of civil proceedings in magistrates' courts. There is no necessity for similar provision to be made in the Scottish Regulations: proceedings of this type are taken in Scotland in the sheriff court and, therefore, already qualify for legal aid. The effect of the Scottish Regulations is to make only a very minor extension to the Legal Aid Scheme in Scotland, but one which may prevent the possibility of injustice arising. It is, therefore, worth while. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) (Scotland) (Regula-
906
tions 1969, be approved.—(Lord Wilson of Langside.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.2 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved. That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Provision of museums by education authorities]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 45, leave out ("the transferee") and insert ("a transferee who had notice of the said trust or condition at the time of the transfer")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment: concerns a comparatively small point. I should like to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that three of my Amendments are starred. The reason for that is that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was good enough to write to me about some of these points, and it was not until I received his letter that I was able to put clown these Amendments, which I did only yesterday.
The point here is a simple one. It is a question of a museum to which an object has been transferred by an education authority having or not having the right to dispose of that object if it is no longer of any service to it. The Bill says, in effect, that if under the trust or condition under which the object was passed to the education authority no power to dispose of the object is given to the education authority, then any museum to which that object is transferred would have to hold the object on the same trust or condition. That means that the museum could not dispose of it even although it did not have notice of the trust or condition at the time when the object was passed over to it. That would seem to me to be wrong. It may be that the clause is not intended to have that effect and would not have that effect under law, but that is not what the clause appears to mean, and it seems to me to

907
be as well to make it explicit. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the effect of the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would be to make trusts and conditions under which an education authority holds an object apply after the authority had transferred the object to a museum only where the governing body of the museum had notice of the trust or condition. The Amendment is unacceptable on two grounds, and I am quite certain that it is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to bring the first of these into effect. The first ground on which we think it would be wrong if conditions or trusts were to be allowed to disappear on the transfer of the object in question to a third party is that the original donor of the object is entitled to be sure that the trust or condition cannot be defeated except by an application to the court. In seeking to protect the owners of museums taking objects from education authorities from latent trusts or conditions the noble Lord has, in the view of the Government, gone too far, because if the body are notified of the existence of the trust and accept it under the conditions of his Amendment, the trust would continue; but if, on the other hand, it was desired to defeat the object of the trust all that has to happen is that the receiving authority is not so notified. They then take the object, and the conditions of the trust have disappeared. I think this would be quite wrong. If a person creates a trust he is entitled to see that it continues to be operated unless the courts agree to set it aside, and it ought not to be possible to set it aside by an arrangement of this kind between exchanges of the object.
The second point is that we do not believe that there is need to give the transferee any protection against the emergence of latent trusts and conditions. In the first place, it is unlikely that a public authority would seek to conceal such a trust or condition from another authority. In the second place, people taking possession of objects ought to be on their guard and inquire whether any trust or condition exists. I would suggest that the very existence in the Bill of a reference to trust or conditions under
908
trust is such, especially having regard to the discussion which has taken place in your Lordships' House on this subject, that a question about trusts will be an almost automatic one which will be asked by museums in any circumstances where they think it is even remotely possible that a trust might exist. For those reasons, I cannot advise your Lordships that this is an Amendment which would improve the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am very disappointed with the noble Lord's reply. I should have thought that this was a safeguard for the items which were passed to the museum in trust. If they are passed without any notification, what assurance has either the donor of the gift or the museum itself that they know the conditions under which the object is held? The noble Lord raised what I should have thought was rather a quibble when he said that by putting in the words "a transferee who had notice", the object of the trust is defeated. I should have thought it was very doubtful indeed that that was the case. All you have to do is to add a sentence; that is, instead of saying, "who had notice of the said trust", to say, "and who will be given notice of the trust". That would certainly not be any condition, and it would put an obligation on the local authority to see that the proper information is available to the museum if for no other reason than to safeguard the object itself and to make quite certain that the museum knows exactly what the position is.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not wish to enter into an argument with the noble Earl about what is the proper interpretation of these words. All I can say is that the advice I have received from my legal advisers is that if these words are included, the receiving museum will be freed of the obligations of the trust without any further recourse to the law, and I did not believe, and I do not believe, that it is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that that should take place. However, that is the advice that I have received.
The reason why I would resist any alteration is that which I have stated, that we do not believe it is necessary. Local authorities, education committees, and the like, are public bodies; museums are, for the most part, if not entirely, public

909
bodies. They do not set out to deceive each other. Why should we proceed to write our legislation on the basis that, either wittingly or unwittingly, they will do so? I prefer to work on the basis that it will be standard practice to ask whether there are any trust conditions attaching to an object. It is a fairly simple exercise, and it does not need the writing of a sentence into an Act of Parliament to ensure that that is done.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, and I am also grateful to my noble friend for the legal aid which he has given me in this matter, which is valuable. The whole problem here is the possibility of error or omission. That is what I was trying to cover, although I may not have covered it correctly. I was not for one instant suggesting that an education authority should seek to conceal any trust or condition, let alone set out to deceive a transferee; but it is possible that an error or omission might take place in all good faith, where the transferee asked whether there was such a condition. The purpose of this Amendment is simply to free the transferee from any consequences that might follow from an error that was not his own. I do not want to pursue this matter, but I wonder whether the noble Lord would have another look at it before the next stage, to make certain that some such protection is not needed. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Power of education authorities to make payments to persons providing education, etc.]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 28, leave out from beginning to ("payments") in line 30 and insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above, the approval of the Secretary of State shall not be required for the making by an education authority, by virtue of the power conferred on them by that paragraph, of")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 hang together. The first of these drafting Amendments makes it clear that an education authority's power to make payments to the managers of schools, other than public schools, in respect of in-
910
dividual pupils whom they are sponsoring, derives from Section 25(1)(c) as set out in Clause 6, and is not an additional power conferred by Section 25(2). Amendment No. 3 is consequential. Because Section 25(2) is expressed as an additional power, there might be some doubts whether paragraphs (a) and (c) of Section 25(1) were intended to cover the power of an education authority to make payments in respect of pupils whom they are sponsoring and who are to attend schools belonging to another education authority or schools other than public schools. The purpose of these Amendments is to remove these possible doubts. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, these are obviously useful Amendments and I would certainly raise no objection to them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 39, leave our ("or subsection (2)")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Power of Secretary of State to require education authority to fix a single school commencement on leaving date]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 9, line 14, after ("may") insert ("by order made by statutory instrument")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment of rather more substance. We discussed in Committee an Amendment to empower the Secretary of State to authorise an education authority to fix a single date for commencing school attendance, or a single school leaving date, in place of two or three in a year, if, and only if, the Secretary of State was requested to do so by the education authority. I argued then that it was wrong to give the Secretary of State power without consulting Parliament to compel every education authority to fix a single date, either for commencing school attendance or for school leaving, as he could quite easily do under the amendment in the Bill to the 1962 Act, simply by requiring each education authority to fix a single date.
It seems to me that before taking such a step, which, especially in the case of the school leaving date, would affect a very wide range of the populace, it is not enough merely to consult education authorities and teachers' associations or the Scottish T.U.C., as the noble Lord said had been done in the present case. Such a step would affect the whole nation. In particular, it would affect industry and commerce as well as the individuals concerned. I therefore suggested if he wanted to do that that the Secretary of State should introduce legislation. The noble Lord replied that if legislation was required it might take years before an opportunity arose to introduce it. I admit that there is force in that argument, and although I still think that it would be the proper course for the Secretary of State to come to Parliament for these powers, I have put down this Amendment as a compromise.
The Amendment lays down that the Secretary of State should make an order by Statutory Instrument to require the education authority to fix single dates, and the Secretary of State would then be giving Parliament an opportunity, if it so wished, to debate the order and even to reject it. Admittedly, the Amendment would require the Secretary of State to make an order even if he was requested by a single education authority to allow it to fix a single date; but, for my part, I think that would be a good thing. It would enable Parliament and the people of Scotland to know that this innovation was being introduced and where it was being introduced. If the Government think otherwise, it will then be open to the noble Lord at the next stage to introduce an Amendment of his own, or, indeed, to have an Amendment to this Amendment introduced into this Bill when it returns to the Commons, distinguishing the procedure to be followed on a single application by an education authority from the procedure to be followed if the Secretary of State wanted to introduce a change throughout Scotland—doing it education authority by education authority.
I submit that it would be wrong to leave the Bill as it is. I suggest that Parliament has a right to be consulted before changes of this character are imposed on a large scale. It is not enough
912
to have private and confidential discussions with educational interests, or even with the T.U.C. These are matters which affect the lives and livelihoods of a great many people, and they are matters, I submit, for Parliament. Parliament ought not to give the Secretary of State a blank cheque to fill in wherever he pleases, in such a case as this. My Lords, I beg to move.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment. During the Committee stage he started by saying that he did not really want this power, but he gave us no reason at all why he was asking for it. He said that it is conceivable, as is always the case, that at some future date he might want the power; but, on that basis, it seems to be asking a lot of Parliament to give the Government powers which they do not want but which at some conceivable date in the future they might require.
The noble Lord emphasised that he wanted the Secretary of State to retain the initiative, but my noble friend's Amendment gives him the full initiative for which he asked. That is all he asked for during the course of the Committee stage. The noble Lord said that legislation might be over-elaborate for something of this character, and I concede that. But the procedure adopted here is a very simple one, indeed. It is a procedure which we follow very day and which causes no difficulty at all. What I take exception to is the fact that the Government are asking that the Secretary of State should have power to go into the office and write an order, without consulting anybody whatsoever—neither the local authority, nor Parliament nor anyone else. The noble Lord made some very interesting remarks about Prime Ministers appointing sensible Secretaries of State, and said he was sure that no Prime Minister in future would ever appoint a foolish Secretary of State; but that is really not quite good enough. The Government are asking for powers which they do not really want and it is much wiser, as I think the noble Lord would agree, to take this step only after full consultation. But as the Bill stands there is no need for any consultation at all. What we are asking for here is simply that this order should be brought to the attention of Parliament. It is quite a big

913
step; and I suggest that to do this would not inconvenience the Government, but it would avoid giving the Government powers which they do not want and as to which they have no clear picture either of their purpose or of when they would use them. I hope the noble Lord will find it possible to accept this Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the remarks just made by the noble Earl persuade me that I must look at what I said on the Committee stage, because if I said that the Bill gives powers which the Government do not want I must have expressed myself very loosely indeed. What I had intended to say, and what I hope I did say, was that the Government had no expectation of needing these powers at this stage, and it might be that they would never need them, but circumstances could be such that the power might be necessary; and Parliament frequently legislates for something which is possible, and does not confine itself to legislating for that which is probable.
On the second point, I looked again at my remarks about Prime Ministers not appointing foolish Secretaries of State, and while I must generally adhere to that I should not wish to elaborate on it, because it almost implied that I approved the appointment of every Secretary of State for Scotland that there has ever been. As I have had great cause to disagree with some of the predecessors of the present one, that takes me into rather difficult territory. But at least one knows that the Prime Minister does not proceed on the basis that he is appointing somebody who will act in a foolish fashion, which was all that I intended to convey. I was not giving any overall approval to everyone who had been appointed in the past.
However, there are many occasions upon which Ministers—not merely the Secretary of State for Scotland but Ministers throughout Government—have to act under legislation which does not lay any specific obligation on them to consult anybody but upon which, in the proper exercise of their duties, they realise that it is wisest to do the job in the simplest fashion rather than in the most difficult fashion, and that consultation often makes it easier for all concerned. If we were therefore to assume that consultation is going to take place
914
only where it is explicitly written into a piece of legislation, we should be altering the whole chain of Ministerial relations with public authorities and with the general public. I say this because I have emphasised, and I wish to emphasise it even more, that there will be the very full consultation which the noble Earl has said is desirable—and that will not be affected in the least by the inclusion or the omission of the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.
However, the object which the noble Lord has in mind would not in fact be attained by the Amendment. It would not mean that the matter would be discussed by Parliament. My advice, having regard to what the noble Lord has said, is that the Amendment would serve no useful purpose. An order made by Statutory Instrument is not subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament as, under Section 144(4) of the Act, Regulations are. The Amendment, I am informed, therefore, would not serve as a curb on the actions of a Secretary of State, as the noble Lord presumably intended. The advice which I have received is that it would merely add a rather pointless formality to the proceedings and would serve no useful purpose whatsoever. In those circumstances, I cannot possibly advise your Lordships to add these words to the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. In point of fact, I originally drafted the Amendment with the words "by Regulations", but I was advised that an order would also attract (as I think it is called) the Statutory Instruments Act. Subsection (5) of Section 144 is obscure on this matter. But the purpose of this Amendment is that the matter should be brought before Parliament. I do not think that in his reply the noble Lord has dealt at all with that purpose. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment and will introduce it in a revised form at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful that the noble Lord has agreed to withdraw this Amendment as it will not accomplish the purpose he has in mind. I must say,

915
however, that I do not expect to change my mind at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Handicapped children]:
3.27 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 14, line 34, at end insert ("or required under paragraph (b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small point. We discussed this matter on the Committee stage, and the noble Lord has been good enough to write to me about it. He seems to be quite satisfied that the words in the Bill at the present time are sufficient. It is a matter that concerns the right of a parent to appeal against the decision of an education authority. On page 14, at line 29, it says:
"… not to revoke the decision, in which case, if either the review was carried out in pursuance of a request made to them by the parent of the child by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above"—
that is, in the new Section 66 which this Bill introduces to replace Section 66 of the Act—
"or the parent was invited. under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above, to submit the child for medical and psychological examination in connection with the review, …".
The point is quite a simple one: that this seems to any ordinary person reading it deliberately to exclude the case where a parent has not responded to that invitation and in consequence the education authority has required him to submit. This is one of two cases—there is another that I am coming to—in which it seems to me that if there is a doubt it is much better to make the position clear and explicit. I had no doubt whatsoever in my mind when I read this; and I am sure that many other people will say when they read it, "The parent is not given a chance to appeal if he fails to respond to that invitation". The noble Lord says that the mere fact that a parent has received an invitation under the clause as it stands would give him the entitlement. That may be, but it is not apparent on the face of it, and I think we should make it absolutely clear. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think it is fair to state that Parliament never deliberately puts into a Bill words which
916
it is certain serve no useful purpose—and that would be the effect of this Amendment. The point is that the Bill makes it perfectly clear that where an invitation has been extended to the parent, that invitation gives him such a right, whether he accepts the invitation or not. If he accepts the invitation, the noble Lord agrees that it is perfectly clear in the Bill that his rights proceed from there; but if he does not accept the invitation and the authority proceed by compulsion, that does not alter the fact that he has originally been invited, and the rights which attach to that invitation still remain with him.
The noble Lord says that this might not be clear, presumably to a parent, on his reading it; but very few, if any, of the parents who are involved will go and look up the Education (Scotland) Act 1969, search through it for the appropriate clause to find out what exactly their rights are and then decide that they do not understand them. This will be acted upon by the local authorities concerned, whose legal advisers, I have not the slightest doubt, will have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that they are bound to act on an invitation extended, whether the invitation is accepted or not. For these reasons I am advised—and noble Lords will notice that this is the third Amendment on which I have used the words, "I am advised"; I do so deliberately; it is not something that I have thought up but the result of legal advice that I have received—that in this case the words of the Amendment are unnecessary and serve no useful purpose whatsoever.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I find it difficult to believe that that is so; but in view of the fact that the noble Lord was so positive about it and that the effects are likely to be as he said they will be (in this case, as distinct from the case that we are coming to) I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 43, line 11, at end insert—
(". In section 91 (Incidental expenses of education authorities) in subsection (2) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
complying with an invitation issued to him '(d) expenses incurred by a parent in

917
or a notice served on him by an education authority under section 64, 66 or 66C of this Act.'")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to secure that expenses incurred by a parent in complying with an invitation issued to him or a notice served upon him by an education authority—and this is a similar point to the one we were just discussing—to submit his child for a medical examination and a psychological examination can he recovered from the education authority. The noble Lord said that that was the intention. Indeed, he said that it was actually done in some cases already. He has been good enough to write to me to say that Section 91 of the 1962 Act gives the Secretary of State power to do this. That section says:
"It shall be lawful for an education authority to pay such reasonable expenses incidental to the proper discharge of their duties as may be sanctioned by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
Subsection (2) goes on to detail certain kinds of expenses that the education authority are entitled to pay provided they are sanctioned by regulations made by the Secretary of State. That is the law as it is at present.
The first question that I would naturally ask is whether regulations have been made by the Secretary of State. If not, it would appear that if this is the operative section, any expenses that have been reimbursed have been reimbursed ultra vires. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer that. The second point is this. The examples of the expenses that the education authority may pay which are given in subsection (2) of Section 91 cover contributions by an education authority "to any association of education authorities" and expenses incurred by the employees of an education authority. There is nothing about expenses incurred by the public. I should have thought it very doubtful whether such expenses can possibly be said to be "incidental to the proper discharge" of the duties of an education authority. An education authority can perfectly well discharge the duties laid upon them by Sections 64, 66 and 66C without paying the expenses of a parent incurred in bringing his child to a medical and psychological examination. So such expenses cannot be said to be "incidental to the proper discharge" of
918
the functions of an education authority. This is another case where it is desirable to make sure beyond any reasonable doubt that the Secretary of State has power to make regulations to empower an education authority to pay such expenses and so to put it into the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is a case where I find myself in complete agreement with what the noble Lord wishes to do, as I think I made fairly clear at the last stage. We should prefer not to have an Amendment along these lines because if we specify these particular expenses which an education authority may be authorised to pay as incidental to the proper discharge of their duties we create a certain amount of difficulty by perhaps implying the exclusion of others. The noble Lord queried what could be done by regulations under Section 91(1). The information I have is that these powers are wide and have already been construed as covering a wide range of expenses—including, for example, enabling school pupils to take a suitable part on occasions of public ceremony or rejoicing, and promoting public interest in the educational service. The noble Lord asked whether my statement earlier that the local authorities had paid for expenses in these matters meant that they had acted ultra vires. I should prefer not to go into that. The fact is that they have done so; they have done something which they felt to have been reasonable. As we propose to make regulations under Section 91(1) covering the payment of these expenses, the situation clearly will be beyond any possible doubt so far as the future is concerned.
And we wish to go further. We will also make the regulations cover the analogous case of payment of expenses, in appropriate cases, in connection with medical or dental examinations under Section 58 and 58A, of the Act as amended. I give the noble Lord complete assurance that all that he wishes to do, and something added for good measure, will be accomplished in the regulations which the Secretary of State intends to make. I hope that in these circumstances he will feel that he has adequately secured the protection of those

919
people whose interests he was seeking to further, and that, although we have arrived at it by different methods, the result will be to his satisfaction.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has been very much more specific on this occasion than he was on the last. He has specifically said that the Government intend to make regulations in this case. As he also said that the Government have no doubt about their power to do so, and have made similar regulations, if I understood him correctly, applying to other cases of a similar kind, I should like only to thank the noble Lord for having done what I wanted although not in the way in which I wanted. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

TATE GALLERY EXTENSION
3.38 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the extension of the Tate Gallery. The Statement is as follows:
"The House will recall that earlier this year the Tate Trustees presented their proposals for a substantial expansion of the Gallery on its existing site. Because of the limited amount of land available they proposed to develop the vacant North-West corner of the site and also to build across the front of the Gallery. The scheme which was drawn up by the architects provided a skilful solution to the problem, but it would have involved the demolition of the portico and the steps. As the House knows, there were sharply divided reactions to this proposal.
"The Government fully accept that the Gallery urgently needs additional space for its growing collection so that more pictures and sculpture can be displayed and supporting facilities and amenities improved. We therefore decided, as I told the House in reply to Questions on February 20, to examine afresh the possibilities of making available to the Trustees some of
920
the adjacent land occupied by the Queen Alexandra's Military Hospital and associated buildings.
A further review of military hospital requirements in London and the home counties has now been completed. It has long been recognised that the Queen Alexandra's Military Hospital and the Royal Herbert Hospital at Woolwich must either be modernised or rebuilt. We have decided to build on Army land at Woolwich a new 500-bed hospital to replace both these hospitals."—
And I am sure that the Army will appreciate the advantages to be gained from this new hospital.—
"The Royal Army Medical Corps will have the facilities there to maintain the high reputation it has already achieved at Millbank.
"This decision enables the Government to make available to the Trustees the site occupied by the hospital at Millbank. This should meet the requirements of the Gallery for a long time to come. It will also enable the Trustees to realise their aim to display their Collection of Modern Art in modern galleries.
"The way is now clear for the Trustees to draw up revised plans to develop the North-West corner of the present site, and the Government are prepared for building to start as soon as the Trustees are ready. The construction of the new military hospital is of course a major undertaking, but we expect the Millbank site to be available by 1975. Planning for the new gallery and hospital can start at once.
"Two very generous gifts are being made which are linked with the new building on the hospital site. As is already known, Mr. Henry Moore is presenting a large collection of his sculpture to the Nation, subject only to one condition about provision of additional gallery space. The second gift I am happy to announce this afternoon. To mark the centenary of the birth of their founder, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation have just decided to give the sum of a quarter of a million pounds to the Tate for the construction of a gallery which will house temporary exhibitions and will bear their founder's name. This is

921
the largest single grant that has ever been made by the Foundation in the United Kingdom."
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement in this House and, from these Benches, welcome its contents. I would also express the appreciation of noble Lords on these Benches at the generosity of Henry Moore and the Gulbenkian Foundation for the splendid gifts which they are making to the Tate Trustees. May I say for myself how glad I am that the old portico will remain? It is a familiar sight to most of us, and one that we are all glad to see.
There are two questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord. As the new gallery on the Millbank site obviously cannot be ready for occupation for a period that will be nearer ten than five years, are the Trustees of the Tate Gallery happy about being able to manage with the extension on the South-West corner of the present site for that length of time? Secondly, as plans are to start immediately for the construction of the new modern gallery on the Millbank site, will the noble Lord make sure that these incorporate adjunctions designed to make an art gallery as enjoyable as possible—for instance, modern "walkie-talkie" apparatus, with lectures by experts explaining what some of the more obtruse objects mean, as well as more physical adjuncts, such as a modern restaurant and so on?
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement: it provides a very satisfactory solution to the various problems. I have no particular affection for the portico and the steps, but my objection to the plan as originally proposed was that, supposing they had been removed, I did not think the proposed building would have made a very satisfactory picture gallery. There are one or two questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord. What is to become of the Royal Army Medical Corps College on the other side of the Tate Gallery site? Will that be removed to Woolwich, too, or will it remain where it is?
I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, but I trust that when the new gallery is planned and designed we shall take a lesson
922
from the Hayward Gallery, on the South Bank, which has not been very satisfactory from the point of view of showing pictures—I am not talking about the outside of the building. Finally, does the Statement mean that the gift from Henry Moore will be kept in a gallery, or will some of the sculpture be left in the open air where I think it would gain an enormous amount? If Mr. Moore does not insist on its all being in a closed gallery, I should like to see some of it in the open air, where it would look extremely fine.. That is all I have to say, my Lords. I should like to thank the noble Lord for the Statement, and I am pleased that the Government have taken this line.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken. I was certain that this was one Statement that would give general satisfaction, and noble Lords have been generous in their recognition of this. In the light of the criticism of the earlier scheme I should like first to say that I am sure there is one noble Lord in your Lordships' House who will be delighted, and that is the noble Lord, Lord Llewelyn-Davies. He did a most skilful and difficult job. It gave rise to a great deal of controversy, but in the circumstances much of the congratulations should go to him for working out a plan, and for the fact that we have now something which provides much greater opportunity and about which I know he will be very pleased.
Regarding the questions which I have been asked, would say first, to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that I hope very much that the period before occupation will be nearer five years than ten. It is a very important matter, and there is no doubt about the Government's determination to press on. The timing obviously depends on the move of the Queen Alexandra Hospital and the clearing of that site. This must be completed, and a new hospital must he built and ready for occupation. Perhaps I should say a word of sympathy, particularly, to noble Lords who have been in the Army and who are probably regretting the disappearance of thou old Millbank Hospital. But I am sure that, on balance, it was the right thing to do. It must have been quite a wrench for the

923
Army, but none the less I think the decision was entirely right. With regard to the Royal Army Medical College, the present intention is that for the time being it should remain where it is. I will not underestimate the problem that is posed for that admirable and very distinguished body, the R.A.M.C., by separation from the hospital, but for the present that is the intention.
The other questions that were put to me are, I think, questions which the Trustees should answer, and I do not doubt that they will note what noble Lords have said. I am certain that the opportunity which this gives to the Trustee is a very great one, and I have no doubt that they will make the utmost use of it.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord exactly when the new hospital at Woolwich is going to be available for soldiers? Does it mean that the Woolwich Hospital itself must be pulled down? And where will there be medical facilities during the intervening period after the hospital has left Mill-bank? I do not think that soldiers mind leaving old traditions, but they do want their sick and wounded looked after properly, and near London where specialists are available.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, let us hope that there will not be many wounded. I fully accept the need of the Services for continuing medical facilities of their own. I do not know Millbank myself; I know the R.A.F. hospital at Halton and how admirable it is, and I have no doubt that Millbank has a very great reputation. It is hoped that the new hospital, which is to be built on the site of Shrapnel Barracks, will be complete by 1975. Obviously, the phasing will be designed to ensure that the Army is at no time without the medical facilities and the hospital beds it needs.

POST OFFICE BILL
3.50 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lord, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications]:
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) In consequence of subsection (3) above—

(a) in Schedule 2 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957, immediately before the words "Minister of Power" there shall be inserted the words "Minister of Posts and Telecommunications" and immediately before the words "Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power" there shall be inserted the words "Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications"; and

(b) in Schedule 1 to the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965, immediately before the entry relating to the Minister of Power there shall be inserted the following entry—

"Minister of Posts and Telecommunications—£8,500",
and immediately before the entry (under the heading "Parliamentary Secretaries") relating to the Ministry of Power there shall be inserted the following entry—
"Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications—£3,750")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, arising out of Clause 2(3). The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 contains a provision for the reprinting of that Act, as amended from time to time by any other Act. As Clause 2(3)(a) does not make any verbal amendment of the text of the 1957 Act, it would not, on its own, without the proposed Amendment, afford sufficient authority to alter the text when the 1957 Act is reprinted. The proposed Amendment also makes an amendment to the text of the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965, consequential upon Clause 2(3)(b). I beg to move.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I agree of course with the views which the noble Lord has put forward. This Amendment is only drafting and clearly designed to put right an oversight at an earlier stage of the Bill. But it gives me an opportunity of correcting an oversight on my part at an earlier stage of the Bill. The point I want to raise is short and uncontroversial and should have been raised, I am afraid, on the Motion, That the clause stand part at Committee stage. The Post Office, as it is now, is responsible for the marine radio communication service. As your Lordships know, this service, which has to be world-wide, is responsible, first, for the

925
preservation, safety and care of the distressed at sea and, secondly, for dealing with ordinary commercial and social business at sea. It is a vital service. There has always been important cooperation between shipowners and the marine department of the G.P.O., which is still rather quaintly called the Telegraph and Wireless Section.
I should like to pay tribute to the old G.P.O. for the stout-hearted and conscientious work they put into this extremely important duty. The Section is concerned not only with the day-to-day operation of this service but also with future plans; and I need not emphasise how important future planning is, how complex it has become and how technical it is going to become in the future. In the past, the planners and operators have always come from the same department of the G.P.O. This has enabled them to have full consultation and co-operation between the shipowners and the G.P.O.
What I should like from the noble Lord this afternoon, if I may have it, is an assurance that we shall have the same co-operation when the new organisation is set up, because there is one anxiety in the minds of the Chamber of Shipping, who have asked me to raise this matter in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I think we all know that if we have an important job to be done, it is always wise to give it to a busy man. But there may be in the new organisation quite a number of busy men and we are a little anxious lest this task, which has been carried out so satisfactorily in the past, may in the new organisation fall between two or three stools. I should like to emphasise that the department is a very small one compared with the G.P.O. as it now stands and with the new organisation, and there is a real fear that it may get lost in the new organisation. I should like to express to the Minister the hope that in the new organisation these operators and planners in the old Section can maintain their identity and that the problems with which they have dealt so satisfactorily in the past will still remain concentrated in their expert hands.
These are the anxieties I should like to put before your Lordships in discussing this Amendment, which deals with the salary of the new Minister in charge. There is no better way in which he could start earning it than by assuring himself that the old Service, which brought so
926
much credit to the Post Office and has been so warmly appreciated by the Merchant Marine, should continue unimpaired.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for having given me notice that he was going to raise this matter. I can assure him that there is no present intention to change the structure of the organisation within the Post Office which is responsible for radio communications with ships at sea, for the inspection of ships' radio equipment and for the examination of ships' radio operators. After vesting day, the G.P.O. will conduct ship inspections and examine operators on behalf of the Government, but this change in the legal position will not affect the management of these functions nor will it effect the expert knowledge of those who direct them within the Post Office. The new Post Office will of course try to develop, not weaken, expertise and we also expect that the present friendly relations will continue.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [General Duty of the Post Office]:
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 9, line 32, leave out ("impracticable or").
The noble Lord said: This small Amendment to Clause 9, which lays down the general duty of the Post Office, is an Amendment to the saving words in brackets in the first subsection, where it says
"(save in so far as the Post Office … considers the provision thereof impracticable or not reasonably practicable)".
What do we mean? Do we mean "impracticable" or "not reasonably practicable"? If we mean "not reasonably practicable", surely "impracticable" is covered. Let us try to be as precise as we can in the Statutes. Let us not clutter the Statutes with unnecessary words. Let us not give the impression that Parliament is dithering and cannot quite make up its mind whether it means "practicable" or really means "not reasonably practicable". I beg to move.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I feel that I ought to say something about this Amendment, because it was primarily at

927
my instigation that Clause 9(1) was amended on Committee stage, notwithstanding the fact that my Amendment left in the Bill the words, "impracticable or not reasonably impracticable" to which the noble Lord is now objecting. It seems to me inconceivable that the Government have used a phrase of this length, if it does not mean something more than just "not reasonably practicable." I am fortified in this doubt, if one can be fortified in a doubt, by something which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said this afternoon in replying to an Amendment on the Education (Scotland) Bill. I am not sure that I have his words exactly, but he said something like this: Parliament does not generally put into a Bill words which are not necessary for the purpose. I should think that unless the Government can assure the House that the words "impracticable or", which the noble Lord wants to remove, do achieve something or mean something that the clause did not mean without them, your Lordships would he wise to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for help from an unexpected quarter. He has given the exact reason I would have given myself. The truth is that the two phrases in this context have different meanings and they are both necessary. For instance, there might be cases in which it would be quite impossible in practice to provide an adequate letter or telephone service. In other cases, it might be possible to provide service but the cost of doing so, owing to technical difficulties, would make it out of all proportion. This is a small point, but it makes the Bill clearer and we should very much prefer to keep in both phrases.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am obliged for that answer. If it really makes the Bill clearer, I should be the last person who would want to press the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.0 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 9, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) It shall also be the duty of the Post Office to provide any person with goods, ser-
928
vices and facilities of the like quality, in the like manner and on the like terms in and on which it makes them available to any other person.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment concerns a rather weightier matter. It is a proposed new subsection to make sure that every customer of the Post Office, whoever he may be, will be treated equally and impartially. I imagine your Lordships will feel that the Post Office does this in any event. However, there is one example which shows that this is not always so. I see the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, is here, and he will probably know already the example that I am going to quote. I have referred to the matter twice at Question Time, and therefore I do not propose to go into it at any length now.
The fact is that until the great Post Office reforms of last September there was a valuable concession on the postage of newspapers. Anyone who posted a newspaper had to pay only the second-class postage rate but received first-class service. Today that still applies if you are a newspaper publisher or a newsagent. But if you are an ordinary member of the public—if you are Mrs. Bloggs wanting to post a copy of the local paper to your son serving in the Army away from home—if you want first-class service you have to pay nearly double the postage. So the position is that before the Post Office will give you a service for sending newspapers by post it wants to know who you are. I think that is basically wrong for a big, monopolistic, State trading corporation; and furthermore, I should have thought that it was absolutely rotten socialism. I should have thought it was absolutely vital, and stuck out a mile, that everybody who deals with the Post Office—and of course everybody has to deal with the Post Office—should know that he will get equal treatment on exactly the same terms as everybody else, and that in no case should it depend upon who a person is before the Post Office is prepared to decide the terms upon which it will give him service. The purpose of the Amendment is to secure equality for all users of the Post Office. I beg to move.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I feel great sympathy with the idea behind the noble Lord's Amendment, especially as he

929
offers it to us in the spirit of Socialism. The thing is that we are giving monopolistic powers to this great new corporation, and we want to be sure, as he does, that they are not misused. Equally, we are setting up the Post Office to serve the community, as a whole, and we must ensure within reason that it gives equal service to everybody. The Amendment however, goes too far to be practical. It places an obligation on the Post Office to treat all its customers in the same way. I am quite sure that this is not the noble Lord's intention, but in fact if this were to happen it would militate against progress and experimentation generally.
It would mean, for instance, that we could not introduce experimentally in a particular area a new kind of telephone or a new kind of cable, because we should not be able to give this probably improved service to all the other users. I could even take the more extreme example that in the future it could prevent the Post Office from giving the new subscriber dialling telephone service, because we could not do it everywhere at once. At the moment, only 3 per cent. of the country is without it, and I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to penalise the remaining 97 per cent., which is what his Amendment would dc. Further, on questions like the waiting list for telephone users, in some cases it is impossible technically to treat everybody alike. In others, the Post Office must reserve a priority list—for instance, for doctors. This again, would be impossible if this Amendment were agreed to.
We have given a great deal of thought to this matter. The noble Lord will remember that under Clause 11(4) the Minister is given power to intervene if he thinks that the Post Office is showing undue preference or is exercising undue discrimination in this kind of situation. We have, as I say, given it a great deal of thought, and in fact we strengthened Clause 11(4) in another place. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are very much alive to precisely this kind of situation. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Baroness has made out a fairly good case for saying that
930
Lord Airedale's Amendment goes rather too far, but she did not tell us the Government's view on the particular matter with which he is concerned: the posting of newspapers overseas by private individuals. I wonder whether she would be good enough to enlighten the House on the Government's view on this fairly simple matter, because it might help the House as a whole, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to consider whether to put down a more limited Amendment on Third Reading.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, that detailed point was dealt with on a previous occasion, and I should not like to confuse the matter by giving a further explanation which I have not got, word for word, in brief form. As I say, it has been dealt with previously, and the principle remains the same. If the Amendment went through, it would go much further than I believe even the noble Lord himself wishes.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, may I, with respect, interrupt the noble Baroness for the moment? I do not think that anything has even been said in previous proceedings on this Bill in this House about newspapers.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the point was in fact dealt with by supplementary question and answer in this House. My noble friend Lord Bowles says he thinks it was dealt with also on an Unstarred Question. However, I can find out and let the noble Lord know.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say when discussion at Question Time or by means of an Unstarred Question was to be taken as a debate on a substantive Amendment in this House?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene here. The noble Lord knows quite well that we are always anxious to give all the information that it is possible to give. The details of this matter have been discussed on occasions when I think the noble Lord has not been present, but there are other noble Lords in the House who will confirm that the answer to this question is recorded in Hansard. It was dealt with at

931
greater length by my noble friend Lord Bowles on an Unstarred Question. If the noble Lord wants a detailed answer, we can get it, but it will delay the proceedings. I suggest that it would be in the interests of the House if we wrote to the noble Lord at some length giving him by letter all the information that he wants.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. This is an important matter of precedent. I hope it will not be regarded as a precedent that any debate in this House may be read in substitution for debating clauses and Amendments on a substantive Bill before the House. I should be grateful to the Leader of the House or his Deputy for an assurance on this point.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, no assurance is needed but if it is, I readily give it. The only precedent that I think we ought to establish is that, so far as possible, we should proceed with the utmost expedition.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to what my noble friend Lord Newton has said. We are dealing with this Bill on Report stage, and I think that, before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, if that is his intention, there are many of us here who feel that after further studying the matter and what has been said, looking to the future, it might be wise to discuss it again at a later stage.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I seem to have started something. I think that probably my best course is to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment and to try to draft a new Amendment, in a more limited sphere, to try to rivet Parliament's attention upon this quite extraordinary state of affairs: that before the Post Office will send a newspaper by post for you, before they will tell you the terms on which they will send it, they want to know who you are. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Restriction of the carrying on by the Post Office and its subsidiaries of certain activities]:
4.10 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE LORD ERROLL OF HALE moved Amendment No. 4:
Leave out Clause 13 and insert the following new clause:
".—(1) The approval of the Minister shall be requisite to the carrying on by the Post Office or any of its subsidiaries of activities consisting in the construction, manufacture or production, for the relevant purpose, of things of any kind to an extent substantially greater than that to which the Postmaster General constructed, manufactured or produced for the coresponding purpose, things of that kind during the period beginning with the 1st April 1961 and ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day, and it shall similarly he requisite before the Post Office or a subsidiary of it constructs, manufacturers or produces, to a substantial extent for the relevant purpose, things of a kind that the Postmaster General did not construct, manufacture or produce for the coresponding purpose during that period.
(2) The approval of the Minister shall be requisite to the carrying on by the Post Office or any of its subsidiaries of activities consisting in the construction, manufacture, production or purchase for supply to outside persons of things for use by such persons otherwise than in connection with a service provided by the Post Office or any of its subsidiaries.
(3) The Minister shall publish, in such manner as he thinks fit, particulars of any approval given under the last foregoing subsection by him, and shall send them to the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.
(4) The Minister may grant an authorisation under this section free from conditions, or subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, or he may refuse it, and he may after consultation with the Post Office and with the approval of the Treasury, direct the Post Office to make to him granting, under subsection (1) or (2) above, an authorisation to manufacture or purchase articles for the relevant purpose, a report in respect of each accounting year as to such matters as may he specified concerning the manufacture or purchase in that year by the Post Office or any of its subsidiaries of such articles and the Minister shall lay a copy of every such report before each House of Parliament.
(5) In determining, for the purposes of this section, the extent of the manufacture or purchase of articles of any kind, the Minister shall apply such criteria (whether it be value or cost or price or quantity or some other criteria of whatever nature) or such combination of criteria as may appear to him suitable in all the circumstances.
(6) In this section—

(a) "outside persons" means persons other than the Post Office or its subsidiaries;

(b) "the relevant purpose" means the purpose of use by the Post Office or any of its subsidiaries or of supply to outside

933
persons for use by them in connection with services provided by the Post Office or any of its subsidiaries,

and, for the purposes of this section, the assembly of an article in the course of its installation at the place where it is to be used, shall not be taken to constitute its manufacture, construction or production."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and those of my noble friends. As your Lordships will be aware, Clause 7 of the Bill grants considerable powers to the Post Office, and Clause 13 is the important clause which modifies or restricts the generality of the powers granted under Clause 7. On the Committee stage we attempted to amend Clause 13, but we were not really satisfied with the Amendments that we proposed. After further consideration of the subject noble Lords on this side of your Lordships' House thought it best to offer your Lordships a new clause in substitution for the existing Clause 13, rather than to try to amend Clause 13 as it stands in the Bill.
Clause 13 has an interesting history. The Clause 13 that was originally in the Bill in another place provided, in the opinion of our colleagues in the other place, a satisfactory state of affairs. During the passage of the Bill through another place, however, a second and, in our view, less satisfactory Clause 13 was substituted for it. The purpose of our Amendment is to review what has happened so far in the progress of the Bill and to offer your Lordships a new Clause 13 which, in our opinion, combines the advantages of both Clause 13, Mark I, so to speak, and Clause 13, Mark II. I will endeavour to explain this new clause to your Lordships. I shall try not to be too long, but it is, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will agree, a very important clause, and merits a certain amount of time being spent on it.
Clause 13, Mark I, had the following effects: it stipulated that the authorisation of the Minister would be required before the Post Office could do certain things under its powers under Clause 7. These were categorised as follows. First of all, the authorisation of the Minister was required before the Post Office could manufacture for itself, or for other people, to an extent greater than heretofore, anything connected with its own business.
Secondly, the authorisation of the Minister was required for the manufacture for itself or for others to an extent greater than it had been doing hitherto, things not connected with its business. Thirdly, the authorisation of the Minister would be required for the purchase for supply to others things not connected with its own Post Office business.
Furthermore, the Minister could make his own conditions before granting such authorisation, or authorisations, and he could direct that accounts be kept of these activities and be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Clause 13, Mark II, was offered to the Members of another place on the grounds that it was simpler and shorter. In actual fact, the second edition of Clause 13 altered the position very substantially. The Clause 13 which we now have in the Bill lays down that the Post Office has only to consult with the Minister before manufacturing for itself, or for others, to a greater extent than hitherto, things connected with its business. That is consultation only; it does not require authorisation.
The authorisation of the Minister is necessary before the Post Office manufactures for itself, or for others, things not connected with its business. So that part remains unchanged. It is indicated in the revised version of Clause 13 that when the Minister issues such authorisation he shall inform the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. But—and this is a retrograde move in our view—instead of the obligation to present accounts, the Post Office will merely have to conduct itself as a commercial enterprise. If one compares the two clauses, it is clear that all the real safeguards of the first edition have been omitted from the second edition of the clause. In the debate in another place a spokesman for the Government claimed that these powers were only reserve powers in case the suppliers were unable to provide equipment at the price the Post Office was willing and felt able to pay. The Minister went on to say that it would usually be cheaper to go to the existing suppliers, but there was always the possibility that they might form a monopoly, and then reduce services.
If that was the only reason for the change, the original Clause 13 would serve quite well. So what was the real

935
purpose behind the change? The Post Office could manufacture wherever necessary, providing it had gained the authorisation of the Minister, and whenever such an activity was reasonable surely the Minister would give this authorisation. In answer to the argument that there was a danger of monopoly conditions prevailing, I would point out that the Government could then refer such a monopoly to the Monopolies Commission; or, if there was a restrictive agreement between the manufacturers as to their supply to the Post Office, there are powers under restrictive practices legislation to deal with the situation. So in our view, the original Clause 13 gave all that was required for the Post Office, while giving the Minister control, and it also gave safeguards for industry which, rightly in my view, felt that it might well be subjected in the future to unfair competition and cross-subsidisation by the Post Office of its various activities.
That is by way of background in presenting to your Lordships our new Clause 13 this afternoon. We have tried to combine the best of the two previous clauses. The authorisation of the Minister is required before the Post Office manufactures anything for itself, or for anyone else, or for any purpose to an extent greater than hitherto. The Minister, in our new clause, shall send particulars, in the same way as in the present Government clause, to the C.B.I. and T.U.C. The Minister may require accounts to be kept as in the original clause. I have tried to keep a somewhat complicated subject as straightforward as possible. I hope very much that the spokesman for Her Majesty's Government will feel able to accept our clause in its new form. I beg to move.
4.19 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, described this as an important Amendment, and of course it is. It deals with a very important aspect of the Bill. The noble Lord said that he wanted to know what was the real purpose of the change which took place in the Report stage in another place. I am only concerned as to the real purpose of the change in the Amendment which the noble Lord circulated but did not move on Committee stage, and this Amendment. I am sorry
936
that the noble Lord did not move his first Amendment, and has replaced it with this Amendment. I thought the earlier Amendment was a really exquisitely economic piece of amending, whereas here we have a cumbersome clause proposed in its place. If for no other reason, I hope that we shall agree this afternoon not to accept this Amendment, because it is such a bad piece of drafting. While the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, has been away we have been trying very hard in this House to improve the wording of the Bill, and some of his noble friends now sitting beside him and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, have made notable contributions to that improvement. And now the noble Lord comes along with what I was going to call a "hutch-potch of an Amendment", an amalgam of various clauses.
So far as I can see, it is compounded of bits of the original Clause 13, parts of the clause which was put in the Bill at the Report stage in another place; and of course he has included in it the gist of the Amendment which he circulated but did not move at our Committee stage. As the noble Lord knows, I have great admiration for him I have great admiration for his capacity; I have great admiration for his knowledge of engineering. But as an engineer he really has done a bad job of putting all these bits and pieces together. They do not even achieve the object that he sets out to achieve. But I think it probably would be better, leaving that aside, to say that we understand the purpose behind this bad piece of drafting. I suggest to your Lordships that we ought not accept the purpose which lies behind the Amendment.
The Bill as now drafted gives the proposed new public Corporation powers to manufacture the equipment which it needs in the same way as the Postmaster General now enjoys powers. If anything, the powers proposed in the present Bill restrict the ability of the new Post Office to manufacture as compared with the powers which the Postmaster General now enjoys. Subsection (1) of the present clause requires that the Post Office must consult the Minister before increasing the scale or widening the scope of its internal manufacturing activities; and by "internal manufacturing", of course, we mean the manufacture of those items required for its own use or for use of its customers in connection with the services

937
which it provides. Subsection (2) of Clause 13, as the noble Lord said, requires the Post Office to obtain the Minister's approval before it undertakes manufacture other than internal manufacture.
I should have thought that these were reasonable provisions. I cannot see that there is any likelihood of anything being done to the detriment of the nation or the customers of the Post Office, or indeed to those who now supply the Post Office with the bulk of its requirements. There is no present intention of increasing the manufacturing capacity of the Post Office. If the capacity was to be increased then clearly additional capital expenditure would be required, and not only does the Minister need to be consulted before that capital becomes available but he has to approve the capital programme. The noble Lord himself said that there was no obligation to provide accounts as to how money might be spent, but he was quite wrong. Of course there is no such provision in Clause 13, but he has overlooked competely Clause 11(10), where it says there shall be adequate accounting. What other safeguards can the noble Lord reasonably want?
The real trouble here, I fear (I hope I am not being unduly offensive), is that the noble Lord is not being reasonable. The truth is, I nut to the noble Lord (I was almost going to say "my noble friend"), that when we move on to a discussion as between the public sector and the private sector there are some people who drop sweet reason and pick up prejudice; and this is really what is behind this new clause which the noble Lords puts forward.
In the discussions which we have had on Committee stage, and in which the noble Lord did not take part, his noble friends made a great case against monopoly, against any threat of bureaucracy, and in favour of the protection of the consumer. I had great sympathy with what was said by the noble Lord. Lord Newton, and the noble Lord, Lord Denham, on these matters, although I thought on occasions they were mistaken in the solutions which they sought to apply. But I certainly think that those objectves were sound objectives, while here the noble Lord is not concerned to guard against bureaucracy;
938
he wants to increase it. He wants to have all the decisions reached by the Post Office Board raked over and decided again by another lot of officials in another public body. He does not want protection against monopoly. He seeks here to make it more difficult for the Post Office to guard itself against any monopoly situation which might arise in the manufacture of the equipment on which it depends. The noble Lord is not here concerned to fight for the customers of the Post Office. He is manifestly more concerned with the interests of those who sell, or who seek to sell, directly or indirectly, the equipment upon which the customers of the Post Office depend for their service.
Here we are dealing with a field in which the demand for new equipment is going to increase at a time when suppliers of equipment are tending to decrease. An enormous new field is opening up in this equipment. We have seen—and, for all I know, we shall very likely see in the future—mergers amalgamating the concerns which make this equipment. In this situation it seems right for the Post Office to have these reserve powers. As things now are, there are extremely satisfactory relationships between the Post Office and its suppliers. I have every reason to believe that, now that the old bulk supply agreements have gone and been replaced by another arrangement, those relationships will continue to be satisfactory. But if in the future, when the demand of the Post Office for new equipment expands in the immense way in which we expect it to expand, it cannot get the right equipment at a fair price and at the right time, it needs these reserve powers to enable it to plan ahead efficiently and speedily for self-supply on selected items.
If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted it would be less possible for the Post Office to protect the interests of the nation which it serves; it would subject this new organisation to detailed bureaucratic control or, conceivably, politically slanted interference from the Minister of the day. I submit to your Lordships that there is every protection in the clause as it now stands to prevent the Board from acting in any perverse way or spending public money to subsidise the manufacture of articles which could more efficiently be produced by outside

939
manufacturing concerns. I trust that the general sense of the House, which has expressed itself against unnecessary, inefficient, detailed controls, will support the view that this Amendment, unsatisfactorily worded anyhow, is both unnecessary and contrary to the best interests of the customers of the Post Office.
4.28 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I want to say only one or two things with reference to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, about the drafting of this Amendment. The noble Lord knows perfectly well, as does everyone in this House, that the ordinary private Member either of this House or of another place hardly every manages to draft a long Amendment which is acceptable to the Government of the day, whoever that Government are. I particularly thought it rather unwelcome that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, should complain about the drafting of this Amendment since at the Committee stage of this Bill, some 15 days ago, the Government asked the House to accept a vast number of purely drafting Amendments, and they are going to do the same again this afternoon. And, for all I know, they may be coming forward with more drafting Amendments on the Third Reading of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, repeated to-day something that he said to me on the Committee stage when I was moving an Amendment to Clause 26: that the Amendment does not even achieve what it seeks to do. I am more satisfied now than I was in Committee stage that my particular Amendment did achieve what it set out to do, and I am further prepared to have quite a substantial bet with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that the Post Office now thinks so, too.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, as apparently no other noble Lords wish to speak on this Amendment, I should like to make just one or two points. We have had no explanation as to why the Government departed from the stand which they made so bravely in Clause 13, "Mark I", and proceeded to the watered-down version of "Mark II". All we are doing is to give the Government the opportunity of going back to their much better first thoughts.
940
If our drafting is not impeccable, I am content to rely on my noble friend Lord Newton and what he has said about drafting and the difficulties thereof, which are very clearly shown by the drafting Amendments which we are to take later to-day.
As to the relationship between the public sector and the private sector, our view is that it is a one way traffic. It is always the public sector that is enlarging itself at the expense of the private sector; it never goes the other way. The public sector never relinquishes any of its activities and returns them to private enterprise or to the private sector. That is why we fight these cases over and over again, because it is a one way traffic, and we do not approve of that one way traffic. We shall always do what we can, both here and in another place, to try to limit the ever-growing proportion of the public sector to the economy as a whole.
I would say to the noble Lord that we shall look carefully at what he has said in regard to this Amendment, and I hope that, for his part, he will look at the original Clause 13, to see whether it would not be better to introduce that into the Bill before we finally part with it on Third Reading. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his generous remarks about my abilities, such as they are, and some of my frailties, such as failing to be present when the Bill was discussed at an earlier stage. As he twice referred to this I think I am entitled to say that I was——
A NOBLE LORD: Engaged on private enterprise.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I was recovering from private enterprise by having a holiday. But I would make the point to the noble Lord that my diary is littered with dates that had to be crossed out, and all those crossings out were "Post Office Bill to-day?". I think that no fewer than five changes were made in the official timetable for this Bill through your Lordships' House, and there came a time when I said, "Enough is enough. I shall remain on holiday for the earlier stage". That is the sole reason why I was away, and if the noble Lord had kept to his original timetable I should have been here for it. In the meantime, I will beg leave to withdraw this Amendment if the noble

941
Lord will give an assurance that he will look at the suggestion I have made to him.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord is going to speak about his diary I am bound to tell him that his case there is even weaker than his Amendment. Certain changes were made——
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord speaking with the leave of the House?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am very sorry; I beg your pardon.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: The noble Lord has it now.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was going to say that there were changes in the days set down for the Second Reading of the Post Office Bill, but they were changes, as I understood it, designed to enable the noble Lord to attend. However we kept putting it back, again and again, and eventually we had to proceed without him. I can assure the noble Lord that nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to take the previous stage of this Bill while he was here. As for the assurance for which he asked—and that is the real reason why I rose to speak—I fear that I can give him no assurance at all on that count. The Bill was changed by the Government on Report stage in another place because they were convinced by the arguments that were made that such a change was in the interests of the general public. They having made that decision, it is quite impossible for them to go back on it. Therefore I am afraid that if I gave the noble Lord an assurance it would be an empty one.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I did beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I may not have been granted that leave.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Vesting in the Post Office of property, rights and liabilities generally]:
4.35 p.m.
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 19, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) All estates and interests in land in the Channel Islands which, immediately before
942
that day, are vested in Her Majesty, being estates and interests in land then occupied or used, in whole or in part, by the Postmaster General or (for, or in connection with. the exercise and performance of any of the Postmaster General's functions) by an officer or servant of the Crown;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to ensure that interests in land in the Channel Islands held by the Crown for the purposes of the functions of the Postmaster General will vest in the Post Office. Clause 16(1)(a) was drafted on the assumption that all land, whether freehold or leasehold, acquired for the purposes of the Postmaster General's functions is vested in the Postmaster General and held in trust for Her Majesty under the Post Office Act 1953, Section 46. It has been discovered that owing to the peculiarity of local taw certain land in the Channel Islands purchased by the Postmaster General is vested in Her Majesty and not in the Postmaster General in trust for Her Majesty. The Amendment is needed to ensure that such land will vest in the Post Office on the appointed day.
The Amendment does not in any way conflict with the possibility that the Channel Islands will take over responsibility for their own postal and telecommunications services, as referred to in Clause 87. If the take-over occurs the Post Office will sell its assets on the Islands to the States. Negotiations are already proceeding and the Amendment to Clause 16 is acceptable to the States. I beg to move.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question in connection with what he has said about Clause 87 and the ability of the Post Office, if the Channel Islands eventually get their own independent postal service, which I understand they want to have, then to sell the assets of the Post Office to the Channel Islands? Is there a specific provision in this Bill to enable those sales to take place? If not, can the noble Lord say under what provision or what Statute it will be permissible for the Post Office to sell the assets to the Channel Islands?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I cannot do that on the spur of the moment, but I will write to the noble Lord and let him know.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am much obliged for that but if it were possible that an Amendment was needed to this Bill it would not be sufficient for the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, to write and tell me.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at Clause 87 he may find it stated there, but at the moment I am marking time in order to get the information that the noble Lord wants, namely, is the power to transfer the Post Office assets in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in this Bill at all? I am advised that it is not necessary to have it in the Bill, and if the noble Lord will refer to Clause 7 he will see why.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, but I asked him whether the power was in the Bill and, if it was not in the Bill, whether it was necessary to have it in the Bill. That is all. He has given me the answer and I am much obliged to him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MOUNTEVANS LORD MOUNTEVANS moved a manuscript Amendment, No. 5A:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
Amendment of s.3 of Post Office Act 1953
(". In section 3(4) of the Post Office Act 1953, after the word "newspaper" there shall be inserted the words or a periodical."")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for proposing this Amendment at rather a late stage, but this is non-controversial and is a drafting Amendment. It relates to Clause 23 [Exclusive privilege of the Post Office with respect to the conveyance, & c., of letters]. Newspapers are excluded from this privileged situation, but not periodicals, on the assumption, I think, in the earlier drafting that the term "newspapers" covered periodicals. Clause 23 brings into effect the old Section 3 of the Post Office Act which, in subsection (4), excludes newspapers from the exclusive privilege of conveyance by the Post Office. If your Lordships were willing, I would propose that subsection (4) should be amended to include, after the word "newspaper" the words "or a periodical", the reason for this being that a newspaper does not entirely cover all the periodicals. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand the concern of the noble Lord, but
944
I assure him that his concern is not well based. The worries that he has in this connection are unfounded. His difficulty arises from the fact that periodicals are not specifically mentioned in Section 3 of the Post Office Act 1953, and I suppose he fears from this that it might one day be argued by the Post Office that periodicals, unlike newspapers, are within the Post Office postal monopoly. But the words "newspaper" and "parcel" in Section 3(4) of the 1953 Act are used in a technical sense—equivalent to "things sent by newspaper or parcel post". They are descriptions of a particular kind of postal packet. A periodical is not a particular kind of postal packet, and the inclusion, therefore, under Section 3(4) would have been unnecessary and inappropriate. I am therefore advised that the Amendment the noble Lord proposes is not necessary.
LORD MOUNTEVANS: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Saving for things under licence]:
4.40 p.m.
LORD HELSBY LORD HELSBY moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 29, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("either") in line 39 and insert "The Minister may grant a licence")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to make the Minister directly responsible for licensing so that the grant of a licence or a refusal of one is his. Under Clause 27 as it stands the Post Office is the licensing authority, and although the consent of the Minister is required to the grant of a licence that consent is not required for the refusal of a licence or for the attaching of conditions to a licence. I would say at the outset that, so far as I am aware, no company with which I am associated has any interest in this matter, but I feel that I ought to go on to say that in my judgment the issues that arise here are of such a kind that any progressive company is very likely to be interested in the matter in future years, and to that extent I should declare a potential interest.
I suggest that there is a point of principle here. Surely it is right in principle that a Minister should be responsible for licences. As I said at the Committee stage

945
when B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. were set up nobody suggested that they should license the independent airlines; when the British Transport Commission was set up nobody suggested that they should license the independent commercial road vehicle operators. Surely it is proper that the Government of the day should take direct responsibility for this use of statutory monopolistic powers of great importance. Hitherto, we have recognised this, and I do not see any good ground for casting this salutary principle on one side in the case of the Post Office.
The argument of principle, powerful though it may be, is surely reinforced by practical considerations. To reach a fair appraisal of the licensing system we have to consider what the licences are for. They are licences to operate in the field of the Post Office monopoly of telecommunications as given to the Post Office by Clause 24 of the Bill. That monopoly goes very wide indeed. I do not object to that; I accept that it is in the broad national interest that at this stage development in the field of telecommunications in this country should be given leadership by the Post Office. But the fact remains that this is an enormously wide field, and there are no alternatives within it. This is not a matter of choice, like the choice between travelling by rail or road, or sea or air; like the choice, if it comes to fuel, between electricity, gas, coal and oil. In those fields monopoly is very much modified by the existence of choices. But the Post Office will have a more absolute monopoly than any other national corporation.
Moreover, the field which it covers is expanding rapidly, and I suggest that none of us can at this moment foretell all the directions in which it is likely to expand further. I will not take up the time of the House by going over the ground in detail. The monopoly of telecommunications covers, of course, not only the traditional areas of Post Office activity but many entirely new and developing fields. For instance, it covers the use of centrally placed computers linked with commercial offices by cable. Already the banks and many other large commercial concerns are beginning to develop systems of this kind. I do not believe that this raises a serious question of licensing, however, because for the most part the lines that connect these central computers
946
with offices will have to go across country, and in most cases it will not be practical for any private concern to get the necessary wayleaves, even if it wished to do so. In the foreseeable future I cannot see why any company in this position should not be content to use the services of the Post Office.
But if we turn from commerce to industry, I believe that the picture is rather different. In the industrial field the problem of wayleaves will not often arise, because generally the whole of the required telecommunication system will be within the area of an industrial plant on land belonging to the company concerned. In industry the trend is increasingly towards what laymen like me call "remote control" and what the experts I believe call "telecontrol", of plant and apparatus. The Post Office monopoly covers this, too. A modern oil refinery or petrochemical plant depends on highly sophisticated central control of processes reinforced by a constant flow of information from all parts of the plant, information which can be fed through a computer so designed that it will introduce any necessary adjustment as the process continues. This sort of remote control as it is now developing has nothing in common with the old switching on and switching off; it is a matter of highly complex programmes of operations involving interactions between different parts of a plant, possibly over a long period of time, and working out a cycle which will be completed without human intervention. In the engineering field, too, we are moving into an era when it will become commonplace for machine tools to be programmed to carry out intricate operations without intervention.
All this is what we mean by automation, and telecommunication is very surely the essence of it. None of us can tell at present just what all the developments may be. It may not be long, for instance, before the type-setting for the production of newspapers is done by computers which are connected to newspaper offices by cable. Hospitals are already talking of using computers for diagnosis, and I believe that before long they will use them, too, for the control of intensive care units. All we can be sure of now is that this process of development of the use of telecommunications in these automatic methods of control is

947
going to develop enormously in the general area of industry, and that our future as an industrial country will depend in no small small measure on these developments.
The question arises whether we want the Post Office invariably to deal with every sort of provision of this sort, in plants and factories up and down the whole country, so that, save in perhaps the most exceptional cases, no industrial enterprise, whether it be shipyard, refinery or factory, or whatever it may be, shall provide and own its own telecommunications system, even within the confines of its own property. We have to bear in mind that the cables that we are talking about are highly sophisticated devices. The day is past when communication cables were just strips of insulated copper wire. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, reminded us on the Committee stage of the Bill that there is a possibility of developing a single cable which will bring into our homes telephone, radio and television. I notice, however, that at the present moment there is not complete agreement among the experts about the design of this cable. The Post Office is pursuing one line of investigation and others, with support from European experts, are following another.
I am sure that the Post Office will always be at pains to remain as it has been in the past, in the forefront of development. There is at least a possibility that sometimes, in some particular application, in a plant or factory or hospital, an alternative to the Post Office system will have advantages. If so we should not, I think, rule out the possibility of a licence, unwilling though the Corporation itself might be to see that happen.
I do not argue in favour of licences to all comers on demand. In my submission, the case is simply that there will have to be some licensing, and the maintenance of a sound and flexible licensing policy is going to become immensely important and it will be immensely difficult. As a commercial organisation, the Post Office will naturally want to keep all the business it can. If, in spite of that, the Post Office is satisfied that a licence ought to be granted, I do not suppose that the Minister will offer dissent. On the other hand, like any other monopoly, the Post Office might be unwilling to grant a
948
licence. For that reason, it seems to me that the present position in the clause as it stands, under which the Minister's approval is not necessary to refuse them a licence, is completely topsy-turvy. This is just the point where the Minister's approval should be required.
I would not suggest for a moment that the noble Lord, Lord Hall, and his colleagues at the new Post Office, will be incapable of taking an enlightened view of the national interest. Surely, at the end of the day that is not properly their function. Their function is to make the Post Office a thoroughly efficient and effective commercial enterprise. After all, that, in essence, is why we are changing the present Government Department into a Corporation, so that it shall become a commercial enterprise. Surely the right course here is to make the Minister directly responsible for licensing.
Before I sit down, may I refer briefly to the form of the Amendment. It is put down in the simplest possible way, to reflect the case that I have been putting. But I hold no brief for the particular form of words. If it were thought preferable to say that the licences should be issued by or on behalf of the Minister, I should be entirely happy. If it were thought better to say, "after consultation with the Post Office", I should be entirely happy. Even, indeed, if it were said that for presentational reasons the Post Office should remain the licensing authority, though the Minister would be made responsible for giving his consent to the refusal as well as to the grant of licences and the conditions in licences where such conditions were inserted, that, too, I would think acceptable, though I confess that I would regard it as a second best. All that I urge—and I urge it with all the strength I can—is that the Government should accept the principle of ministerial responsibility in the field of this major monopoly. I beg to move.
4.54 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, before the Amendment is put, may I ask the noble Lord a question so that I do not lose my right to make a speech on his Amendment at a later stage in the debate? I hope I am in order in doing this. I wonder whether the noble Lord can enlighten me on one point, because I am sure he has studied

949
the relevant clauses, Clauses 24 to 27, most carefully. He referred to the sophisticated method of telecontrol and remote control, and to the new types of cable. But how far down does the monopoly go? Does it go to simple wires and simple methods of activating machinery or motors by means of a simple electric cable? Does the monopoly go so far as, for example, the thermostatic control in the central heating system of a domestic house? Because if the monopoly indeed goes as far as that, it is surely most important for the Minister to be the final adjudicator as to whether the Post Office should install such devices.
LORD HELSBY: My Lords, I am not sure that I should attempt to answer that question. It goes into the definition of what systems are for
"the conveyance, through the agency of electric, magnetic, electro-magnetic, electrochemical"
and so on as set out in Clause 24. I think it covers the lot.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, could be a little patient it may be that my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies can help him.
4.57 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords. I have no interest in this Bill, and I have but little knowledge of the many detailed points that it contains. But this particular clause is one that has attracted my attention. I certainly have not such a great knowledge as the noble Lord, Lord Helsby. I thought I understood the clause perfectly until he had spoken, and then I realised that my knowledge has distinct limits. The simple point that I make is that the Bill gives a broad monopoly in telecommunications to the Post Office. Clause 27 also provides that licences may be issued to persons or organisations who wish for a facility that is contrary to the general monopoly. This means, presumably, that licences may be issued to persons or organisations who wish to compete with the Post Office in a defined sphere. But then we find that the Post Office is itself to be the deciding power in granting those licences, and that it is to be the chooser and judge of its own competitors. That seems to me to be entirely wrong.
950
For that simple reason I heartily support the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should have thought that the Post Office would welcome the licensing being in the hands of the Minister. That would protect the Post Office, if it refuses a licence, from the charge that it was jealous of an inroad into its own monopoly. The Post Office could then say, "Well, this licence was not granted by us but by the Minister, who was quite impartial, and no charge can be brought against the Post Office itself of jealously safeguarding the monopoly."
5.0 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, has given us a quite fascinating account of the great complexities of the telecommunications industry, and he is of course quite right when he says that this is a matter of principle. The noble Lord himself told us that he accepts the case for a telecommunications monopoly, but if his Amendment is accepted the Minister will be able to erode that exclusive privilege of the monopoly by licensing other systems. I think I must make it plain once again that it is the Government's intention that Parliament should entrench the Post Office's monopoly rights in the Act itself, and this is why it is, as the noble Lord said, a matter of principle. At it stands the Bill reproduces in a modernised form the present situation, which is that the country's principal provider of telecommunications services has the exclusive right to provide such services, with certain exceptions. Broadly speaking, in almost all respects the Post Office is to enjoy the same monopoly privileges as my right honourable friend the Postmaster General and his predecessors have exercised for a hundred years, the only main exception being overseas telecommunications.
I think we probably all know that the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has been a distinguished civil servant, and I think his worry is that there is a difference in principle between a monopoly enjoyed by the Crown and one enjoyed by a statutory authority. But in fact these arguments all ignore the fundamental question of whether there should be a principal national provider of telecommunications or not; and

951
[Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.] the Government feel strongly that there should be. The telecommunications industry is very complicated, as the noble Lord amply demonstrated to us, but I feel that he is labouring under a misapprehension. I think that his worry about the internal business in an industry is completely covered by Clause 25(2), which says:
"In the case of a business carried on by a person, the said privilege is not infringed by the running, for the purposes of that business, of a system …"
and so on. I think he has slightly misunderstood the principles of this clause. Most of the arguments—and indeed the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge—were the same one of principle, and I am afraid that must emphasise again that the Government must insist on keeping the exclusive privileges for the Post Office.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has referred to the possibility that people might say that the Post Office was jealously withholding other licences. In fact, of course, the Post Office already grants many forms of licences and will continue to do so. So I do not think that that point is likely to arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Helsby, said that this was a monopoly like all other monopolies. But, my Lords, it is not. The Post Office is an enormous industry in itself; it employs thousands of millions of pounds worth of investment, has hundreds of thousands of employees; and the essential difference about it is that it has laid upon it certain very serious public duties. And this is really the key to the situation. The noble Lord was assuming perhaps purely commercial ends for the Post Office, but in fact under Clause 9 it has
"to meet the social, industrial, and commercial needs of the British Islands"
as a whole. It is right that it should have this duty imposed upon it, but it is equally right that in the public interest the finances of the national communications service should be protected against the creaming-off of revenue from lucrative services by people who do not have to carry the duties of the Post Office; and this is what this clause is all about. The Amendment would create a situation in which the Post Office no longer had any true monopoly rights conferred by Parlia-
952
ment, and for this reason we must resist it. I believe it to be essential that there should be a single operating authority, with exclusive privileges conferred by Parliament, and of course there can be no question that this authority should be the Post Office. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
5.5 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will do no such thing, because, having listened carefully to the noble Baroness and her explanation, I am more than ever convinced of the soundness of the noble Lord's Amendment. To suggest that if the Post Office failed to have this monopoly private enterprises would lucratively cream off the best services is ridiculous, because the licensing power would be in the hands of the Minister, and the Minister would not allow that state of affairs to happen. Therefore it is only right that the Minister should license, rather than the Post Office, to ensure that the Post Office does not unreasonably withhold licences. I know of no other case in the British economy where the body, not being a Government Department, has the monopoly operating rights and at the same time has the power to refuse licences to other people. The licensing authority should certainly be separate from the monopoly operating authority.
I quite understand what the noble Baroness says about the importance of maintaining the Post Office monopoly. In one of the clauses the Post Office can renounce that monopoly to the extent of its own wishing by granting licences, but what we are concerned with is where the Post Office may unreasonably withhold these licences and there is no appeal against this. Nor can the Minister do anything, because all the Minister can do is to acquiesce in the granting of such licences as the Post Office may care to provide.
To talk of the large sums of capital and big responsibilities of the Post Office and so on is, in my view, an irrelevant argument which does nothing to breach the principle which the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, made so eloquently in his speech. Other enterprises are of great size and capital intensity; B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have never had the right to grant or

953
withhold licences to private operators. There might have been a very different story for civil aviation private activities if those Corporations had had such rights, and I am sure they would very much have liked to have them, but the then Labour Government never gave them that exclusivity, reserving the licensing rights to themselves, and rightly so. I could give other examples if I had the time. I am not convinced by the noble Baroness and I hope noble Lords in all parts of the House will support the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, in his stand on a very important principle.
LORD HELSBY: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask a question of the noble Baroness who spoke for the Government, before I speak for the last time. I was not clear whether she was rejecting on behalf of the Government what I called the "second best"; that is to say, maintaining the Post Office as the licensing authority but providing that the Minister would not only have to give his consent to the grant of a licence as at present, but also for the refusal of one or for the attachment of conditions to one.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what my noble friend said is that this Bill provides that a monopoly shall be vested in the Post Office Board. As my right honourable friend said in another place, "a monopoly is a monopoly"; and the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, really cannot have it two ways. He says he agrees that there is value in a monopoly and that it is appropriate to have a monopoly in this case. But if you give a monopoly you must have the courage to stand by your convictions, and you do not give a monopoly to a Board unless you are convinced that it is a responsible body around which there are adequate controls and that within those controls the Board will use its monopoly rights to the advantage of the nation generally. That we have decided. That is what the Second Reading was about, that is what the other clauses are about, and that is what we mean when we say that this new Board should be given a monopoly. I feel that the noble Lord, with his Civil Service background, is showing a commendable and understandable pride in the Civil Service and in Ministerial Departments, but that it is clouding a little his feeling about the responsibility
954
which can be shown by a public corporation, such as the proposed new Post Office.
The noble Lord, Lord Helsby, and the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, said that this was never done in the case of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. It is rather unfortunate that they should have picked on that example because, historically, there is a classic case where a monopoly was vested in B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. In effect they had a direct right to licence independent companies and they did it by the device of an associate agreement. Subsequently, Parliament changed the situation, but that was indeed the case in the first place.
There are two points which seem to worry certain noble Lords, and I think understandably. One is the fact that large scale industry is now developing very sophisticated means of communication for its own industrial and internal use. The noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, asked: where is the dividing line between those electronic communication systems which require a licence, and those which do not require a licence? The answer to that is that there is no dividing line so far as the sophistication of a piece of equipment is concerned. The division is between those systems which are employed within the industry for its own use, or within one factory or one home, and those which communicate between one person and another. No matter how sophisticated the equipment is, provided it is for the internal industrial use of a company no licence is required. So I think that fear does not arise.
There is then the fear which was expressed when we debated this earlier, that eventually in the future we shall have such new developments in this exciting field that it would be quite wrong to maintain the monopoly within the Post Office. I think I suggested on Committee stage, and I say it again, that if this possibility materialises, then in 1976 Parliament will in any case have the opportunity to consider the monopolies which are now granted to the B.B.C. and I.T.A. That will be the time to go into the whole question of the monopoly issue. Then, just as in the case of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., it may well be that the Government of the day will have to make certain changes. But the changes will be so important

955
that Parliament as a whole should look at them, and should decide what should take place.
In the meantime, it is the view of another place, it has been the view of this House so far, and it is the view of the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, that we should vest in the Post Office Board a monopoly of these telecommunications systems. If the Board wishes, for good technical reasons, to give a licence to breach its monopoly, then it is entitled to do so and I think we should be well advised to leave the Bill like that. I do not think we should accept the noble Lord's Amendment, which he has put forward very persuasively, but which to a large extent was based on a misunderstanding of the situation, as I think he will agree.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, may I put a question for clarification? Why is it that the Minister is brought in to prevent the monopoly granting a licence, since it cannot grant a licence without the consent of the Minister, but is kept out of the matter when it refuses a licence? It seems to me that there is a point of principle here, and I cannot understand why, if the Minister is brought in in one direction, he is not brought in the other direction.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if I may answer the noble Lord, by leave of the House, I quite agree that the Minister has the power of veto but cannot compel the issue of a licence. The reason for that, I suppose, is to meet fears that the Post Office may behave unreasonably in some respects. If the noble Lord had put down an Amendment to query that, I should have thought he would have had a good case and a better case than the other way round.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I think the noble Lord said that the reason for this provision being in the Bill was that the Post Office might act unreasonably—presumably, unreasonably in the interests of the Post Office. But surely it is important that the Post Office should not be allowed to act unreasonably from the point of view of some other interest, which might have a perfectly legitimate reason for asking for a licence. Also, may I ask the noble Lord this question, which seems to me to be important? If
956
anybody feels that he has been inequitably used as a result of a decision by the Post Office Corporation, will he have no right of appeal through his Member of Parliament, in Parliament, against the decision, with the Minister being answerable for the decision of the Post Office? Also will he have no right of appeal for his Member of Parliament to bring the matter before the Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner, if he feels aggrieved at the decision of the Post Office?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, again by leave of the House, may I say that we are getting into very complicated waters. In the first place, I did not say that the Minister had power to veto the granting of a licence in order to protect the Post Office. I meant that the Minister should have power to veto a licence, if, in his judgment, by breaching the monopoly provisions the Post Office was going against the duties placed upon it by this Bill to provide a service. There is the overriding power of the Minister in that case, although, as I confessed to the noble Lord opposite, I think there would be a great field for argument here. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, then went on to ask whether an aggrieved applicant would have a right to approach his Member of Parliament. We went into this question in a good deal of depth on Second Reading, and, indeed, during the Committee stage, and I do not think I ought to go into it all again. We are giving this power to a public authority because we believe that to be a better and more efficient way of discharging the responsibility and providing a better service.
When that decision is taken—and Parliament is taking that decision—then certain consequences follow. One of those consequences is that one cannot raise detailed matters on the Floor of the House. On the other hand, there are opportunities for ventilating a grievance, and I went into them at an earlier stage. For example, it would be perfectly possible for a Member of Parliament to take up a matter with the Chairman of the new Corporation. There is also the Users' Council and various other ways in which a matter can he raised. Furthermore, the report of the Post Office will be subject to discussion later in the House. But, strictly, the answer is that

957
such a matter cannot be raised by a Member of Parliament. As regards the position of the Ombudsman, that is a point on which I should take some advice, but I should have thought there might be a ease if it were disputed whether the Post Office were acting according to the Act of Parliament which set them up.
LORD HELSBY: My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation, that where a telecommunications system is concerned solely with the business of a certain firm, the provisos at the end of Clause 25(2) have the effect of taking it outside the monopoly. That is a considerable comfort to me. But, my Lords, this deals with only part of what I have called the point of principle, and I confess that I am in real difficulty about that. The noble Lord who spoke for the Government suggested that my background as a civil servant might be partly responsible: that I have an exaggerated idea of the benefits of superintendence by a Departmental machine. I assure him that that is not so.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I must interpose there. I did not say that. I said that the noble Lord probably had a less high regard than was possible for a public corporation set up outside a Ministerial Department.
LORD HELSBY: My Lords, I appreciate that; but the real point, I think, has now emerged quite clearly. It is that what is in question is the position not of any Department but of Parliament. The difference between the chairman of a commercial corporation and a Minister is that the latter is answerable to Parliament and the former is not. Moreover, the former may be a Member of this House, but if so he is prevented by our own Rules from speaking on the subject of his chairmanship.
The Minister said, if I understood him rightly, that a monopoly sometimes ceased to be a monopoly if there was a question of a Minister being answerable to this or the other House, to Parliament, for the way in which it worked. That is
surely a very strange doctrine. I should have thought that where a statutory monopoly was given, it was a matter of principle that some Minister should be answerable to Parliament for the use of those statutory powers. It is a principle that we have followed in every other field and it is a principle which the Government have half followed in this field, for they are making the Post Office answerable to the Minister for part of this licensing power. They are making the Post Office answerable to him for the grant of licences but, for some reason, not for the refusal. What precisely is the difference in principle? Why not make him answerable throughout?
Surely, wherever the law has to deal with the monopolist in this country its concern is that he shall not unreasonably restrict business by refusing licences. A great deal of patent law is given up to preventing the unreasonable refusal of licences; and the Monopolies Commission, when it investigates a monopolist's use of his position, is much concerned to see to what extent the position is held rigidly within a narrow confine which allows no competition. If we are to intervene at all, it should not be on the side of ensuring that the Minister can stop the Corporation from giving licences, but rather on the side of seeing to it, equally at least, if not more than the other, that he can ask them to give a licence if it seems to be in the national interest.
My Lords, I should be tempted to withdraw this Amendment if the Government had shown any sign of willingness to meet the point, possibly by some means different from that which the Amendment itself has suggested, and even now I should be very willing to withdraw it on being given the slightest hope of that sort. But I fear that the point of principle is such that I ought not to withdraw it otherwise.
5.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Audley, Bs.

Bessborough, E.

Albemarle, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Bethell, L.

Alport, L.

Belstead, L.

Bourne, L.

Auckland, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Brecon, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gridley, L.

Poltimore, L.

Chelmer, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Redmayne, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hankey, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Hawke, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Helsby, L. [Teller.]

Sackville, L.

Daventry, V.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Denham, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

St. Helens, L.

Derwent, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Salisbury, M.

Drumalbyn, L.

Ilford, L.

Sandys, L.

Dudley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Selkirk, E.

Dundee, E.

Jessel, L.

Silsoe, L.

Dundonald, E.

Killearn, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Lambert, V.

Strang, L.

Elton, L.

Listowel, E.

Strange, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

MacAndrew, L.

Teviot, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Teynham, L.

Exeter, M.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Thurlow, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mersey, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Foley, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mountevans, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Garner, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Watkinson, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Goschen, V.

Newton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Grantchester, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ogmore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Annan, L.

Heycock, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beswick, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Royle, L.

Birk, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Samuel, V.

Burden, L.

Kennet, L.

Scrota, Bs.

Chalfont, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shepherd, L.

Chorley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Silkin, L.

De La Warr, E.

McLeavy, L.

Sorensen, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Maelor, L.

Stonham, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Mitchison, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Moyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Phillips, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield. L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 29 [Exclusion of liability of the Post Office, its officers and servants, in relation to posts and telecommunications.]:
5.30 p.m.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 32, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) No person engaged in or about the carriage of mail and no Officer, Servant, Agent or Sub-Contractor of such person shall he subject except at the suit of the Post Office to any civil liability for any loss or damage in the case of which liability of the Post Office therefore is excluded by subsection (1) of this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7. I must apologise to your Lordships for raising this matter for the first time at so late a stage in the evolution of this Bill, but the injustice which it seeks to put right
960
was brought to my attention only last week. It may seem illogical at first sight that after putting down an Amendment at the Committee stage to curtail the immunity of the Post Office my noble friends and I should now ask the House to accept an Amendment which extends that immunity beyond the Post Office and its direct employees. But I hope to convince your Lordships that if the Post Office is to continue to have the immunity it now enjoys it would be grossly unfair not to allow those who are acting for the Post Office to have it too.
The reasons for this Amendment are as follows. If a letter or a parcel should be damaged, destroyed or lost while in the hands of the Post Office or its employees its owner cannot sue the Post Office for the financial loss that he thus incurs. They are protected by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The new Corporation will continue to be protected by

961
Clause 29 of this Bill. This is reasonable, as the Post Office has no means of knowing whether a particular package is of great financial value or of none. If the Post Office were to be held responsible for the value of packages entrusted to it, there would have to be some system of differential charges to offset any higher risk that it might have to bear. Any such system would entail a great deal of nuisance to the general public and an expensive organisation to the Post Office. All things considered, it is better in this respect that the Post Office should be immune, that the general public should know it and take care of the risks themselves accordingly.
It is very often necessary, however, particularly where the destination is outside the United Kingdom, for mail to be handled by people who are not direct employees of the Post Office. Every master of a ship, for instance, is compelled by the Post Office Act 1953 to receive on board his ship every mail bag tendered to him by an officer of the Post Office and to deliver it to its destination. If it is reasonable for the Post Office to have immunity against liability it is also reasonable for others who handle mail to have the same immunity, or at least a measure of it. The Post Office has recognised this by agreeing a liability clause with the shipowners under which the liability to the Post Office of the owner of each ship is limited to £1 per uninsured package and £2 per registered package, subject to an overall limit of £1,000 per voyage. So far so good.
This equitable arrangement between the Post Office and the shipowners was set at nought in 1967 by a case in the High Court which did not involve a ship at all, the case of Moukataff v. B.O.A.C. Mr. Moukataff sent £20,000 in notes abroad by air mail in four registered packages. At some stage during the flight, the packages were lost. It was no good Mr. Moukataff suing the Post Office, because the Post Office was immune. So he sued instead the airline concerned. He won his case. This has become case law, and shipowners, as well as the airlines, are now advised in similar circumstances that their wisest course of action is to pay up with good grace. The sender of a missing package cannot sue the Post Office; the Post Office cannot sue the shipowners; but the
962
sender can by-pass the Post Office and sue the shipowner direct.
Let us suppose that a package containing £10,000 worth of diamonds is being sent abroad. It can travel on the same ship in two different ways. The sender can take it to the shipping company and ask them to carry it for him. They can, if they wish, refuse to do so. But if they agree to carry it, their liability is limited by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924 to £100—unless they are signatories to the Gold Clause Agreement, in which case it goes up to £200. If the sender wants the company to take the responsibility for the full value he will have to pay accordingly. Both parties know what their liabilities are and can insure against them.
If, however, the sender puts his package in the post, and it travels in a mail bag in the same ship, the shipping company cannot refuse to take it. They are responsible for the whole of its value, yet they do not know what that value is and cannot insure against it. They get paid for the job only such remuneration as the Postmaster General thinks fit; and the Postmaster General has no more idea than has the shipping company as to the value of a particular mail bag. Even if the sender insures for the full value outside the Post Office the shipping company are still liable for the full value to the insurance company. The liability of the shipowners is, therefore, unlimited and, as your Lordships know, except in the case of a third-party motor policy you cannot insure against unlimited liability.
The Amendment I am now moving would put the position back to what it was thought to be before the case of Moukataff v. B.O.A.C., and would give to anyone carrying mail the same immunity that he would have were he a direct employee of the Post Office. It is drafted to include other forms of transport besides shipping—airlines, for instance—because that was thought to be fair. Airlines can refuse to carry mail if they think that the risks involved are too great, whereas shipowners cannot. On the other hand, the experience of the airlines since Moukataff has been more unfortunate than that of the shipowners. This Amendment is strongly supported by the Chamber of Shipping and I should be very surprised if B.E.A.,

963
B.O.A.C., or the Board of British Rail were to take any great exception to it.
The Amendment may be drafted too widely, or the drafting may be faulty. A great deal of trouble has been taken over it, but in my experience an Amendment drafted by even the most learned counsel seldom meets the exacting requirements of the Government draftsmen; and should that be so in this case, if Her Majesty's Government will accept the principle behind the Amendment, I shall be happy to withdraw it so that the right wording may be put into the Bill on Third Reading.
Your Lordships are being asked in this Bill to extend to the new Corporation the immunity conferred on the Post Office by the Crown Proceedings Act. The anomaly that I have explained to your Lordships arises from a legal decision, which was not foreseen when the Crown Proceedings Act was drafted, in a case that would not have been heard were it not for that Act. If the Post Office and its employees are immune, it is grossly unfair that others who are, in fact if not in law, employees of the Post Office should not only be deprived of the same immunity but should also have to bear the full brunt of any legal proceedings that would, were it not for that immunity, have been directed at the Post Office. I submit to your Lordships that it would not be right to pass on this immunity to the Corporation without putting right the injustice that arises from it. I beg to move.
5.42 p.m.
LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE: My Lords, the point raised by the noble Lord's Amendment is certainly an interesting one, and it has been argued with persuasion and force. Nevertheless, I hope I shall be able to persuade your Lordships that it would not be appropriate to give effect to it in the context of this Bill, or at this stage in your Lordships' consideration of it. This Bill seeks to convert the Post Office from a Government Department to a public Corporation. It is true that it makes certain other changes, but these are all consequential upon the Bill's main purpose; and the exemptions from liability to which the noble Lord has referred, and which are conferred by Clauses 29 and 30, are in broad those which presently apply in the field of
964
Post Office operations. No basic change is made by the Bill regarding the liability of the Post Office and its contractors.
While it is not for me to lay down the law to your Lordships, I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Denham, say that the decision in Moukataff came as a surprise, and that the purpose of this Amendment was to put the position back to what it was thought to be before Moukataff. I do not know who thought the position was what the noble Lord told us he thought it was, but certainly I should not myself have been surprised at the decision in Moukataff's case.
On the other hand, the Amendment opens up a much wider vista than that presented by the exemptions under Clauses 29 and 30, because it relates to general law governing the liability of carriers. It is no part of the object of this Bill to impinge upon that field, however close at first sight it may appear to be to Post Office matters. I think it has been accepted in your Lordships' consideration of it, and by the consideration given to it in another place, that the Bill concentrates upon the main topic of the change in status. Surely, my Lords, to launch out from this main topic into a much wider field would involve a quite radical change in our approach to the Bill. I should be the last to discourage your Lordships from embarking upon a radical change in any field, but in the context of this Bill and this particular matter I venture to suggest that acceptance of this Amendment might well give us bad law.
The exemption which the Post Office is to have has always existed and has been justified on special grounds—those to which the noble Lord himself referred. But we should surely wish to think very carefully indeed before extending that exemption to others. One has always to remember that it is not only shipowners, and the Post Office, and transport undertakings, who are concerned, but also members of the public who would be deprived of their existing legal rights were this Amendment effected. Certainly I should have thought, and I am sure your Lordships will agree, that before anything so radical as this in the whole field of law governing the liability of carriers was embarked on, consultation with those affected would normally be regarded as essential; and, of course,

965
no such consultation has taken place. Accordingly, while I agree that the matter is one which it was proper to raise, and which merits some consideration, I suggest that this is not the right occasion for us to reach a conclusion upon the matter of the liability of carriers other than the Post Office.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down—I shall reply to his speech later—can he tell us if this is not the right occasion, what is the right occasion, and when do Her Majesty's Government intend to rectify this unfairness?
LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE: My Lords, I am not, of course, committing Her Majesty's Government to accepting the view that it is necessary to rectify the position. As this Bill will leave it, the position, in the Government's view, will be the same as it has been ever since the Post Office was established in its present form. The matter is no doubt one which can be given consideration, but I cannot commit the Government as to what would be the proper time to do it. The noble Lord is looking surprised. I must say that I am a little surprised that this issue was not raised at an earlier stage of the Bill when, of course, full consideration could have been given to it.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I do not understand this argument about opening a wide field of liability for carriers. This Amendment is very limited. It is about persons engaged in the carriage of mail and has nothing to do with the general liability of carriers.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I was going to make that same point, in addition one or two others. It is putting up a sheer smokescreen to say that we are invoking the general law applying to carriers. We are doing no such thing. All the Amendment seeks to do is to put right an injustice which, although it has been in existence for a long time, has only recently assumed severe proportions—namely, that the unfortunate carrier is compelled to carry a bag of the contents and the value of the contents of which he has no knowledge, and can be given no knowledge by the Post Office and its officials, and in the event of the loss of the bag or part of the contents, he can be sued for virtually an unlimited sum of money.
966
We are told that this matter cannot be dealt with in this Bill. I should have thought that it was essentially a matter that ought to be dealt with in the Bill, and that we should take this opportunity of rectifying an injustice. The noble and learned Lord suggested that we should have regard to the general public. But in this matter it is the carriers, the shipowners and airlines, who are the general public, because they are the people who are being adversely affected. The actual transmitters of the article—a packet of diamonds or pound notes, as in the Moukataff case—have perfectly sound alternatives. They could have elected to send their goods by a means whereby the goods could have been insured and the general public would have been already protected. It is merely a legal device by the legal profession to get round the Post Office legislation and to sue the person, who for the time being is virtually a compulsory employee of the Post Office, because if he is a shipowner he is apparently compelled to take the mail.
Here again I should have thought that this was something which warranted attention. I was not aware that shipowners were compelled to carry mail. I thought that it was a matter of a contract, which they could win for the carrying of mail, and that once a shipowner obtains a contract part of the contract is that he has to take all mail as offered. But if the matter is as serious as it appears to be becoming, now that the Moukataff case has established the precedent, the Post Office might well find a reluctance on the part of the shipowners to accept mail contracts in the future. It might even lead to collective action on the part of all shipowners.
I think that, late though the time may be for consideration of this matter, we might be doing the Post Office a valuable service if we were to accept this Amendment, or one as redrafted by the Government, and thus avoid the real possibility that in future shipowners might say, "No, thank you" to mail contracts; "not on those terms." I urge the noble and learned Lord, and the Government as a whole, to reconsider this important issue of principle, and even at this late stage of the Bill—and I admit that it is late—do justice to those who are at present having a most unjust state of affairs forced upon them.
LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE: My Lords, if I may with leave of the House I would accept the correction of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, of my statement that this matter related to the general law covering the liabilities of carriers. I agree that this Amendment is restricted to carriers who are engaged in the carrying and handling of mail. Even so, the matter does have an impact upon the law in a very wide sense; and I am astonished to hear it suggested that over all these years these carriers whom this Amendment now seeks to exempt from liability have been suffering the kind of injustice to which noble Lords have referred.
I would certainly not wish it to be thought that anything I say was in the nature of a smokescreen to protect an injustice in the law. Certainly the decision in the Moukataff case did no more than lay down the law as it very obviously was. All the Amendment does is to deprive members of the public of legal rights which they have and which in the Government's view, there is no case for taking away. This is the position, and I would ask your Lordships not to support this Amendment to this Bill. It might well be that the wider issue could be considered in the future in a different context, and certainly the Government would be prepared to listen to any representations about this matter which noble Lords cared to make to them. But I think it is a little extravagant to suggest that in opposing this Amendment the Government are seeking to protect an injustice, since this is the first occasion throughout the whole course of the debate on this Bill—and indeed for many years before—on which I have heard it suggested that behind the existing law there is a serious and glaring injustice which ought to be put right.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am a little bewildered by the noble Lord's reply. What I cannot quite make out from what he said is whether or not he accepts the fact that there is an undue hardship in this case. I tried very hard to find from what he said whether he agreed with this or whether he did not, or whether he thought this injustice should be rectified—at some time in the very distant future. I understood him to say that this was not the time and occasion to do it. He said that it was not appropriate to consider this matter on this Bill
968
or at this stage. I appreciate that it is a very late stage of the Bill, and I have apologised to your Lordships. I heard of this matter only last week, but the Post Office must have heard of this case as soon as it was decided, which was in 1967. The Post Office knows that there is this hardship.
All stages of Bills, in both Houses—and we go through many stages—are to make sure that before a Bill becomes law it has been considered in every aspect, and to make sure that no injustice like the one I suggest exists is allowed to slip through. If we are to go by the fact that at this late stage we cannot change the Bill, because it is too late to do so, even though there may be an injustice, what on earth are we doing here? We are all wasting our time. The noble Lord said that this produced no basic change in the Bill. He said that the Moukataff decision produced no basic change in the law; that it merely defined what the law is. I do not pretend to be learned in the law, but I understood that every High Court decision does just that—defines what the law is. I think that a considerable number of peope before the Moukataff decision did not realise that, whereas the Post Office was not liable, the shipping lines were.
In several other countries there is not this liability on the shipping lines. In Sweden there was a direct action in tort that was dismissed by the Supreme Court there in 1949. Swedish law, of course, is different from our law, but in Sweden there is not this injustice. In the United States, the best legal opinion seemed to think that the carrier is liable for his own negligence, but is not liable for the negligence of his employees unless he has been negligent in selecting them. In South Africa, people who carry mail for the Post Office have a direct immunity in statute.
Admittedly, we are adding nothing new to the immunity of the Post Office, but we are being asked to pass it on to the Corporation. Since the original immunity of the Post Office there has been the Moukataff decision, and since then there have been cases where people are by-passing the Post Office and suing the carrier direct. I cannot tell your Lordships of the case which I think supports this most because it is at the moment sub judice, but there is a case going on

969
at the moment where the insurance company, the goods having been insured outside, are suing the shipping line direct. If the insurance company win this case, all insurers who cover mail will, somewhat naturally, expect the shipping line to pay up.
I have been through what I consider are the injustices of this, and I do not propose to add to what I have said. However, I feel this very strongly. We are
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 46 [The Post Office to be liable, in certain cases, for part payment of pensions of certain former civil servants]:
6.12 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. This is purely a drafting Amendment.
Page 41, line 39, leave out ("the beginning of").—(Lord Bowles.)
being asked to pass on this immunity of the Post Office. There is an injustice that arises from this immunity, and I do not think we should pass on the injustice with the immunity.
6.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 72; Not-Contents 45.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Exeter, M.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Airedale, L.

Ferrier, L.

Newton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Auckland, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Poltimore, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Goschen, V.

Redmayne, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Sackville, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bessborough, E.

Hawke, L.

St. Helens, L.

Brecon, L.

Henley, L.

Salisbury, M.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Sandys, L.

Byers, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Selkirk, E.

Carrington, L.

Ilford, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Chelmer, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Strange, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Killearn, L.

Terrington, L.

Colyton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Teynham, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Daventry, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Thurlow, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Derwent, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Dundee, E.

Molson, L.

Watkinson, V.

Dundonald, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wedgwood, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Windlesham, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Wrottesley, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Heycock, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Annan, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Samuel, V.

Birk, Bs.

Hughes, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Kennet, L.

Serota, Bs.

Bowles, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brockway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L.

Silkin, L.

Chalfont, L.

Maelor, L.

Sorensen, L.

Champion, L.

Mitchison, L.

Stonham, L.

Chorley, L.

Peddie, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Plummer, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Popplewell, L.

Walston, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Raglan, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Henderson, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 66 [Harbour charges on mailbags]:
Clause 67 [Mail-bags not to be subject to control by harbour authorities]:
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
Page 57, line 20, leave out from ("mailbags") to end of line 22 and insert ("which, when in the United Kingdom, are in the charge of the Post Office").
Page 58, line 22, leave out from ("mailbags") to end of line 24 and insert ("which, when in the United Kingdom, are in the charge of the Post Office").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if we take Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 at the same time. This is another example of the effort which has been made by noble Lords in various parts of the House to improve the Bill, and it was suggested to me, in this case by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that the proposed Amendment was a much more agreeable form of words, and I was very glad to accept his proposal. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 132 [Extension of regulation-making power under section 52(2) of the
Government Annuities Act 1929]:
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 90, line 44, at end insert—
"(( ) This section shall extend to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is to rectify an omission. The Government Annuities Act 1929 extends to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and it is necessary that Clause 132, which amends that Act, should apply similarly. Clause 132 amends the powers to make regulations for savings bank annuities, and insurances in Section 52 of the Government Annuities Act 1929, and in particular it replaces the powers now vested in the Postmaster General to make regulations, "so far as his department is concerned". The National Debt Commissioners will, in effect, take over the Postmaster General's powers (which are repealed in Schedule 11) and make regulations for the annuities and insurance business handled through the Department for National Savings as they already do for similar business through the trustee savings banks. The authorities in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man acquiesce in this amendment of the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [General transitional powers]:
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12. This is a purely drafting Amendment.
Page 196, line 37, leave out second ("of") and insert ("to").—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, this also is a drafting correction. The reference to paragraph 2 is unnecessary. I beg to move.
Page 197, line 15, leave out ("2 or").—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Special transitional provisions with respect to patents for inventions and registered designs]:
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 and the next Amendment may be taken together. These Amendments merely make grammatical corrections. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 203, line 21, leave out ("with") and insert ("to")
Page 210, line 18, leave out ("with") and insert ("to")—(Lord Bowles.)
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, are the Government quite sure that their first thoughts were not the best? The expression in the Bill is "corresponding with", and it is sought to change this to "corresponding to". The customers of the Post Office correspond with each other, do they not? They do not correspond to one another, do they?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, no. The noble Lord and I correspond with one another, but this is corresponding to something else.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

HOUSING BILL
6.18 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Let me first of all say something that I know the whole House will join with me in saying: that I am very sorry to hear that Lord Brooke of Cumnor is slightly damaged, and so cannot be with us tonight. I am very glad that it is only slight damage. I am also very glad that Lady Brooke will be speaking for the Opposition on the Second Reading, because these husband and wife teams are becoming a feature—and in my view a very welcome feature—of the proceedings in our House.

973
Parliament is asked to consider a Housing Bill of one sort or another about every third year, and this is an indication both of the importance and of the difficulties of our housing problems. The subject of the present Housing Bill is older houses and the areas in which they stand. This measure is a long one, and in some respects it is complicated. It contains a number of coherent provisions to deal in the right way with a wide range of houses, from those that on any reckoning are not worth saving, to those which, with improvement to their structures and to their environment, can be given a fresh lease of life for many years.
These provisions derive from one basic premise: namely, that it makes good economic and social sense to spend a good deal more in many cases on the preservation and improvement of older houses than we have been spending up till now. As a matter of fact, the best calculations that we have been able to achieve or obtain suggest that it is often worth spending two-thirds of the cost of a new house on prolonging the life of an old one for a certain period of years. This does not mean that we shall not at the same time press on with the clearance of houses beyond redemption; nor does it mean that we shall reduce the programme of new house building.
The Government have come to this view about the economics of older housing after very careful research and study. We have benefited from the Dennington Report, the paper called, Our Older Homes—A Call For Action. The Ministry and the local authorities together have carried out, or are at the moment carrying out, pilot schemes of area improvement—these are not studies but are actual experimental schemes—for example, at a part of Rochdale called Deeplish; at Whitworth, which scheme was recently opened by my right honourable friend, and at Exeter. This is to find out how the idea of area improvement works in practice.
Also, in order to gauge the extent and character of the problems, the Government undertook in 1967 a sample survey of the condition of houses in England and Wales. Up till that point we had believed that there were about 800,000 unfit houses in the country, and we had believed this because each housing
974
authority had assessed the number of unfit houses it had in its own area, the Government had added up the answers and this was the result. But there were a number of factors which made this an unreliable result. Different housing authorities applied different criteria. For very understandable human motives, some maximised their problems; others minimised them. We therefore cross-posted public health inspectors from one housing authority area to another with which they were unfamiliar and with which they had nothing to do, and on the basis of this sample study we found that, according to the more objective criteria employed in it, there were a total, not of 0·8 million unfit houses but of 1·8 million unfit houses, and, beyond that, 4½ million in need of significant repair or improvement, or both.
This was a much more gloomy picture than had hitherto been supposed. These results, and all the other available facts, were then fed into a study conference at New Hall at Cambridge in 1967, over which I myself had the honour and pleasure of presiding and to which we called experts from the housing authorities, from universities, from the relevant professions and institutions, from Whitehall and from the Press, in order to discuss everything that might be done. The result of this conference was that we realised the need for urgent action and the Government took up the challenge in the White Paper, Old Houses into New Homes, a paper in the drafting of which I was also glad to be closely involved. The proposals in that White Paper are the basis of this Bill.
Record figures have been achieved in new house building and a very large new housing programme will continue for as far ahead as we can see, in particular to meet the needs of slum clearance. But the time has come for older houses to get a fair share of the extremely high expenditure on housing, and this is why, as the White Paper says, the Government intend that within a total public investment in housing at about the level it has now reached a greater share should go to the improvement of older houses.
I turn now to some of the particular provisions in the Bill. There is in it a clause which lays upon local authorities a fresh general duty to review the condition of older houses in their districts and

975
to come forward with proposals for dealing with them. It complements, thus, for the first time, the duty local authorities have long had to review the need to provide new houses for those who need them. From this fresh duty just about all the actions of local authorities under this Bill will flow. They will take the lead but, as I hope to show, they will lead in partnership, wherever possible in cooperation, with owners and with residents.
One obvious example of this is in the making of grants for improvements and conversions. Part I of the Bill introduces a new grant code under which local authorities assist owners in improving their property. This new code is generous indeed. Discretionary grants are increased from a maximum of £400 to one of £1,000. Grants for the conversion of three-storey buildings go up from a maximum of £500 per flat obtained to £1,200; and even higher grants will be able to be fixed in exceptional circumstances, perhaps where the building is of historic or architectural importance or because of some other factor. The grant which housing authorities must pay for the provision of standard amenities goes up from £155 to £200.
The system is flexible. We are getting rid of as many fixed statutory requirements as we can. Even where some are necessary—for instance, the requirements of the mandatory standard grants—the housing authorities may relax them, subject to directions from the Minister. The system is coherent and comprehensive. Grants are at present administered under no fewer than three main Acts. The new code is self-contained and provides for everything from improvements on purely social grounds for short-life houses—something quite outside the present system—to a fully-fledged improvement or conversion for properties with an unlimited future.
The Exchequer will continue to bear its fair share of the financial burden. As now, it will make good three-quarters of the local authority's costs of grants to private owners as contribution to loan charges. Local authorities will of course benefit from the new grant limits when improving their own houses. So will housing associations. They will both now receive assistance also on the acquisition
976
of property for conversion or improvement, with the effect that any artificial bias towards demolition and redevelopment should be removed.
I should like to say a special word about soundly-based housing associations. I am sure that they have a significant part to play in improvements. In cooperation with local authorities they can perform a most useful service in area improvement, which I am about to describe, by concentrating their purchases in districts where authorities are also improving the environment. The Government do not claim that they have out of the blue divined the advantages of improving whole residential areas. The 1964 Act was concerned with a limited improvement of tenanted houses in defined areas, but it is generally accepted that the relevant provisions of the 1964 Act have not been a great success. Part II of this Bill seeks to remedy this with its concept of general improvement areas.
The 1964 Act is failing because it is too limited. It provides nothing for the improvement of the area itself as opposed to the individual houses within it. Part II of this Bill is in this respect coherent and comprehensive and rather generous. Local authorities are given powers under it to improve the environment by the provision of play spaces, by the planting of trees, the closing of streets to traffic and so on, and can attract a specific Government grant towards the cost of this work equal to £50 for each dwelling in the area covered by the scheme. The 1964 Act does not seek to realise the full potential of all the houses in the area. It was aimed only at the standard amenities. Our intention is that the authorities should freely make grants at all levels on all improvable houses in general improvement areas that are a reasonable reflection of what is worth spending.
The 1964 Act proved somewhat bureaucratic. It all turned too much on the serving of notices and counter notices, and objections to notices and objections to objections. Part II of this Bill enables and encourages local authorities to enlist the co-operation and support of the owners of houses and those who live in them. The local authority commits itself by declaring a general improvement area, although it is axiomatic that before that there will have to be informal consultations with those who are going to be

977
affected. At every stage the housing authority will be under a duty to tell people of its current proposals. The authority will have the greatest possible stake in the success of its public relations exercise: and that stake will be the success of its own investment in environmental improvements.
In the vast majority of cases the benefits of the increased grants and the evidence of the authority's commitment to the improvement of the area will be incentive enough to encourage owners to improve their own properties. But we believe that it is necessary to have in reserve a power of compulsion to be used in the last resort. In these cases powers of compulsory purchase will be available. The exercise of these powers will, of course, be subject to confirmation by the Minister, and my right honourable friend has already made quite clear that compulsory purchase will not be entertained if authorities show a harsh or unconscionable use of the powers. He has specially in mind indefensible action against elderly owner-occupiers for the sake of an improvement to the interior of their houses.
House improvement with the aid of a grant will go on outside general improvement areas as well as inside them, but we look to local authorities increasingly to turn their attention to this general improvement area as the main weapon for the years to come. Here, for the first time, we can think in terms of the revitalisation of whole areas of our country and their preservation as communities with real roots.
I referred to evidence from the sample survey that disrepair was distressingly prevalent in the housing stock. We are doing something about that. Repairs may now rank for grant if they are done with an improvement scheme, and no less than one-half of the grant may be allocated to the repair element of the improvement scheme. We are sure that this provision will remove an obstacle that in the past has deterred many owners who are otherwise anxious to improve their houses. At the same time we are able to give local authorities a long overdue power to oblige owners to rectify substantial disrepair which may have hastened the course of many decent houses downwards into slumdon. Until now they have been able to act only
978
when the house has become actually statutorily unfit.
My Lords., the Scottish Bill, which we shall debate as soon as we have finished with this one, has been amended in its course through Parliament so as—to put it in a nutshell—to ensure that replacements of fittings as well as improvements which may be carried out by tenants otherwise than under the terms of their tenancies are to be ignored when setting a fair rent under the Bill. I shall be coming to that clause in a minute. But this means in effect that if a tenant has paid for his job when he did not have to, the rent assessment officer will not be obliged to allow for that fact in any increase of rent which may occur during his statutory tenancy. This idea in the Scottish Bill seems to be a good one that England and Wales might usefully follow, and I hope to put down an Amendment to the English and Welsh Bill for the Committee stage, having the same effect.
One persistent feature of the improvement grant system over the years has been that it did not sufficiently attract landlords. The reason has become clear. As the White Paper stated, the rents chargeable after improvement did not and do not normally provide a sufficient return to encourage landlords to do the improvement in the first place. So Part III of this Bill and Schedules 2 and 3 set out to give a reasonable incentive to good landlords, while still holding a fair balance between landlord and tenant.
Put briefly, the basic proposition is that tenants of fit houses in good repair and improved so as to possess all the standard amenities will move toward payment of a fair, regulated rent in stages, provided that they can afford to do so. There is no question of a general increase in rent levels. Indeed it is only a minority of controlled tenants who are likely to be affected, and every safeguard has been inserted to protect their legitimate interests. As a matter of equity and to help keep in decent condition those rent controlled houses where the standard amenties are already present, we also propose in this Bill a transfer, in stages, to the payment of a fair rent in those cases. Let me repeat that this does not mean a general increase in rent levels. If we take both categories—that is, those which are already improved up to the

979
required standard and those which will be so improved as a result of this Bill—we find that perhaps 400,000 houses are involved in a rent controlled sector of some one and a half million.
It is with some diffidence that I turn now to Part IV of the Bill, which deals with the problems of multiple occupation. This is because in 1593 an Act was passed—and I quote—
"For the reforming of the great mischiefs and inconveniences that daily grow and increase by the reason of the pestering pf houses with divers families and converting of great houses into several tenements or dwellings within the cities of London and Westminster and other places adjoining."
The war against the evils of multiple occupation—or, to put it in layman's language, overcrowding—has been waged ever since, with varying degrees of success. But I must warn the House that in the nature of things legislative measures cannot entirely deal with these evils while people are attracted to areas already bulging at the seams. If they want to go there they are likely to get there, whatever the law says, and the law just has to make the best of it afterwards. We must attempt—and we do in this Bill—to regulate and improve the conditions where gross multiple occupation is established, and also to control its spread. This Bill, building on the Housing Acts of 1951 and 1954 and on certain local Acts, sets out to do both these things in ways adjustable to meet a variety of local circumstances. It also introduces, in Part I. a special grant to encourage the alleviation of conditions which may arise from multiple occupation.
On the other hand, solid progress has been achieved in slum clearance since the Act of 1930—the original slum clearance Act which was introduced by my right honourable friend's father. The time has come for a fresh impetus. About 75,000 slums are now being cleared each year in England and Wales. This is a lot: but we must do better than that in order to make a real impression on the 1·8 million which remain.
One feature of slum clearance is the increasing proportion of owner-occupiers who are found among those affected. They have a real grievance in that they are at present losing their homes for
980
amounts of compensation which take account only of site value. They may well get nothing for the bricks and mortar into which they have sunk their savings, and their natural hostility to slum clearance has in many cases deterred housing authorities from getting on with it, and has in many other cases prolonged an operation which ought to be of benefit to all those living in these worn-out areas. It is perhaps too much to expect the active co-operation of the owner-occupiers of unfit houses in slum clearance, but it is right that their sense of grievance should be removed. This Bill therefore provides in Part V and Schedule 5 for the payment to owner-occupiers of compensation equivalent to the full market value of their house in cases where formal clearance action was begun after April 23, 1968, when the proposals were published in the White Paper.
All the same, the Government consider that, as the White Paper says, the site value basis of compensation should remain to he the general, formal rule of slum clearance, as it has been since 1919. The Bill does not propose the extension of market value compensation to landlord owned houses. What it does, on the other hand, is to propose in those cases to double the payments for good maintenance. Well-maintained payments were introduced in the Housing Act 1935, and that is the Housing Act that was introduced by my own father—we cannot get away from these dynastic things in this country—when he was Minister of Health. Since then, the well-maintained payments have proved a useful incentive to landlords and tenants to keep their houses in a decent state despite inherent structural defects. Now, at the higher rate proposed under the Bill, these payments will in many cases bridge the gap between site value and market value. For the first time payments will also be available for unfit houses whose interior or exterior alone have been well maintained, without reference to the state of maintenance of the interior or exterior, as the case may be.
This Bill has also given us the chance to deal with other important and urgent matters. They are contained in Part VI. They provide for increased flexibility in the option mortgage scheme. They enable certain long leases to become marketable once more and they ensure that a

981
leaseholders' price of enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act is kept to the value of the land.
This is an important Bill. It is dealing with old houses, but it looks to the future and what ought to be done in it. There is nothing abstract in its purposes. The concern of the Bill and of the Government, and I confidently believe of the Opposition and of all sides of this House, is with people and what can be best done for them now in changing circumstances. We believe that because of this Bill many thousands of people will have new opportunities of living in decent homes in pleasant surroundings. When the proposals were first published in the White Paper, they were given a general welcome, and it is true to say that the further consideration which has come about since then has in no way diminished this original welcome. I am confident that this House will now wish to welcome a Bill which implements these proposals. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kennet.)
6.45 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has kindly explained, I have a special reason for asking for your indulgence this afternoon. It was intended that my noble relative should speak at this point, but he asks me to express his apologies because he is laid up at home with a badly poisoned foot. He had, however, considered what he wanted to say, and with your Lordships' permission I will endeavour to act as a channel of inspired communication on his behalf. I would only add that, although I have some practical knowledge of housing problems, and indeed was chairman of the Hampstead Housing Committee for several years, I would never claim to be expert in housing law, so if noble Lords try to catch me out they will find me much less formidable and much more vulnerable than my noble relative would be if he were standing at this Box instead of me.
This is a Bill of extreme complexity, partly because it deals with seven or eight quite distinct aspects of housing policy, and partly because a great deal of it involves legislation by reference. Your Lordships will be the more grateful,
982
therefore, not only for the excellent Explanatory Memorandum at the beginning, but also for the noble Lord's exposition of the Bill and what it does.
Parts I, II, IV and V are sensible and logical developments of previous housing policies initiated by earlier Governments of different political colours. Improvement grants were started by a Labour Government some twenty years ago, but it drew the terms for them so rigidly that very few were taken up, until Mr. Harold Macmillan as Minister of Housing relaxed the conditions and made them more realistic, and ever since dim a million or so houses have benefited by them.
The next type of grant, the standard grant, was first introduced by my noble relative. It has stood the test of experience, and one is pleased to see that the Bill continues it, and that Schedule 1 adjusts the amount of grant to the falling value of money. In Committee the question should be raised whether it need still be a condition for standard grants that the house must have a useful life in front of it of at least 15 years. I know that there is a subsection empowering the Minister to give directions whereby this period may be reduced, but it seems to me we have reached the point where the local authorities might be given rather more discretion. They have a strong incentive not to waste public money, for they have to produce a quarter of the grant themselves. What one fears is that we shall be condemning hundreds of thousands of people to live on for another 12 or 14 years in houses where there is no bath, no hot water, and no proper W.C.
In the same connection, one must be very suspicious of Clause 55, which seems designed to prevent the modernising of just those houses where the poorest families live. I thought that a Socialist principle was "To each according to his needs", and it seems an odd facet of Socialism to downgrade the needs of the poorest families and then legislate riot to meet them. Of course, it is now becoming clear that the right answer to this, as to so much else, is to relate housing subsidies in future to family incomes and make them available not only to council tenants but also to tenants of privately owned property with low incomes.

983
Then we come to the new type of grant, the special grant for the benefit of houses in multiple occupation. This is a good and logical development of the standard grant. These houses in multiple occupation, of which Clause 58 gives us for some reason a new definition, hide some of the foulest living conditions in the country, often far worse than the little old two-storey terraces which we are pulling down as slums. The Conservative 1961 Act introduced the new idea of management control for them, and the 1964 Act, in the light of three years' experience, carried it further. Clauses 59 to 64 continue that process in the light of another five years' experience, and they are to be thoroughly welcomed.
Part II of the Bill introduces the concept of the general improvement area, which again is a sensible development and enlargement of the improvement area provisions in the 1964 Act. It is not absolutely clear how they are related to, or will overlap, the action areas under the latest Town and Country Planning Act, but perhaps that will become clearer as our debates go on. One is a little sceptical, too, as to how far the provisions of Part II will achieve what I know is the Government's object of engaging the interest and co-operation of all the people living in the area. Perhaps where the local authority is highly intelligent and imaginative they will.
The provision in Clause 32 enabling a local authority compulsorily to acquire any land whatever is obviously far too wide, and needs amending; and Clause 36 is a bit mysterious. Clause 34—Protection against blight—which was added to the Bill on Report in another place as a result of Opposition pressure, is welcome so far as it goes, but many of us will not be satisfied until the whole of the arrangements for protecting innocent people against having the value of their property blighted by the actions of public authorities are completely overhauled and broadened. The whole of Part II is intended to speed up the declaration of improvement areas; but, alas! the intention is going to be frustrated. unless the Government improve the scale of Exchequer contributions laid down in Clause 37. The figure of £100 multiplied by the number of dwellings in the area is not going to be enough. Unhappily, this is a
984
matter of money, and so your Lordships' House cannot force the Government to alter it. We shall have the same sequence of events with which one is only too familiar in housing legislation—of the Treasury tying the strings too tightly in the first instance, and releasing them only after years have been wasted.
Part III takes the first tentative steps towards bringing up to date the rents of some of the million or more rent-controlled houses whose rents are still fixed at the now derisory figure of twice the 1939 gross value. One should, I suppose, welcome this as the beginning of a breakthrough to more rational rents. But it seems to be only a faint beginning, and it has some extraordinary features. No rent is to go up at all until January, 1971, by which time the Cabinet reckon that the next General Election will have taken place and a Conservative Government will be in power. Even so, increases will be scaled. Those landlords who have done nothing to modernise their property, and who start to do so only when this Bill becomes law, will not be able to charge a fair rent, as defined under the Rent Act, until 1974 or 1975. But those who have already done all that could be expected of them—modernised the property, put in all the standard amenities, kept the house in good repair—will be prevented by Schedule 3 from charging a fair rent until 1976 or 1977.
This is presumably the Socialist idea of justice, but to all normal people it seems incomprehensible. It will be helpful if the Government can tell us how many houses are likely to come under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) respectively of subsection (2) of Clause 50. One hopes that we can find means in Committee of simplifying the extraordinarily and unnecessarily complicated procedures laid down in Clauses 44 to 47 about qualification certificates. At one moment the Government are saying that public health inspectors and rent officers are fully stretched—and as regards public health inspectors I know that that is all too true; yet at the same moment, the Government produce these excessively elaborate provisions which will produce the very maximum of work for local authorities and their staffs. Surely, in cases where the facts are not at all in dispute between tenant and landlord, the procedure could be simplified, leaving the

985
elaborate and time-consuming procedures for only those cases where there is a difference of opinion. Not all tenants and not all landlords are at daggers drawn with their opposite numbers.
However, Part III as a whole is welcome, in so far as eventually it will bring rather more sense into the rent situation. We should by now have escaped from housing shortage, if over the past half century our rent policies had been wiser. As a country, we produce all the milk and bread that we need, but not all the houses; and the simple difference is that those who deal in milk and bread are allowed to charge enough to cover their costs.
Part V of the Bill very rightly extends the well-maintained payments for houses in clearance schemes which, nevertheless, have been well-maintained, and introduces the useful new category of partially well-maintained houses. There has been so much injustice arising out of the present law that the new financial arrangements certainly ought to apply to all cases where the compensation has not yet been settled. This will mean an Amendment to Clause 66.
It is frequently the case that a long Bill ends with a final Part called, "Miscellaneous and Supplemental", but Part VI of this Bill is more wonderfully miscellaneous than anything I have ever seen. It ranges from standards of fitness for human habitation, through option mortgages, to terms of leasehold enfranchisement. There could hardly be a more mixed bag, and this seems to be partly due to the Government's having had last-minute thoughts and introducing unrelated new clauses on Report in another place. One wonders how much Clause 70 is going to mean, or is intended to mean. It imposes an obligation on every housing authority to carry out an inspection of their whole area from time to time. Unless public health inspectors are to be taken off work of more immediate urgency, this instruction seems likely to remain a dead letter in the areas where housing conditions are worst. In the areas where housing conditions are good, the inspections will be easy, but they will not be necessary.
Clause 77 is a desperate and overdue attempt to rescue the Government's option mortgage scheme from the failure it has been up to the present. One of
986
the reasons for the Government's abysmal showing in by-elections is a promise made by the present Prime Minister, before the 1964 Election, when he said:
"By intelligent monetary policies, Labour will bring mortgages within the reach of young people living on average incomes."
Young people, my Lords, do not vote for politicians who let them down. Clauses 78 and 79 are also overdue. At long last they rectify flaws in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 which the Opposition repeatedly pointed out in debate on the Bill in another place, but of which the Government took no notice, with the result that many leases, through no fault whatever of the leaseholders, became unsaleable. That situation is now, after 18 months of hardship, being put right.
One wishes one could give an equal welcome to Clause 80. This clause appears to be designed to make the working of the unjust Leasehold Reform Act still more unjust. It even breaches the principle on which the Government maintained that that Act was founded: that the site belonged to the freeholder but the bricks and mortar to the leaseholders. This clause embodies the fantastic proposition that values shall be fixed on the basis that the man who is buying shall he deemed not to be in the market to buy. Obviously, this is going to be one of the big issues which will need attention in Committee.
Speaking generally, however, one does not anticipate that we shall need a prolonged Committee stage. The reason is that this is a Bill which has been examined in another place at great length, and, by common consent, constructively, thanks to the detailed knowledge and assiduity of Mr. Graham Page and others of my honourable friends. It is a many-sided but useful Bill, and I would certainly advise your Lordships to give it an unopposed Second Reading, and then seek, in Committee, to remove the blemishes.
6.57 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, the noble Baroness need not have been so apologetic about taking the place of her noble husband, because she has given us a most thoughtful and interesting speech. She will perhaps say that it was her husband's speech, but nevertheless in order to give it she must have a considerable grasp of the subject. I am not

987
sure how far her fear that this Bill will he too slow in its effect will be justified. In some of the criticisms she had to make about Part III, for instance—that it was a "faint beginning"; that it had extraordinary features, though she welcomed it, in so far as she felt that it would eventually bring some measure of sense into the rent structure—I was not quite sure how far she was perhaps damning the Bill with faint praise in this respect. I know that a good many people would go further than she does, and feel that there is much in Part III which will inhibit this Bill in its effect. I do not take that view. Not only do I think, as does the noble Baroness, that this is a good and helpful Bill, but I do not think that some of the things—some of the faults, possibly, and difficulties—to which she drew attention will have the effect of slowing down the Bill in what it proposes to do, or indeed in inhibiting landlords from doing what this Bill suggests they can do.
I agree that one can never quite say whether a measure of this kind is going to work, but I am quite optimistic about it. I believe that it will. I think it is going to work extremely well. And it is interesting that the opponents of the Bill (by which I mean the extreme Left) also think that it is going to work. They are afraid that it is going to work, because they think that too much labour, too much time and too much money will be spent on repairing old houses which probably should be left, as they have been left for so long, to get into disrepair, and that the money so spent could be better spent on new housing. They also fear that the Bill will succeed because, they think, it will put too much money into the landlords' pockets. Both of these criticisms are real criticisms, but they are based on the belief that the Bill is going to work, and they do not really amount to very much.
My own view is that, with care and attention, it should be possible for the amount of money, time and expertise that is going to be spent upon repairing old houses to be spent sensibly. And so far as the point about putting too much money into the hands of landlords is concerned, it seems to me that this must be done to some extent. In the past it has been very unfair to landlords that a great deal of money has had to be spent
988
for a very little return. I do not think there is any doubt about that, and I believe that both sides of the spectrum of political opinion would agree with that view. What they would possibly say was that from an egalitarian point of view this was a sensible thing to do anyway. That is as may be; but it does not help towards resuscitating our rather derelict houses.
So far as many noble Lords on this side of the House are concerned, Part III of the Bill is the Part about which they have misgivings, so it is on Part III that I should like to say a word or two. Your Lordships will remember that Part III deals with changing the old control of 1957 into the new regulation of 1965. I think that a great many people who represent the landlords' interest feel that this is unconscionably slow, and that it will militate against landlords' putting money which they should put into this kind of repair and improvement. I shall try to show why, in my view, their fears are groundless.
On the other side, some of the people who believe that they are trying to promote the interests of tenants feel that these rents should not be brought into regulation out of control. I would remind your Lordships, however, that regulation is a very strict control indeed. It is in fact, as the Minister of Housing has himself said, an attempt to produce a fair rent for a decent house in good condition. I was astounded at the figures produced by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, which showed almost a doubling of the estimated figures of houses in a really bad state. I had no idea that the figure, which we had all assumed was under one million. was in fact one and a half million, and I think that the rent structure is in some measure a cause of this terrible state of affairs. Up to now, landlords have had a statutory duty to do a great many things at a cost which is often grotesquely out of line with what they have Cot back in return: and Part III of this Bill, although it may be slow, does offer some incentive.
A great many Amendments were moved in another place to try to speed up the procedure by which controlled rents could be converted into regulated ones. Those Amendments met with no sympathy whatever from the Government, and I think it would be a waste of

989
time to move them again in this House, because I believe they will meet with the same reaction here. My feeling about it is that this procedure may well be slow—it will be two or three years before the controlled rents of improved properties move towards being regulated ones—nevertheless one should be thankful for the many mercies which this Bill does provide for the owners of property.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, ran through them all. May I repeat them? They are the increased grants—and another Amendment which was moved in another place was extremely interesting. Whereas in the past if one had been given a grant to repair property and wished to sell it or use it for other purposes one had to pay back that grant, now the Government themselves have moved Amendments which provide that both an owner and a landlord can sell a property without repaying the grant. That is a very substantial help, and I welcome it. Secondly, repairs which are what might be considered "structural repairs", also attract grant; and this is new.
Thirdly, there is the question of full compensation. I agree that it is only for owner-occupiers, and I think it is perhaps a little harsh that it is not also for landlords. Because so far as owner-occupiers are concerned, do not forget that they have never been in the difficult position in which the owner of controlled property has been. The owner-occupier always had command of his house; he could always sell it with vacant possession if he wanted to. The landlord renting property has never been able to do this. In view of this I think it is a little unfair that this particular concession of full compensation instead of the site value should not also go to the landlords. I admit that the Government have met the landlord half way: they are giving him a bonus, as it were, for the fact that a given property which is to be subject to slum clearance was well and properly maintained.
Another concession which I consider a very good one is that landlords who have already put their property in good order may also move the rent of their house from control into regulation; and I imagine that that is the state of affairs which, as I hope—indeed I am sure—applies in the case of all noble Lords in this House. I am sure that there are
990
on both sides of the House noble Lords who are landlords of the kind whose house property is already in as good repair as it could be. I do not suppose that this concession was designed to sweeten us up; nevertheless, I welcome it because think it would have been most unjust not to allow it and it might well have militated against landlords putting money into repairs and improvements.
What we have to bear in mind, when considering the slowness of the application of the provisions for converting control into regulation, is that not all landlords of rented property are exactly like noble Lords in this House. Some of them are characters or companies whom your Lordships would not care to know. That is a point we have to bear in mind in any complaints that we may have that the application of the provisions under Part III is too slow. The sort of tenant who is the occupier of that kind of property is among the poorest in the land. I think that one forgets how extremely poor a very large section of the community are, and that the Government have a duty to be over-cautious and to bend over backwards in making sure that tenants of that kind of property are not put at a disadvantage by a Bill which, in fact, is meant to help them.
I sometimes feel extremely sorry for landlords. I am sometimes even outraged at the way Governments appear to treat them. Nevertheless, landlords do get by somehow, and so, in view of the complete change of heart which I recognise as having come over the Government with regard to their approach to housing in this Bill, I think that noble Lords who are critical of certain aspects of it, such as Part III, should be thankful for the mercies that they are getting under the Bill and not be too worried—and I am sure that they need not be—about the slowness of the position under Part III. In most respects this is an admirable Bill, and I hope, as does the noble Baroness, that it will get a warm welcome from all sides of the House.
7.10 p.m.
LORD SILSOE: My Lords, I want to speak, if I may, on Clause 80 which has been mentioned rather cruelly by the noble Baroness, and which I consider to be a complete blot on an otherwise admirable Bill. I have known and worked

991
under many Housing Acts, and if I may say so without being impertinent, I believe this to be an excellent addition to the housing law; excellently explained in a White Paper, excellently explained in the Explanatory Memorandum and, if I may say so, excellently and shortly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. But that one clause is a real shocker in an otherwise very good Bill.
There are two reasons why it is said that this clause had to be slipped in during the Report stage in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, told us that the Minister of Housing and Local Government had said that compulsory acquisition would never be used harshly or unconscionably. Perhaps that is the reason why this clause was introduced by the Secretary of State for Wales and not by the Minister, because nobody could possibly say that the compulsory enfranchisement of land under Clause 80 could be done otherwise than harshly or unconscionably.
It is said, first, that there are one million householders involved; and, secondly, that the Custins case in the Lands Tribunal—Custins was the name of the tenant—was wrongly decided, owing to the fact that the market value was shared between the landlord and the tenant. I do not apologise for mentioning what this clause does, because the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, did not mention it in opening and I think your Lordships should know something about it, since it will certainly be heard of later in the proceedings.
Clause 80 says that the tenant is no longer to be considered in the bidding for the compulsory enfranchisement of the freehold of a house. It was said in another place, as has been said so often, that the house belonged to the tenant and the land belonged to the landlord. What is known as bricks and mortar value was the tenant's and not the landlord's. It is said—and this is the only reason given for this clause—that the court has offended against the White Paper and the Leasehold Reform Act, in that it has given to the landlord some portion of the bricks and mortar value. I wish to state absolutely categorically that this is not so, and it does not begin to be so.
992
I have read every word of the judgment and of the valuations—in fact, I have read everything about it—and the Lands Tribunal, which is a very competent court set up for this very purpose, did not award any bricks and mortar value, in any shape or form, to the landlord. Furthermore, I want to say that if by any chance it had done so, the figure of one million families, which has been mentioned, is a fanciful one. Nothing like that figure exists anywhere.
The question of law which was raised in the Custins case was whether or not the tenant should be a bidder at the auction, and the court decided that he should. One thing which is quite clear is that if you are valuing the site—which you have to do under the Leasehold Reform Act—the fact that there is another bidder does not make the slightest difference to the bricks and mortar. It merely means that there is somebody else bidding for the site. It may put up the value of the site, but it cannot possibly put up the value of the bricks and mortar in any way, and it was not done in this case.
The most serious part of the judgment reads as follows. The court said:
"We note that Section 1 of the Act"—
that is, the Leasehold Reform Act—
"requires that the acquisition should be on 'fair terms' and we do not think that the exclusion of the tenant would result in a 'fair terms' sale, because a price which was calculated on a basis which ignored the price which a tenant would be prepared to pay would not be on 'fair terms'."
One could not have clearer words from a competent court. But this clause which has been put in the Bill is doing that very thing. It is making it compulsory that the tenant shall not bid, and compulsory, therefore, that the terms shall not be fair. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that, at the right time, this clause cannot be passed by this House. There is a finding of fact by the law to this effect.
Now what is the cause of this misunderstanding? Why has it been said that this terrible thing has happened? My Lords, I do not know. It may be that there was panic in Wales, where most of the trouble under the Leasehold Reform Act comes from, and possibly an Amendment had to be made quickly by the Secretary of State during the Report stage in another place. I cannot think of any other reason.

993
I should like now to come to this figure of one million families which was given by the Secretary of State. Where the million are, where they come from, who has counted them, we have never been able to discover since this Bill was first introduced, nor can we now discover it. All we know is that a great many tenants were removed from the Leasehold Reform Bill when it went through Parliament, but still the figure is the same. I hope very much indeed that, at the next stage of the Bill, we shall be told where these million families are.
It is a well-known fact that the majority of long leases exist in three areas—South Wales, Greater London, and Birmingham and the Midlands. One of the chartered institutions of surveyors has carried out a survey to see how the Leasehold Reform Act is working. They surveyed 47 housing estates, of which 40 were in South Wales, Greater London and the Birmingham area. A total of 40,000 houses were found to be within the limits of the Act, but at the end of one year—and your Lordships will remember the tremendous cry about the urgent need for the Act—only 2,500 people had applied for the freehold.
There was also a special provision to deal with the very hard cases where the leases had expired before the Act became law. A special section was put in to help those people. On one local authority estate 63 cases were discovered to come within that section, but on the whole of the other 46 estates there were only six claims made, and the time limit is now up. I apologise for giving so many figures, but they had to be given to counteract the figure of one million.
My summary of the present position is as follows. The first flush of urgent cases under the Act has been quite tiny; the amending clause, even if it is sound, will produce tiny benefits; the Lands Tribunal has not awarded bricks and mortar value, it has not breached the Act or the White Paper; and Parliamentary action in introducing this clause has been taken without the benefit of a judgment of the Court of Appeal, which is the usual procedure, to say the least of it. This seems to me to be conclusive proof that the Government have been advised that the decision was right. I cannot read it any other way.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a second? The noble Lord cannot really imagine that the Government concern themselves whether court decisions are right or not. The interpretation of the existing law is a matter which this Government, like all others, leave to the courts.
LORD SILSOE: As the noble Lord has raised the point, may I tell him the constitutional position? I happen to have been trained in it and I happen to have earned money under it for many years. I operated one War Damage Act and all the various planning Acts myself, and I was always told you could not go to Parliament unless you had been to the Court of Appeal. It is a well known feature of life. I was not going to raise this point but as it has been raised I am dealing with it. It is perfectly normal procedure. If you do not go to the Court of Appeal, what other deduction can be drawn but that the Government thought that the decision was right?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, would the noble Lord be so kind as to give way once again?
LORD SILSOE: Of course.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord said that one cannot go to Parliament unless there has been a decision in the Court of Appeal. I wonder who he thinks has been to Parliament.
LORD SILSOE: The Government have. They introduced this clause at the last minute, at the Report stage below, on the decision of a court of first instance.
LORD KENNET: I know that the noble Lord will readily yield the point that the Government have not been to court.
LORD SILSOE: Is the noble Lord telling me that the Government have not taken advice?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if the House does not mind our pursuing this matter, and if the noble Lord will yield again for a moment, perhaps I may say that I thought the noble Lord was under the impression that somebody had applied to Parliament for this provision at a certain point in the process of a case upwards through the courts. Of course that is not so. This is a provision proposed by the

995
Government to alter the existing law. The Government's opinion on the correctness of court decisions is something which does not come into the matter, and it would be very improper if the Government had any such opinion.
LORD SILSOE: My Lords, I allowed myself to be interrupted, but I am afraid I am not changing my view that the only possible deduction is that the view taken is that it is right. I cannot make any other deduction. There is a finding of fact by the court, the Lands Tribunal, that to do what this clause proposes would not be fair terms. That is a finding of both fact and law. I respectfully suggest to your Lordships—and I shall make more statements at a later stage—that it would be very wrong for this House to allow something to go through when the court itself has decided that the clause would produce unfair terms. That is all I wish to say at the moment. I apologise for worrying the noble Lord about who was right and who was wrong, but I am afraid that I must stick to my point that I am going to assume that the Government think that the court was right.
7.25 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should wholeheartedly welcome the provision in this Bill which raises the maximum improvement grant from £400 to £1,000, which is quite a spectacular increase, if I felt sure that in all cases where this £1,000 of public money was to be spent the result was going to be a home for somebody to live in—for I suppose that these days our greatest domestic problem of all, if it is not race relations, is the housing shortage. But I am sorry to say that I have grave misgivings about this.
The position was safeguarded in the earlier Housing Acts, because they contained a condition which laid down that any developer who obtained a grant for an improvement or a conversion, if he was not going to use the dwelling for himself, must make it available at all times to be let. So the dwelling could he used by somebody as his home. There was also the further provision that if the developer failed in fulfilling that condition then his grant could be recovered. Those very useful provisions were to be re-enacted in this Bill. They were, in fact,
996
Clause 13, 14, 15 and 16 of this Bill as it was first introduced to Parliament. It had a most exhaustive examination in Standing Committee in another place. Those clauses, Clauses 13 to 16, survived Standing Committee, and it was not until the Report stage in another place that those clauses were struck out of the Bill. My Lords, I want to know why; and I want to know whether it is useful and right that those clauses, which have formed part of earlier Housing Acts, should now disappear.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, may remember my bringing to his attention a case in which it appeared that the chairman of a company, in receipt of a salary of £12,500 a year, had been given a £400 grant to turn an outbuilding into a cottage to provide accommodation for his occasional guests. I am not against millionaires' providing their guests with accommodation: I merely think they ought to pay for it themselves, and that if there is to be a £400 grant, or a £1,000 grant, and a dwelling is provided, it ought to be provided for somebody who is looking for a home to live in. Of course, the local housing authorities will still have their discretion, and presumably those that are thoroughly alert and conscientious, when they realise that an application of this kind is being made and that the house to be provided is not going to provide anybody with a home, will say, "No grant". They will say, "Unless you are providing somebody with a home, you will not get a grant". But, my Lords, life being as it is, and local authorities being busy, as they are, I should imagine that what will happen in practice is that it will be assumed that applications for grants will be made only for the purpose of providing dwellings for people to live in, and it will not occur to the local authority to doubt it. Therefore, I do not think that millionaires who want £1,000 of public money for a guesthouse will have much difficulty in getting it. That is the sort of way things work out in practice.
Consider next the pressure that will be put on local housing authorities in this matter. The £1,000 grant is to be subsidised by the central Government as to 75 per cent. by a direct subsidy. If one takes into account the general rate subsidy, which gives another 10 per cent., that makes an 85 per cent. subsidy from the central Government. That leaves, in theory, 15 per cent. of the grant to be

997
found out of the ratepayers' pocket. But then it has to be remembered that nobody gets a grant unless he puts into the scheme at least as much money as the amount that he gets in grant. That reduces the local authority's contribution to the house from 15 per cent. to 7½ per cent. And then one has to remember this. It would be very remarkable if the house owner's contribution worked out at exactly a half share; the likelihood surely is that his share in practically every case is going to be substantially more than a half. That reduces the ratepayers' contribution from 7½ per cent. to—shall we say?—5 per cent. So the local housing authority get a new dwelling for a contribution from them, from their ratepayers, of 5 per cent.—a dwelling on which they can collect rates. They are getting a very good bargain indeed.
If somebody comes along and says, "What about a grant for me? It is going to cost your ratepayers only 5 per cent. anyway; and Parliament is no longer worried about the provision that requires a dwelling to be provided for somebody to live in", that puts pretty strong pressure on the local housing authority; and it will be very easy indeed for them to yield to it. I very much wonder whether all these grants of £1,000 will go into dwellings for people to live in. I shall listen carefully to what the noble Lord has to say when he replies to the debate, but at present I feel very strongly inclined to move in Committee to re-insert those clauses, Clauses 13 to 16, which were struck out when the Bill was on Report in another place.
My Lords, I have had a good deal of experience of house conversion. I have myself at home, with the aid of grants, converted about 12 outbuildings into houses and flats, and I think that by now I should have converted about another six were it not for a circumstance which I wish briefly to point out. I think I can safely say what I am now going to say without being thought to be airing a private financial grievance, because I believe it fairly obvious, as the maximum grant is now to be raised from £400 to £1,000, that nobody who has been operating the scheme under the £400 maximum has been doing so at much profit to himself. He surely has been doing socially useful work at a pretty high cost to himself.
998
The breaking point between me and my local housing authority was over a bungalow which I made by conversion out of certain outbuildings. The local authority imposed on me a condition in writing which said that rising dampness in walls and floors must be eliminated. I do not complain, and have never complained, about that. It is a very sensible condition to impose and I was very pleased to do it. But it was a very expensive operation. The Minister of Housing knows what a very expensive operation it is, and having regard to the fact that the maximum grant was then only £400 the Minister made known that he was prepared to consider applications for special grants for the particular purpose of eliminating rising dampness in walls and floors. I asked my local authority whether they would be so kind as to apply to the Minister for this special grant. Their reply was, "No". They were not prepared to apply. I said, "It will not cost you anything. It is the Minister's grant and does not cost your ratepayers anything. There is only a fourpenny stamp involved. How about forwarding an application?" "No", they replied. They would have nothing to do with it.
I then referred the matter to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I am sorry he is not in his place, but I realise that a Minister cannot sit on the Front Bench for ever. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, thought that this was a pretty stupid impasse and worth while trying somehow to resolve. The noble Lord was kind enough to offer to send a civil servant from the Ministry of Housing on a 90-mile journey to a meeting between me and the local housing authority to see whether the matter could be resolved. "No", said the housing, authority, "we don't want to have a meeting with Lord Airedale and a civil servant from the Ministry of Housing". So that was no good.
"Very well", I retorted, "I am moving out of the house conversion scheme. It has been costing me a great deal of money. I shall be much better off if I get out of it. The people I am sorry for are the people in the town of Stamford, five miles away." Your Lordships might think that a little town like Stamford would not have a very great housing problem. I myself was rather surprised to discover that at the last count they found that they had an 8½ -year

999
waiting list for council houses; that there were young married couples facing a wait of 8½ years for a council house. I should have been very pleased to do something to help those people, but if I am not to get the grant, if the Minister is not even to be allowed to entertain an application for the grant which he alone is to supply and for which the local authority are not going to be responsible at all, then I am sorry for the people of Stamford, but I cannot go on doing this work.
My Lords, I have nearly finished, but there is one other matter. When this bungalow was completed it was the month of January. In the month of February an officer of the local authority introduced to me a prospective tenant. I granted a tenancy in February and the first tenant of this new dwelling moved in. In the next month, March, I got a letter of complaint from the local authority surveyor. He said, "I have noticed that some of the exterior top coat painting has not been completed on a door and on two or three windows". My Lords, it is not surprising to find in the months of February or March that somebody has not completed the outside painting. It was no hardship to me to wait until April or May to complete the painting and then to qualify for the grant. But what occurred to me was this: what happens in this area if you complete your house in October? Do you have to waste time and money putting a top coat of paint on the outside in October in order to get your grant? Or do you have to wait six months until the painting season comes round again? And in the meantime, do you have to borrow money at 10 per cent. (if you can get it) for six months?
I wrote to the surveyor and I asked these questions. He was not kind enough to answer. I wrote three times more. He did not answer. I thought that I would write to the clerk. I wrote four times. The clerk did not answer. Finally, I wrote to the Chairman. I am sorry to say the Chairman did not answer. So all that I can say to anyone who might be of a mind to accept an improvement grant is this: "If you consider you may be unlucky enough to complete your dwelling in October and if you live in an area where they may keep you waiting six
1000
months for your grant—you having to borrow the money in the meantime at 10 per cent., if you can get it—do not have anything to do with it. If it is a dwelling to let, the housing problem is the problem of the housing authority, it is not yours; so do not have anything to do with it". My Lords, it is these niggling bits of nonsense which frustrate so much of the good work which could be done in this business of improving old houses to make dwellings for people to live in.
7.40 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: My Lords, I shall not keep you more than a few moments at this late hour, but I should like to add one more voice of welcome to these proposals which I believe are going to have a very profound effect in several different directions. One is from the human angle. A great many people who thought that they would have to live indefinitely under conditions in which they should not have to live—because the economics of improving their houses made improvement impossible—are now going to get proper surroundings in which to live.
The Bill is also going to make a great deal of difference, I believe, because the large number of houses which are going to be saved will include houses in the villages and small towns. Very often these houses are, by their nature, among our beautiful looking dwellings. In the villages that is of immense importance. Sometimes I think we forget that nowadays people drift away from the villages but their roots always remain there: and if they come back after a few years and find the whole surroundings are changed, it is quite a blow to them. It is one of those things in life that people like to come back and see the surroundings in which they were brought up and recall the happy times of their youth. Now they will have the added joy of seeing decent houses behind the fronts.
Moreover these houses are a great advantage from the tourist trade point of view. One of the things that we have in superlative quantity in this country is beautiful villages. Perhaps I should declare an interest, because I am, I think. still President of the British Travel Association, which, as your Lordships will know, is being absorbed by the Board of Trade at this moment; and once more

1001
I am experiencing that recurring phenomenom in my life of being presented with a "bowler hat".
The other thing I want to say is in reply to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I am not going into any detail about the discussions with the rural district council to which he has referred on such an important occasion. I happen to have been honoured by being the Chairman of this body. It is nothing new to me to find once more an attack being launched at us. For many years we have had correspondence piling up with him. The noble Lord has indeed been fighting a marathon solo campaign against his rural district council. When the noble Lord got up and started his strictures on our council I almost felt that the poem which I tried, indeed as with many others, but ineffectually, to learn at school would apply:
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends …"
I can assure your Lordships that there are answers to all these points; not put in exactly the way in which the noble Lord has put them, but answers which I believe are satisfactory to the great majority of people—although possibly not satisfactory to the noble Lord.
I must add one thing, my Lords, in case the word should go out from this august Assembly that this R.D.C. was not doing its job properly. It is probably one of the smallest councils in the whole country. There are 7,000 people who live in the district. We have 1,600 houses, 600 of which belong to the Air Force. And out of the remaining 1,000 we have built 236 council houses since the war. This is in addition to the 61 we had before the war. We have given grants and we have been most forthcoming in helping over this matter in 177 cases. In addition, it may interest your Lordships to know that we have completed our final drainage scheme and that 96 per cent. of the people are on main drainage. This has been achieved with a balanced housing account and reasonable rents, and our rate figure is among the lowest 14 in the 470 rural district councils in the whole country. I do not think this is something about which the local people should be ashamed. Indeed, it is something of which they are proud;
1002
and that is why they keep sending the members of the council back to office, to carry on with the good work.
If I might conclude with one last word, I would urge the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to come down from Mount Olympus, from where he is casting his darts, and join in the rough and tumble of the day. He might even become a candidate for membership of the local rural district council; and if he did so, I think that I could assure him of—shall I say?—a warm welcome.
7.45 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I must declare an interest in this debate; it is not a pecuniary interest, but I am a member of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and I wish to plead that in this Bill specific provision should be made for assisting student housing associations. I am a director of one of these associations, but I am not speaking purely on behalf of university students. I am speaking also for those students who are members of polytechnics and other colleges of further education, and who, because they are compelled to live away from home, have to find accommodation.
The objects of the student housing movement are very simple. If they were able to be treated as housing associations under the Act they would be able to benefit from low interest rates and loans through the local authorities, and would thus relieve the University Grants Committee or the local authorities of an obligation to provide more student residence—to the great benefit incidentally, of the economy of the country. The Robbins Report showed that the average hall of residence in 1962 cost £1,425 per student place. The association which I know best, Student Co-operative Dwellings, has calculated that it could build. at 1969 London prices, for within £800 per place.
I do not think there is much doubt about which form of residence students would prefer. Ask any 21-year-old student whether he would rather pay £7 10s. 0d. per week to live in a traditional hall of residence, with meals provided at stated times, and have his bed made, and to require permission to come in after 11.30 p.m.; or pay £3 10s. 0d. and make his own meal, or eat out, and

1003
have the same freedom as any other 21-year old. You can imagine what answer a student would give. What is more, the student housing movement eliminates one of the irritations which have recently erupted into student life; that is to say, the irritation which a student in a polytechnic feels when he is asked to study with practically none of the facilities which the university student enjoys. Among students there is a very strong feeling that there should not be a first-class and a second-class system. And all too often under the present system in universities, facilities such as the refectory in the hall of residence duplicate facilities which are available in the main university building.
My Lords, I am not here discussing only the students' whims. In the present state of the country's finances funds from the U.G.C. for providing student accommodation are drying up almost entirely, and this is inhibiting the growth of new universities and polytechnics. If the U.G.C. is able to provide funds, they are more likely to be so small that universities will probably abandon trying to build these custom-built student halls of residence and will try to buy up low-cost housing in the neighbourhood, so displacing poor people whose only hope of getting accommodation for their families lies in getting a flat in one of these houses. About half the full-time students in Britain occupy lodgings and fiats which could be used by low-income families, and it is largely these families who are thrown on to the local authorities' waiting list for housing.
This situation, I believe, is going to get worse. We ought not to forget that during the 1970s the expansion of student numbers is bound to continue. I would guess that the universities will rise in numbers from just over the present 200,000 to some 330,000, and that by the beginning of the 1980s the total number of students engaged in some form of higher education will probably go well beyond the 700,000 mark. Unless we can do more than we are doing at present to provide residence for even a fraction of the students, we are going to be in very serious trouble.
What do other countries do? The pattern is remarkably similar in four countries. In Canada, Sweden, Finland
1004
and Denmark the students first obtained amendments to their National Housing Act. Student housing associations were then eligible for loans at low-interest rates. The loan was of course amortised at the capital cost, and that was spread over a period of 40 to 50 years. In every case the interest was favourable. A furniture loan was also forthcoming, interest-free, repayable over 10 to 15 years. In Finland, 40 per cent. of the loan came from private sources, such as banks and insurance companies. Only a few years after the amendments had been made to the National Housing Acts in these countries astonishing progress in student residence was made in each country. In Canada, 11 million dollars' worth of new buildings were constructed between June, 1964, and May, 1968, and a further 9 million dollars' worth are in the pipeline. In Denmark, 3,000 student places were built every year. In Sweden, the target for 1972 is 63,000 places, of which 19,000 had been built by 1967.
What then is happening in Britain? The answer is: virtually nothing. Under Section 119 of the Housing Act 1957, housing associations are already entitled to enter into authorised arrangements which permit local authorities to lend the associations over 60 years, at an effective rate of 4 per cent. interest, 100 per cent. of the cost of the buildings they erect, and these facilities have been spelled out in the Housing Subsidies Act 1967. When student housing associations have asked local authorities if they might benefit under these provisions the local authorities have usually replied that they cannot extend these facilities to the student associations. They argue, of course, that it is the job of the University Grants Committee to provide student residence: they seem to forget that they themselves have responsibilities for the students in the 30 polytechnics.
That is why, when this Bill was debated in another place, Amendments were pressed at Committee stage so as to make it clear that a housing association which made provision for the residence of students was a housing association in the same way as any other housing association as defined in Section 119 of the Housing Act 1957. If it was accepted that this definition includes housing for students, local authorities would then be entitled, under Section

1005
119, to lend to a housing association such as Student Co-operative Dwellings. Subsidies would be passed on to the cooperatives, because the Housing Subsidies Act 1964 says that a "housing association" has the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1957. If this were done, it would of course apply to any housing association sponsored by a university, as well as to one which is sponsored by, for example, the Student Cooperative Dwellings movement. These Amendments were interpretive Amendments. They were vital to the Act, because the interpretation of the Act rests with the local authorities. If these Amendments were incorporated in the Act, local authorities would no longer be able to plead that student housing associations were outside the terms of the Act.
It was on this point that these Amendments ran into trouble when the Bill was considered in Committee in another place. The Minister seemed to be clearly in sympathy with the Amendments, which he recognised could have the effect of relieving pressure upon accommodation for the local population. He said that there was nothing to exclude students or any type of residence in the definition of "housing society" in the Housing Act 1964, because no mention was made of residence. But at the same time he was clearly worried that the "authorised arrangements", which were meant to cover housing for the sort of people whom the local authority would be expected to accommodate in its own council housing, could hardly be available to student hostels. It was clear from what the Minister said that he did not wish student housing associations to be excluded under the definitions of the 1957 and 1964 Acts and he argued that they came within the scope of the arrangements for the purposes of Section 15 of the 1958 Act, so far as hostel grant is concerned, provided that they satisfied the criteria.
This it seems, is where the real trouble lies. There are two ways of obtaining loans at preferential rates. The first is through the Housing Corporation for a housing society; but in June, 1967, the Housing Corporation decided that student housing societies do not satisfy their criteria. The second way is through the local authorities for a housing associa-
1006
tion. The local authorities also argue that the sole criterion for a subsidy to a housing association is that it must cover housing for the sort of people whom the authority would otherwise expect to accommodate in its own council housing. So, although students displace families by occupying low-cost family flats, they do not technically comply with the criterion. That is why, of over 30 registered student housing associations in this country, there is no record of one having received authorised arrangements under Section 120(1) of the Housing Act 1957; and this of course is the thing which the student housing associations are up against.
That is why the Amendments to this Bill were pressed in another place. They were not substantive Amendments. They were interpretive Amendments. They asked simply that the student housing associations should be recognised as coming within the Act for the purpose of subsidy. I would readily admit that in terms of strict drafting this should not be necessary, if it were not for the fact that the experience of the student housing associations in applying to local authorities shows that the authorities decline to accept the definitions which at present obtain under the Housing Acts. What other remedy, therefore, is open, except moving Amendments, when the relevant authorities deny what the Minister states to be the case? How are we to get round this obstacle?
This, I think, is an example of the frustrations in Government with which we are all so familiar these days. I should like to acknowledge here most warmly the interest and support which Mr. Greenwood, Mrs. Shirley Williams, Mr. Dick Mabon and, in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, have shown in this matter. I have not the slightest doubt that that interest is genuine; but it does not appear yet to have removed the obstacle. For my part, I believe that this means of providing accommodation would be made even more attractive to Government if the whole of the loan for capital costs were not met solely through housing subsidies. I believe that insurance companies, building societies and pension funds would be willing to invest in these loans if a guarantee of repayment were forthcoming from the governing bodies of universities and polytechnics. This would relieve the pressure on

1007
the Treasury to provide ever larger housing subsidies, and I suspect that it is probably that feeling which is at the moment "gumming up" the works.
But all that, my Lords, is in the future. The student housing associations must first get recognition that they do in fact qualify under the scheme for loans on preferential terms. That is why I may well feel bound to move Amendments at the Committee stage of this Bill. I should be greatly relieved if the Minister could give a categorical assurance that these student associations do qualify. I should be even more reassured if the Minister could indicate that he is prepared to set up a Working Party on which the Ministry of Housing, the Department of Education and Science, the local authorities and the student housing associations were represented, to see whether the cost of providing student residence could be cut—a cut which would have the effect also of giving students quickly the kind of accommodation they want, and more of it. If the student housing associations work as well as they do in other countries, why cannot they be given a fair chance here?
8.0 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to me to be following my noble friend Lord Annan. He and I frequently follow each other in discussions in the more or less placid atmosphere of one of our universities. We usually find ourselves in agreement—and perhaps that is fortunate for me. I must say, as treasurer of one of these universities—one of whose tasks is to grapple perpetually with questions of student accommodation—that I have listened attentively to what he has said to-day about student housing societies, and shall most probably find myself later on agreeing with him in the suggestions he has made.
I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, on the clarity of her speech welcoming the Bill. Naturally, she had to show her political claws once or twice, but I was rather interested in the way she did this. First of all, she said that she wants us to spend more than we are proposing to spend under one of the provisions of the Bill. Well, I shall have to leave her to
1008
settle that with Mr. Heath, who, day after day and week after week, is telling us that he wants to spend less Government money in order that he can bring down taxation. But do not let me intervene in private grief.
The noble Baroness complains that the Treasury are keeping too tight a hold on expenditure. Surely that is a tribute to the wise economic direction of the Ministers in the present Government. How can the noble Baroness complain about tight Government control, and at the same time not support the Government in the line they are taking here? Then the noble Baroness says that she wants to put up certain of the rents which are mentioned in this Bill much sooner than the present Government want to do in the text of the Bill itself. I am afraid this is merely typical of the difference which exists between the two main Parties in this House.
Personally, I think this Bill is a very good ambulance measure. It will prevent a large number of houses from degenerating into slums; it will provide a large number of people with homes far more comfortable than they have to-day. Both of these objectives are good. We all know that there are 1¾ million houses which are in such a hopeless condition that the only possible thing to do with them is demolish them. We know also that there are 4½ million houses not so badly off as that, where good restorative work can be done. These are two separate problems.
So far as the slums are concerned, I heard with great pleasure the assurance by my noble friend on the Front Bench that slum clearance work is to be speeded up. I was particularly happy to be acquainted with that clause in the Bill which is to increase the compensation paid in certain cases where slum houses have to be demolished. We all know that there have been in recent years some very sad cases of old people who have seen the whole of their savings disappear overnight, merely because their particular little house—not a good house, perhaps deservedly a slum house; but still their home—has had to be demolished.
So far as the repairable houses are concerned, my investigations tell me that only just over 100,000 of these have been dealt with each year. The local authorities are primarily responsible for getting

1009
this work done, and I feel that many of them have failed lamentably in their duty. I hope that the Ministry, when this Bill is on the Statute Book, will drive the local authorities (if that is the right word to use in a democracy), and prompt them to show more enthusiasm for the Bill, which is a good Bill for the nation and can also be a good Bill for their particular localities.
With regard to the 1964 Act, it is a fact that only a small minority of local authorities have taken that measure seriously. A couple of years ago the figure was 10 per cent. of local authorities. It may be a little more than that now, but it certainly is not as much as 20 per cent. of the local authorities. I hope that the Ministry will do what they can to see that this scheme is made to work on a very big scale. Incidentally, one of the benefits of operating the scheme on a big scale is that it will provide a continuous flow of work for small builders, who frequently find themselves frozen out of big council house and private building contracts, particularly where councils are undertaking house building by the systematised method.
My noble friend did not give us any indication of the number of houses which he expects to see repaired and provided with improved fittings each year. I have seen a figure of 200,000 mentioned. I sincerely hope that enough steam will be put into the Act to get a much higher figure than this, because, with 4½ million houses needing this kind of treatment. if we deal with them only at the rate of 200,000 a year it will be well over twenty years before the job is completed; and in the meantime, of course, other houses may be going to seed.
My noble friend assured us that the Government do not intend to reduce new house building. I am delighted to hear this, but there is one fact about the Bill here which rather disturbs me. It is said that the Bill will cost £40 million a year when it gets into full swing in three or four years' time. At the same time, we are promised an accelerated programme of slum clearance. Some of the money spent on slum clearance—though not all of it—will go to erecting new houses; and we know that the cost of building each house will be higher as the years go by. Yet we are told that the total amount of money
1010
to be spent on houses is to remain at the same figure at which it stands to-day.
So what does this mean? I do not say that it does, but it could mean that fewer new houses will be built. It could mean reduced building by councils; and the general economic conditions of the country could also mean reduced house building by private contractors. Yet, side by side with this, the population is increasing; the marriage age is going down, and there is a need for more and more houses year by year. So, while I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly, I sincerely hope, if I have stated the position aright in regard to the prospects for new building, that my noble friend will urge his Minister to look once again at the building programme for the next few years and make sure that there is no reduction.
We know that the initiative in framing municipal building programmes rests with the local authority, and one of the sad things about the change in control of local authorities throughout the land in recent months has been that many of the newly elected councils, now dominated by a certain Party (your Lordships will see how non-political I am straining to be), are deliberately cutting down their housing programmes for this year and the following year. I will mention a few now under the control of that Party: Sunderland, Darlington, Bradford, Wakefield, Coventry, Southampton, Harrow, Waltham Forest, Hillingdon, and, saddest of all, Macclesfield—because it was at Macclesfield 47 years ago this week that I took my bride into a nice little council house as my first married home. I know how happy I was then, and I know what enormous happiness the offer of a council house can give to a young married couple.
The last thing in the world that I want to see, even running parallel with all the proposed development in this Bill, is any cutting down in the provision of council houses. My noble friend will probably be able to assure me that no cutting down is envisaged. If he can, I shall be very pleased indeed. But having uttered this warning note, I think fairness demands that I should say this. The record of new house building under the present Government has exceeded anything that has ever happened in the history of this country. This is a fact, and I hope that it will continue.

1011
I should like now to turn to the provisions of the Bill. I warmly welcome the bigger subsidies that are going to be paid to owner-occupiers and other owners to improve their houses. It goes against the grain, I must say, to be paying bigger subsidies to some of the private landlords whose families have been drawing incomes from this property—probably for 100 years—and who may have done nothing at all to keep it in good condition. The real, urgent need now is for houses that are comfortable and up to the standards of what we expect in 1969, and so we must be realistic and pay these increased subsidies. I think the increased subsidies, and also the loans that the Bill provides where the owner is short of ready cash, will persuade a good many owners to put these improvements in hand. When all is said and done, it is going to give them a new lease of profit-earning on what is very frequently a diminishing asset. We have to face the fact that there will be many landlords who will not co-operate, and in other cases there will be some tenants, afraid of the increased rent, who will be unco-operative also.
What can we do about this? First of all, let me look at the landlords. The Bill proposes that where the owner is hostile to an improvement scheme, in most cases he should be threatened with compulsory purchase. If we think that compulsory purchase is going to be a constructive remedy for this situation we are burying our heads in the sand, like ostriches. There is no local authority, whatever its political complexion, that likes compulsory purchase, and in view of recent changes in the political domination of many councils I suppose the average degree of affection for compulsory purchase is now lower than it was twelve months ago. I am not saying anything about the merits of that; it is an historic fact. I feel there will be very few landlords indeed who will have compulsory purchase orders invoked against them. If we think we can depend upon that, we are legislating with a cardboard sword. If we are in any doubt about it, the Minister himself has told us he intends to approve compulsory purchase orders only in the most exceptional cases. So let us reconcile ourselves to the fact that compulsory purchase is going
1012
to play only a very minor part in the execution of the proposals in this Bill.
What can we do, therefore, where the owner turns out to be hostile? What we can do and what we should do is to reenact those proposals in the 1964 Act which allow the council to issue a compulsory repairs order, as distinct from a compulsory purchase order. The compulsory repairs order is now being abolished, except in a few specialised cases, under the proposals of this Bill. I think a general authority to issue compulsory repair orders would be far more effective than a general authority to issue compulsory purchase orders when the squabble between the council and the owner comes to the crunch. I know it will be said that the compulsory repairs order, which was provided for in the legislation of 1964 and which is now largely being dropped, was not so effective as it might have been. That is quite true. The local government officials who are responsible for executing work of this kind agree with this. They say that it failed largely because it was too cumbersome, too ritualistic, there were forms and forms to be filled up, there were discussions after discussions to be held, complications after complications had to he hammered out, there were delays after delays. These expert officers are of the opinion—and they know their jobs—that if the compulsory repairs provisions were streamlined and simplified they could be far more effective than they were in the 1964 period, and be considerably more effective than the compulsory purchase provisions that are in the Bill before us tonight.
I hope my noble friend will listen to this plea. If he wants to keep the compulsory purchase order provision, let him do so; let him keep it as a long-stop. Let us also have the compulsory repairs provision side by side with it. I do not think compulsory purchase alone will get us anywhere; councils in fact will find they are left with nothing else but their powers of persuasion, and when a goodhearted council comes up against a recalcitrant landlord it is very doubtful whether the council will persuade that landlord to take action.
Now let me turn to the recalcitrant tenant. There will be some of these people. old-age pensioners and people on incomes similar to those of pensioners, who would

1013
rather suffer on in discomfort in their old house than face an unspecified rent increase, because they have heard, and experience has shown, that the rents might rise to double what they are now, and sometimes more. Under the 1964 Act, the tenant knew where he was; he knew his rent could be increased by 12½ per cent. of that portion of the cost which the landlord himself had had to bear. I rather wish—although I am open to persuasion here—that there was a formula of something of the kind in this Bill, although 12½ per cent. would not he realistic in these days. But, apparently, it is not to be, and instead the tenant is to be taken to the rent officer, told he is no longer controlled under what he understands to be the old rent restriction law, and that he is now to have a new regulated fair rent fixed by the rent officer. He knows, probably through gossip locally, probably through what he has read in the papers, that this new rent may be double his old one.
In so far as the house is concerned, this may be economically justifiable. But we are not dealing with economic statistics; we are dealing with people; very often we are dealing with old and suffering people. I want to see this through the eyes of an old-age pensioner at the stage when he is asked to sanction the improvement. He may have to say, "Yes" or "No" without any idea of how much rent he will then be called upon to pay, and he may frequently and regrettably say, "No". I should like to see two things done in order to make it easier for him to make this decision. This can probably be done administratively by action between two Government Departments.
First, let the old man go to the rent officer in advance with the list of improvements and an estimate of what it would cost. Let him say to the rent officer, "If this is done, how much will the rent increase be?". Then let him go to the pensions officer and ask, "If this rent increase is imposed, what extra allowance will you give me each week?". He will find that the pensions officer will probably be most considerate and most generous. At present we are putting the cart before the horse; we are asking a tenant to agree to these improvements while he is completely blindfolded as to whether he can afford them or not. Under my proposal I think fewer tenants would be objecting to improvements, and this
1014
means there would be more houses saved; it means this would benefit the people who live in them and also benefit the State and community.
It may well be that something on these lines is already being done on an informal basis in some areas. I should like to make it obligatory and official. Incidentally, speaking of rents, I am rather frightened by Clause 50(3), which gives a Minister power to enforce some rises at much earlier dates than are laid down generally for rent rises in the remainder of the Bill. I do not know who the next Minister may be, but I do not want to run the risk of putting a powerful weapon like that in his hands, especially after I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, said earlier this afternoon.
The last thing I want to say is this. I have already said that I hope the Government will do all it can to push local authorities into embracing the scheme enthusiastically. There are many local authorities who have shown no enthusiasm at all for the 1964 Act. I also want the Minister to stimulate those local authorities into a state of urgency. Because we must remember that many of these local authorities have the sword of Maud hanging over their heads and a threat of extinction waiting in the wings, and they may be inclined to leave some of their tasks, including the task provided for in this Bill, to their successors. That would involve years of very unfortunate decay.
My Lords, I have said a lot, but in essence it comes down to two things. First, I should like local authorities to be given the compulsory repairs powers that they enjoyed generally under the 1964 Act. They will have that power to a very limited extent in respect of a very narrow group of houses under the present Bill, but I should like to see them have it generally. And I should like steps taken administratively, as I have said, to help the old-age pensioners and similar people to say "Yes" to schemes for repairs to their houses, whereas at present they are probably financially frightened into saying "No". Then a very useful Bill can become an even better one, and I certainly wish it well.
8.21 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think that much, and perhaps most, of what has been said falls into the category of

1015
things we can pursue more usefully in Committee and on Report. But there are some main points which have been made which your Lordships would no doubt like to think about between now and Committee stage. I will do my best to pick some of those out and say what I can, in order to help your Lordships to think about them between now and then.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, asked about the number of houses in the different rateable value bands which we think would come into rent regulation out of rent control—this is (2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c) and so on. The Government's approach to this was to see how many houses would come out of rent control into rent regulation altogether, all told, and the best guess we can get (it is only a guess but it is the best available) is about 200,000 because of improvements to be done in future, and about 200.000 to be brought into regulation because of improvements already done. The rateable value bands—(2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c) and so on—simply slice that figure into equal portions. Once again it is approximate, and one cannot guarantee that it will work out exactly. But our purpose in slicing it that way was to move them forward at those intervals in equal proportions, band by band.
To come now to the enjoyable place where the noble Baroness displayed her political claws, I thought that she went very close when she said that all that was wrong with housing in this country was that those who provided housing were not allowed to charge enough for it; were not allowed to charge what it cost. I thought she came very close to a "Powellite" housing world, and it could he construed (I am sure she did not mean it this way, although I rather hope that she did) as meaning that there should no longer be any subsidies on council housing, and there should no longer be any tax relief on mortgage payments, and so on.
I do not need to remind the House that we have now for very many decades lived in a world where the great majority of persons who live in houses in the country are helped to do so by Government subsidies: in the case of council tenants by the housing subsidy itself, which is now running at £3 a week for 60 years, which is very large; and in the case of
1016
owner-occupiers by tax relief on mortgage payments, which is now running at an amount which makes it about equal for them—or, rather, which makes the expenditure borne by the Exchequer on behalf of the two classes of people about equal. I do not know whether the noble Baroness really wanted to go back on that and cancel the lot. There are charms in the idea of a totally free housing market—it would save a lot of bureaucracy, for one thing—but if her Party is going to be the one to adopt that I shall not complain.
The noble Baroness spoke about Clause 77—the option mortgage clause—and referred to it, if I remember rightly, as a desperate attempt to rescue the option mortgage scheme. We shall come to it later on and we shall be able to discuss it in detail. At that point I shall attempt, with some confidence of success, to convince your Lordships that it is a reasoned, and I hope successful, attempt to bring the option mortgage scheme up to date. When the option mortgage scheme was introduced the interest rates were different from what they are now. This Amendment, quite simply, gives the Minister power by order to vary the option mortgage scheme so as to take account of differing interest rates. If that is a desperate attempt to rescue it, I do not know to what sort of measure she would accord the description of a rational move to update something which needs updating in the general interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, spoke with many constructive suggestions and welcomed the Bill—and I was glad of this—as indeed did Lady Brooke, and, I think, almost everybody who has spoken in general.
I turn now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe. He settled upon Clause 80 as the one which to him was objectionable and from what he said it sounded as if we might see some Amendments to that clause from him. I do not want to anticipate the debates we shall be having later. He mentioned the figure of a million families which had been quoted in another place. This is the figure which has been generally accepted by all concerned as the number of leases the holders of which might be enfranchised. No member of the Government would claim precision for it: it is a rough estimate. It has stood, so far

1017
as I know, in Parliament without challenge until this moment. If the noble Lord wishes to challenge it, no doubt he will give us chapter and verse at a more leisurely moment, and one can go into that.
The question of the proposed change in the basis of the valuation of the freehold interest passing under the Leasehold Reform Act from the freeholder to the leaseholder is one which we shall tackle later. The purpose of my intervention during the course of Lord Silsoe's speech was merely to make it very plain, as I think it should be to all noble Lords, that when a Government introduce an Amendment to the law they do not do so on the basis of any judgment whether or not the decision of a court on the law as it stands before that moment is correct or incorrect.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made two main points. First of all, there was the calculation which he succeeded with impeccable logic in bringing down to 5 per cent. of the amount which a local authority would have to find out of the rates for the total cost of the work done in discretionary improvements under the Bill. All I should like to say at the moment is that I do not necessarily accept that it is as low as that, but in matters of local government finance one is rash to enter into a detailed discussion without full preparation and I hope we shall be able to come back to that. But I am inclined to believe, without full inquiry, that it is by no means as low as that. We can go into the truth of it later.
I think it would ill become me, much as I should like to, to get into the act between Lord Airedale and the Chairman of the Barnack Rural District Council. That is now one of the Parliamentary cliffhangers, and I think it is one of the merits of this House that such matters can, by chance, be pursued here when both parties of an epic local battle have representatives in this House. It adds to the interest of our proceedings and keeps us in touch with the real world. I am all for it.
I turn now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I was deeply interested in his account of the student housing problem. I think that is something that forces itself upon the attention
1018
of anybody who comes into touch with students at all, and, God knows! that is most of us. They have a bad housing problem, especially in London. Lord Annan mentioned the cases of Canada, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, where good results for student housing had been attained by the amendment of the relevant housing law. Well, I have no doubt—why should I say I have no doubt?; I do not know anything about it—or it may well be that in those countries those good results were strictly dependent on an amendment of a law which had been in a concrete, tangible manner inhibiting the achievement of good results until that moment; but I do not at the moment believe that this is so in this country. Because good results are obtained in those countries following an amendment to the law it does not necessarily mean that good results can only be obtained in this country by amendment of the law.
As far as I have been able to look into the matter—and that is quite a distance—I very much doubt whether there is any statutory bar to the achievement of the results the noble Lord and the students and the Government and I personally desire. If that is so, it would not be right to carry a provision into law simply to declare that the law is as it is. That is not necessary; and if one is to write into this Bill a provision saying "O.K.; students can have housing associations and housing trusts, and let no one doubt it, even though they are students". one should also carry into the law all sorts of provisions saving that, for instance, people with red hair can have housing associations—even though they have red hair—and all sorts of other people who have an undoubted right to it would demand it. This, I think, on general principles is something to be avoided, simply because declaratory legislation is to be avoided.
The noble Lord asked me whether students qualify under the present law for the benefits which accrue to housing associations and housing trusts. The answer is that like any other group of people who form housing associatiors or housing trusts, it depends what sort of trust or association they form. If they qualify, they qualify; if they do not, then they do not. But I believe these is nothing in the mere fact that they are students which makes them any less likely

1019
to qualify than any other set of persons who may band together for this purpose.
Let me say at once that I agree with the noble Lord that we should go further into this matter. I think it is a legitimate purpose for all who care for the comfort and convenience of people, including young people, and who care for the furtherance of education, that we should go further into this subject and find out about it. But if it ever turns out that more housing for students through this form can be achieved only at the expense of less housing for families in general, I, for one, would not favour it. I believe that if there is an overall housing shortage, if anybody is to be uncomfortable on housing grounds I should prefer it to be the students, because in the main they are single and have no children. I should prefer students to be uncomfortable, because they are young and healthy, rather than for a family bringing up young children, or old people, to be uncomfortable. It is hardly necessary to say that the solution to this problem is the overcoming of the general housing shortage, towards which we are going hell-for-leather, and I will come to that in a moment.
Turning now to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, I think most Members of the House will have shared my impression that here we came to real social values and real social needs and real social truths in what I consider to be a remarkable speech. He said that this Bill will make work for small builders—and so it will, and that is good. I think the work to be done under this Bill is particularly suitable for small builders and I hope they will rally round and conduct their procedures and do everything they can to make the most of the opportunities that will be offered.
The noble Lord mentioned the Government's housing record. Before going on to the question of improvements versus new housing I should say that he is right in thinking that it is not always realised how extraordinarily good the new housing record is. This Government will have been in office for five years during the course of the present year, and during the course of the present year the two-millionth new house built under this Government will be occupied. If we compare
1020
the new housing achieved by this Government in five years with the new housing achieved by the former Government in an equal period of five years, we find that the difference between the two totals is substantially greater than the total number of houses now standing on the ground in Birmingham. This is no mean difference.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, what does the noble Lord mean by "an equal period of five years"? Does he mean a period of five years under a Conservative Government that he has selected, or what period of five years?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his precision. I was referring to the last period of five years under the preceding Government—that is, 1959 to 1964—as compared with 1964 to 1969.
The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, asked why we did not re-enact the compulsory repair power contained in the 1954 Act so that it would then have been continued in special circumstances. He rather made light of that. But these special circumstances seem to me to be pretty important and pretty widespread special circumstances, because where a tenant wants his house to be improved and repaired, and his landlord does not, where such a tenant moves the council to do so, the council retains the power to compel repair. I am not quite sure in what other circumstances the noble Lord would like the council to have that power. Would he like them to have it over owner-occupiers who do not want to move? There is of course no need for them to have it over landlords and tenants who both agree, because it will be done without compulsion.
Turning now to the question of what the noble Lord called the "recalcitrant elderly tenant" who does not want it done, although the landlord does, this is a matter of the greatest difficulty, which we shall pursue later. For the moment I will limit myself to saying that I will attend to and study carefully what the noble Lord has said, in conjunction with my right honourable friend. This matter has already exercised us very deeply and I propose to have one more "deep think" about it on the basis of my noble friend's remarkable speech.
On the question of the balance between new housing and the proposed increase in

1021
improvements, the policies for improvement under this Bill can only develop gradually, though I hope they will do so with increasing momentum. It is not a case of a sudden doubling of the rate. It will not happen like that. That is why the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum attached to this Bill looks forward to the financial effects in 1972 and 1973 as regards improvements—the £40 million which my noble friend mentioned. But as the House knows, in 1972–73 it is the hope of the Government—and I believe a well-founded hope—that the housing situation in some parts of this country will look rather profoundly different from what it does now. In some areas the need for new houses will not be so intense, and in those areas the more urgent problem will be the improvement of the housing stock. In other areas the need for new houses will remain paramount and may indeed—though I hope it will not—remain as intense as it is now. Therefore, new housing will go ahead in those areas, subject only to the limitation of manpower and physical resources, as happens now.
In other areas, particularly in the conurbations, there will be a continuing need for a concerted two-prong programme for improvements and for new housing. I have said so much because I should not like the House to imagine that this thing will go hang into operation at the rate of £40 million immediately we pass the Bill. It will not. Its effects will be long-lived, and will not reach their peak level until we have a rather different situation as regards new housing in some parts of the country: and I repeat that, because of the difficulty the Press has had recently in certain quarters in understanding that a housing surplus in some parts of the country is a very different thing from a housing surplus in all parts of the country. The former we may legitimately look forward to; the latter, unfortunately, will elude us for some time yet.
I conclude by saying that I am very glad to see that there is general approval for the purposes of this Bill. I think we shall send it into Committee with high hopes and with general accord that it is on the right lines. I look forward to the possibility of improving it in Committee, and I look forward to some pleasant occasions when I shall have to resist, I think on good grounds, Amend-
1022
ments which would make it not as good as it is now.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
8.40 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Much of what is in this Housing (Scotland) Bill is a parallel of the Bill which we have just been discussing, but within the fold of the Bill there are also many differences. Some of the problems with which the English Housing Bill deals do not arise in Scotland, and some of the problems that we have in Scotland are much more acute than any which arise in England. This accounts for the somewhat different form that the Scottish Bill takes.
This Bill embodies far-reaching proposals for dealing with the older houses in Scotland. The housing situation time, and especially in the central belt from Glasgow to Edinburgh, has exercised Governments and social reformers for many years. There is no single solution for the problem it creates. It requires a combination of statutory and voluntary action, and the statutory bodies must have adequate powers for their share of the task. To provide those powers is the object of this Bill.
It is, of course, by no means the first Bill on this subject, and indeed much of it consists of the repeal of those of the existing statutory provisions which have been found to be unsatisfactory, and their replacement by new provisions affecting both the clearance and the improvement of houses. It also contains provisions relating to the compensation to be paid when slum houses are acquired, the rents of houses which are brought up to a certain standard and the powers of local authorities to secure works of repair on houses. Thus it deals with all aspects of the problems of older houses.
In our White Paper, The Scottish Housing Programme, 1965 to 1970 (Cmnd 2837), which set out the Government's aims in Scottish Housing, we estimated that there was a need for up to 500,000 houses to replace houses which were

1023
either already identified as slums or which could not be improved to a reasonable standard. This was only an estimate because, as the White Paper pointed out, the absence of any common standard of fitness meant that no proper figures were then available. It was this gap in the necessary information which led to the setting up of the Sub-Committee of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee chaired by Professor J. B. Cullingworth. The Report of that Committee, which was published in January, 1967, under the title, Scotland's Older Houses, confirmed and gave precision to the estimate we had made and at the same time focused public attention on the problem of older houses. Nobody concerned with Scotland's housing problems could fail to be impressed by the forceful portrayal in that report of the difficulties which confronted us: and it was a cause of satisfaction to all that the report should have aroused such widespread interest and concern. Following consultation with interested parties the Government gave an indication in the White Paper The Older Houses in Scotland A Plan for Action, published last July, of the policies they intended to pursue. That White Paper was generally welcomed and following further consultations this Bill was brought forward.
Part I of the Bill deals with houses which do not meet a new statutory standard called the tolerable standard. In introducing this new standard we are not simply replacing one set of criteria by another similar set. The present provisions relating to unfitness in Section 5 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 do not amount to a definition of unfitness: they merely indicate the factors which have to be considered when a decision about unfitness is taken. Section 5 requires that once all the factors which it lists have been considered, judgment has to be made whether or not the house is so far defective in respect of one or more of the factors that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation. Linked with these provisions about unfitness at present is an immediate obligation on local authorities to act in respect of any house which they have declared to be unfit for human habitation. The unfit house must either be taken out of use or made fit.
1024
The Cullingworth Committee pointed out that in Scotland, with its great housing problems, the practical consequence of that link betwen the standard and the immediate obligation to act has often been that local authorities have hesitated to declare houses unfit because they were not ready to take them out of use. The true extent of the slum problem has therefore been disguised, and we cannot tell how many times local authorities have not taken action in circumstances where on any reasonable view action was required.
What the Bill proposes is quite different. The tolerable standard does not simply list a number of factors which have to be taken into account when a decision is being reached. It lists nine tests, worded as positively and precisely as possible, which must be met if a house is to meet the tolerable standard. These tests deal not only with factors of the kind mentioned in the unfitness provisions. They include for the first time two objective items—a requirement that a house should have the exclusive use of an internal water closet, and that it should have both hot and cold water at a sink. If the house fails to meet any one of the nine tests, it fails to meet the tolerable standard, and there should not be much scope for arguing about it.
Now, for the first time, we shall be able to see clearly which houses need to be dealt with. But it would be impracticable to do this and, at the same time, retain an obligation on local authorities to act in respect of all of these houses immediately. Many of our local authorities will find that as much as one-third of their housing stock does not meet the standard. We have therefore replaced the immediate obligation with new powers to act in relation to the houses which fail the standard and we have added a general duty in Clause 1 to use their housing powers to secure that houses that do not meet the new standard are dealt with as soon as possible.
I should perhaps say, in passing, that the tolerable standard, as the Bill defines it, does not express a value judgment about the kind of living conditions which are fully acceptable at the present time. Rather does it define a standard below which any house becomes immediately liable to action by local authorities. So it has been pitched at such a level that

1025
Parliament can properly be satisfied that the powers available to the authorities are appropriate to the houses affected. Where houses are capable of improvement to a higher standard the Bill gives every encouragement for this to be done. If evidence becomes available that in some areas local authorities have cleared all the worst houses and can tackle those which are of a slightly higher standard, though still unacceptable to-day, the Secretary of State will consider whether some raising of the standard in their areas is appropriate. This can be done by an order under Clause 2(2).
Part I of the Bill also introduces an entirely new set of powers based on the new tolerable standard for local authorities to deal with areas of older houses. The existing powers in this connection are in Part III of the 1966 Act, relating to clearance areas, and in Part IV, relating to improvement areas. Neither of these sets of powers is very much used in Scotland nowadays and we think the time has come to replace them.
The key clauses in the new procedure are Clauses 4 and 5. These require local authorities to define areas in which the greater part of the houses fail to meet the tolerable standard and which they think suitable for treatment, either by demolition or improvement. When the area is defined the authority must also decide which parts are to be dealt with by clearance and which by improvement of the houses. Where they propose to demolish the houses they may proceed at once to purchase land and demolish the buildings, as they can under the present clearance area powers. Where they propose that the houses should be improved, they can purchase them; but before doing so they must be satisfied that it is unlikely that the improvements will be carried out unless the local authority takes them over. Our intention here is that local authorities should make every effort, by publicity and by the offer of grants and loans, to encourage individuals to improve the houses they own. Only if this fails should the local authority make use of its powers to purchase houses for improvement. In this connection Clause 5 distinguishes between houses in tenements and other houses. The power of acquisition is more immediately available for tenements where the nature of the building and of its ownership will often preclude action except by the local
1026
authority. The basic procedure I have described is developed in the subsequent clauses.
I should now like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clauses 18 to 22 of the Bill. The Cullingworth Committee recognised that a major obstacle to faster progress with slum clearance was the basis of compensation payable when an unfit house is acquired. The longstanding basis for this compensation is the value of the cleared site of the house, the principle being that if the house is unfit for human habitation it cannot have any value as a place to live in. In practice, a great number of the objections to the slum-clearance activities of local authorities are based, whatever the ostensible ground of objection, on dissatisfaction with the compensation that is paid. Clauses 18 to 22 of the Bill introduce the remedy that we propose. These clauses provide that certain owner occupiers as defined in the Bill (mainly those who have owned their houses for two years or more), whose houses are acquired or vacated as not meeting the tolerable standard, are to be entitled to a supplementary payment, which will bring the compensation up to market value. This payment should have the effect of discouraging objections from people who have no real interest in resisting clearance and redevelopment, and should help to make faster progress possible. For houses which do not qualify for these new payments, Clause 21 provides for an increase in the amount of the well-maintained payments.
As was promised in the White Paper on Older Houses, these arrangements will apply to houses which have been purchased or vacated on or after August 1, 1968 (the date of the White Paper). This degree of retrospection is necessary in order to avoid unfairness and uncertainty arising between the date of publication of the White Paper and the date of commencement of the Bill.
Part II of the Bill introduces new powers for local authorities to deal with houses which are in disrepair. These are designed to deal with the kind of problem which arose in Glasgow and elsewhere following the gale of January last year. A number of authorities, including Glasgow Corporation, felt inhibited by the form of their existing powers from stepping in to deal with urgent repairs

1027
to privately owned property. The drawback of these existing powers (whether they are in the existing Housing Acts, in the Public Health Acts or the Building Act) is that they come into play only after the conditions have deteriorated and drastic action is required. The new powers in the Bill will enable a local authority to take action at an earlier stage before deterioration has gone too far.
The new powers in Clause 24 are similar in form to those in Section 11 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966. The authority must serve a notice specifying the works required to deal with the disrepair, there is provision for appeal to the sheriff and if the notice is not complied with the local authority may carry out the works themselves and recover their expenses. The starting point will be that the local authority are satisfied that the house is subject to serious disrepair. Circumstances may arise where the extent of the disrepair is not great but the consequences of not attending to it could be very serious. That is why subsection (4) of Clause 24 provides that houses which are liable to deteriorate rapidly because of some disrepair can be treated for that reason alone as if they were in serious disrepair.
Part III of the Bill makes some important alterations to the existing arrangements for improvement grants. Since these grants were introduced in the 1949 Act a number of changes have been made in them, the general effect of which has been to increase from time to time the maximum amounts of grant and to reduce the period within which the condition of grant apply. We are now proposing very substantial increases in the grant maxima which, in conjunction with the other provisions in the Bill, should encourage much wider use of these grants.
The Bill also gives local authorities altogether wider discretion in relation to the condition and life of the house after improvement has been carried out, so that, within a framework of guidance which the Secretary of State will be giving, they may decide for themselves whether or not in particular cases assistance should be given. The Bill (in Clauses 33 and 38) also recasts the definition of improvement in order to reduce a difficulty which has frequently arisen over
1028
the distinction between works of improvement which are, in principle, eligible for grant and works of repair which are not so eligible. The distinction made under the existing legislation means that a very large proportion of the work that undoubtedly has to be carried out cannot receive assistance, and we are confident that the new definition will in practical terms be of great advantage to would-be improvers. We all know that Scottish houses, particularly tenements, are not easy to improve, but I believe that Part III of the Bill should be very useful to local authorities in securing as much progress as is possible with improvement of such buildings.
Part IV of the Bill deals with rents and is closely related to Part III. The present improvement grant conditions, and the provisions of the Rent Acts, limit any increase in rent following improvement to 12½ per cent. of the landlord's share of the cost of improvement works. This is an inflexible arrangement which gives an insufficient incentive to landlords to do improvements. Under Part IV the rent of a house subject to a regulated tenancy which is improved with the aid of grant, and the rent of an improved house subject to a controlled tenancy (whether the improvements are grant-aided or not) will be fixed, not in relation to the cost of improvement but under the "fair rent" system which was introduced by the Rent Act 1965. The local authority will first have to certify that the improvements to be carried out will bring the house up to a satisfactory standard, and the actual fixing of the rent will then be a matter for the rent officer subject to appeal to a rent assessment committee. To safeguard individual tenants Schedule 4 of the Bill provides for the phasing of any rent increases which result from this provision, over a period of up to five years in the case of controlled tenancies and up to three years in the case of regulated tenancies.
For reasons of equity we have thought it right in the Bill to deal also with the rents of controlled houses which already reach a satisfactory standard without the need for improvement. These may either be houses which have always met this standard or in which improvement works have been carried out in previous years. To meet the standard the house must

1029
have all the standard amenities and be in good condition, and the local authority will have to certify this before the landlord can apply for a fair rent to be fixed. In deciding whether to issue a certificate the local authority will have to take into account any representations made by the tenant.
To avoid a sudden overload of the rent officer organisation, Clause 51 provides a delaying mechanism. It divides the houses at present subject to controlled tenancies and which are already up to the satisfactory standard into three groups based on their rateable values and fixes dates in 1971 and 1972 after which these tenancies can be converted into regulated tenancies. This will not only ensure that the rent officer service is built up in a sensible fashion to meet the longer-term requirements but will ensure that the rent officer system is not prevented from dealing with those houses on which improvements are still to be done.
Clauses 58 and 59 in Part V introduce an entirely new specific grant to local authorities in support of expenditure they incur in carrying out works to improve the environment of houses; for instance, by creating play spaces for children, planting trees or providing parking spaces. The Cullingworth Committee were very concerned about the lack of any provision of this kind, and anyone who is familiar with the neglect and squalor that often occur in the backlands of tenement blocks will appreciate the need for it. The expenditure which will attract grant is such as the Secretary of State may approve, subject to a maximum of £100 per house in the area.
The Bill is deliberately drafted in such a way that the Secretary of State is empowered to pay the grant in support of the proposals by a local authority to carry out works on the environment in any predominantly residential area. In present economic circumstances, however, this discretion will be exercised in such a way as to limit the grant to works on the environment which are to be carried out in conjunction with the improvement of the houses themselves. I believe, my Lords, that the Bill will mark a notable step forward in dealing with problems of our older houses. Most of it is in no way controversial and I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lords Hughes.)
9.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for a very clear and painstaking explanation of this Bill: I think he deserved a better audience than he had. I am too well accustomed to the uncertainties of Parliamentary business to wish to complain that so important a measure as this should be discussed at so inconvenient an hour in the evening, but I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, will agree that as a general rule it is not a good thing to take a Scottish Bill of major importance immediately after a similar English Bill on the same day. For one thing, it is often apt to be misunderstood in Scotland.
As the noble Lord has said, this Bill is intended mainly to carry out the recommendations and conclusions of the Cullingworth Report which, as he said, is a very good Report and has provided us with a quantity of information which is useful, distinguishing between different kinds of undesirable or unfit houses. But, of course, the information, as I think the noble Lord will agree, and as I think the Report itself admits, is not at all uniform. The noble Lord has no doubt noticed that on page 82, in the comparison of local authority returns on unfitness and 1961 Census statistics, it is stated that Dundee has 40 per cent. of households in dwellings sharing or lacking a fixed bath, while Glasgow has 41 per cent. In both cases the proportion of households in dwellings sharing or lacking water closet is 24 per cent; and of dwellings containing one to two rooms, the figures are Glasgow, 38 per cent.; and Dundee, 35 per cent. However, when you come to unfit houses, Dundee is put down as having 24·5 per cent. and Glasgow only 3·4 per cent. I cannot help concluding that the standards of unfitness on which these tables are based must be entirely different in Glasgow from what they are in Dundee.
Of course, one of the troubles about all these questions of housing standards is that the popularly accepted standards of all kinds of houses change so quickly. One generation regards as tolerable one thing which is not always regarded as tolerable by the next generation: and I think that applies to houses of all types and of all sizes. A hundred years ago,

1031
even in the largest and most luxurious houses in Britain a fixed bath was still looked on as a great novelty. It is only about 70 or 80 years ago that a well known Member of your Lordships' House who lived in one of the stately homes of England—and in a fairly civilised part of England, too—still used to walk a quarter of a mile every morning to his outside lavatory; and he always carried a gun with him in case he might get a shot at a woodcock on the way. This house would not even have fulfilled the tolerable standards laid down—which the noble Lord has explained—in Clause 2 of this Bill, let alone the satisfactory standard which the Cullingworth Report aims at.
All my life there has been a deplorable preponderance of sub-standard houses in Scotland which has always filled us with a certain amount of indignation, and we have all tried to do our best to overcome the problem—sometimes with a little success, sometimes with not as much as we had hoped. In the early 1920s (I do not know whether the noble Lord's memory goes back as far as that), the condition of Scottish housing was one of the most raging questions in Scottish politics. Between the wars we built the equivalent of a new Edinburgh—we did make some progress. But in the 1930s it was still very bad. I remember one particular puzzling thing: in 1934 the Glasgow Town Council had reached a figure of about 4.000, or rather more, houses a year, which was about two-fifths of what they ought to have been doing; after 1934 they dropped down to about 2,000-odd a year, which was about one-fifth of what they ought to have been doing. It was a most shockingly deplorable record.
One whom I regard as one of the best Secretaries of State for Scotland that we ever had, the late Walter Elliot, formed the conclusion that in order to get the Scottish housing problem solved in a reasonable period of time—he hoped it might be done in 20 or 30 years—two things would have to be done. First, there would need to be a great many new building methods—what were called unconventional buildings methods. We tried to persuade many of the local authorities to build prefabricated houses, but they were very reluctant to do so. There was only one that did it on any great scale.
1032
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may remember the late Lord Provost Phin, of Dundee, who was responsible for building the big new housing scheme at Linlathen of 500 houses at that time.
Secondly, Walter Elliot believed that this problem would not be solved by local authority action, or by private enterprise or by a combination of both, and he persuaded his colleagues to agree to the setting up of the Scottish Special Housing Association, which was intended, at least to begin with, to do its work mainly by unorthodox methods—by what we now call industrialised houses, and what were then called prefabricated houses. "Prefabricated" is literally correct, but later, at the end of the war, the term became associated with inferior houses, so it is not used now. In reality, of course, prefabricated houses are often much superior to houses built by conventional methods. I cannot prove it, but I believe that Walter Elliot's policy would have succeeded if it had not been smashed and knocked sideways by the war. All the plans, both of the local authorities and of the Special Housing Association, were completely stopped, and so little building work could be done on repairs that the deterioration of houses during the war caused the general position to slip back, with the result that at the end of the war it was much worse than it had been at the beginning.
At this late hour I do not want to trouble the noble Lord with any detailed questions, but there are one or two points which I should like to put to him. One of the problems of creating these new areas and rebuilding clearance areas is whether or not to have skyscraper flats. I do not suppose that this problem could arise in treatment areas, because I think it is not intended that new types of houses should be built there, but only that older ones should be reconditioned. Naturally, many people do not like skyscraper flats and think they are ugly. Also, there is the tragic example of the accident not very long ago at Ronan Point, which rather disturbed our confidence in this type of building. But I have always thought that the Scottish housing problem could never be solved without a great deal of this type of building; and I have always said so.
Of course it is far nicer for any family to have a completely detached

1033
small cottage by itself. But I do not think the "flatted house"—the traditional type of four houses with only two storeys, which is so common in Scotland—has any greater privacy or comfort than a well-built, huge, high-storeyed block of flats, and the real reason why a growing number of people are becoming more in favour of flats than they used to be in Glasgow, in Dundee—and, I, in Edinburgh, too—is because of commuterism. The workers find that they are losing so much time, having to spend so much money, and losing so much of their sleep and leisure if they have to go a very long way to and from their work every day.
I regretted that an Amendment was not carried in another place increasing from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. the Government grant under this Bill for these high buildings. I do not propose to repeat the argument here, but I believe there is some room for discretion on this subject. I am referring not to grants for all buildings, but to grants for making safe those buildings which have already been put up and which, after the Ronan Point accident, may give rise to some anxiety. There may be very few of them, and there may even turn out to be none, but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether, if it is found that any of these new types of skyscrapers which are being built in Scotland give any ground for suspicion, and if measures have to be taken to make them safer than they are and to strengthen public confidence in them, there will be discretion to give a higher grant than this for the extra expense, not of repairing them (because they are not in disrepair) but of correcting any possible, suspected engineering defects which they may now be thought to have. I hope that other, new methods of building will also be pursued and encouraged by the Government, because I am sure that a great many local authorities, although they are keen and diligent, are, as the noble Lord knows, not always very imaginative, and they are sometimes not as ready as they might be to make use of new methods of building construction which may lighten the demand on certain types of labour which may be in short supply. That has always been one of the cursed things about the housing problem in Scotland: that even
1034
if there happens to be unemployment in the building trade, we cannot get enough labour in the right place at the right time to build the number of houses which ought to be built. In the end it all conies down to the question of how much of our gross national product, our national resources, you are able and willing to devote to building new houses—and you have to be very careful to distribute it in the best possible and least expensive way.
On reconditioning, the noble Lord has just pointed out in his speech that the position of rents of reconditioned houses is being changed by this Bill. That was one of the strongest arguments put forward by the Cullingworth Report, and I think it was a well justified one. I would ask whether the permission to raise rents will be a gradual one, and how quickly it will take effect, because the Cullingworth Report has given some rather interesting examples showing that whether reconditioning expenditure is profitable or unprofitable often depends on the rapidity with which a return can be received. I see that the Report says, I think in paragraph 70, that reconditioning is required not only in urban areas but that the conditions in some of the rural areas
"are so bad that no excuse can warrant things being left as they are".
The Committee do not specify what particular kinds of houses they are thinking of except the crofts, which they do mention; but I suppose that the great majority of the houses which are in bad condition are either crofts or houses which are let under the Rent Restriction Act.
I think that the position is much better in regard to service tenancy houses and, in general, rural workers' houses in Scotland. I recently obtained a few figures from the Department about the number of houses reconditioned. From 1961 to 1968, the number of houses improved by improvement grants was 16,599 and the number of houses improved through standard amenity grants was 11,640. The second category would probably consist partly of houses which were not really sub-standard to begin with, or which had previously been reconditioned but which needed just a little more done to bring them up to what we now regard as modern standards. But if you compare the rural housing position in general with the position in some of our great

1035
industrial areas, it is very illuminating indeed, and shows how this type of house began and has continued since 1926 when the reconditioning legislation (which at first applied only to rural houses) was brought in.
There are, I know, some unfit houses in many rural parts of Scotland. There is one on my own land in Perthshire which has been condemned for 14 years. A railway employee has been "squatting" there all that time; and neither the county council nor British Rail have been able yet to provide this squatter with a decent house. I think that, in general, the agricultural workers in most of these rural areas in Scotland are now well housed. I will not say that the problem has been entirely solved. That, I think, applies much more to service tenancy houses than those which are let under the Rent Restriction Act.
My Lords, I would say only this in conclusion. In view of the rather restricted opportunity for discussing this Bill on Second Reading, I hope that the Government may allow not too short a time before Committee stage in case any of my noble friends may wish to express their views on improving the Bill. At the same time, I would say that I think it most essential and desirable that this Bill, which is a good Bill, should be on the Statute Book by the time we rise at the end of this month for the Summer Recess.
9.23 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for speaking without putting my name on the list. I am not apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, because I am sure he will agree with almost every word that I am going to say; but I feel that I must apologise in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Llewelyn-Davies, who is waiting so patiently to introduce some change in the registration of architects. I hope he will forgive me. I did not think I should be able to get down from Edinburgh in time to speak on this Bill; but having got here I feel it would be churlish of me not to give it a very warm welcome. I think that on the whole it is an excellent Bill and one which might well have been introduced many years ago. I should like first to make a few points in regard to Clause
1036
2, which defines the "tolerable standard". It seems to me to be rather low. I realise why this was possibly pitched as low as it has been; it is because, put even as low as this, it is going to condemn many thousands of houses in Scotland which are at the moment occupied and which will have to be replaced.
I hope that landlords, both private and local authority, will not regard the standard laid down in Clause 2, the "tolerable standard", as being the maximum for which they should strive. It seems to me that there is always the danger, when laying down a standard in black and white, that when they have their houses up to the standard many people will sit back and feel that they have done their duty and will not try to improve them any further. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will take advantage of the powers he has in subsection (2) of this clause to raise these standards by areas and as and when he thinks the moment has come. I hope that the moment will be sooner rather than later with almost every area in Scotland.
Next, I should like to say a word or two about Clause 24. It seems to me that this clause needs looking at again in Committee. The local authority is given power to insist on repairs being executed within twenty-one days to any house which is in a state of serious disrepair. I should have thought that there should be exceptions, such as where the house is owner-occupied and the owner does not want to repair the house, and also where the house is unoccupied. There are probably many more important repairs to be done—particularly after emergencies such as the wind-blow in central Scotland last year. I should also have thought that it might be a defence to the order that one was not able to get suitable tradesmen or materials; because many of the difficulties in Glasgow and other places after the wind-blow last January arose not because landlords were unwilling to repair their houses but because they simply could not get hold of the right people to do the work or the right materials with which to repair the houses. I should have thought it would be advisable to amend the clause to a certain extent in that way.
Next, I should like to refer briefly to Part III, Clauses 37 and 38. I think

1037
that £1,200 is a reasonable figure and should be a great inducement to all landlords to bring their houses up to a modern standard. I hope that the local authorities, who, I believe, have complete discretion about whether or not to give these grants—will give them wherever possible, and, as I think the noble Lord suggested in his speech, that they will be more inclined to give them even where the house has, or used to have, some of these basic amenities in the first place. There are some derelict houses near to my home which used to belong to British Railways. We bought them for the vast sum of £50, mainly because vandals had removed absolutely everything inside them, including the baths and lead piping. I believe that under the old Act we should not have been able to get what is to be the grant of £1,200 to bring these houses up to a modern state of repair because at one time they had bathrooms and such-like things in them and would therefore not have qualified. I hope that local authorities will be able to use much more discretion about this matter than they have been able to do up to now.
Lastly, may I say that it probably will come as no surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to know that I particularly welcome the provisions in Part IV of the Bill. I believe that these have been needed for many years. I also welcome Schedule 4, which goes with Part IV. One of the things which slightly worry me, and the only one I am going to mention now, is that on page 47 there is a table which states by what amounts one can raise one's rents from the controlled rent to the fair rent. We never seem to reach the whole. It says that where the period of delay is two years, one has one-third and two-thirds. I should have expected that in the third year one would be able to have the whole, but it does not say so. In the column headed "Where the period of delay is four years" there is one-fifth, two-fifths, et cetera, and in the fourth year it is four-fifths. I should have thought, once again, that in the fifth year we should have the whole; but it does not say so. Could the noble Lord confirm that I have misread it, and that after the third or fifth year, according to the category, one does reach the whole? I very much welcome this Bill. Like my noble friend Lord Dundee, I
1038
hope that it will be on the Statute Book before we rise for the Summer Recess, but I think that it needs a little looking over in Committee because I am sure that it can be improved in one or two details.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, replies, may I ask him a question? My noble friend has welcomed the increase in the reconditioning grant for rural houses from £500 to £1,200, as we all do. May I ask whether there is a corresponding increase in the special grant for similar houses in the Highlands and remote areas?
9.29 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, may I intervene, very briefly, as I just want to gloat? I have been working it out, and I recall that 47 years ago, in the city which is represented by my noble friend the Minister and from which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, derives his name, I became a Socialist to try to achieve what is now being attempted by this Bill with the complete accord of everybody in this House. That is all I want to say.
9.30 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception which the Bill has been given by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, and by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder. I must agree with the noble Earl's initial, rather gently stated, complaint that the hour at which we are discussing the Bill is somewhat inconvenient. It is because I share the view expressed by both noble Lords opposite, that this Bill should reach the Statute Book before we rise for the Summer Recess, that I did not enter any protest about its placing in the timetable; and it is because I know they share sincerely my anxiety that I know that they will not take me to task when I tell them that the Committee stage of the Bill will be in the unusually short time of a week from now—next Tuesday. That is when I expect it to be, subject to everything going as it ought to go.
I anticipate that although this is an important Bill, it is not one which will be the subject of a large number of Amendments in your Lordships' House.

1039
I think that what has been said to-night is an indication that that will probably be so. The Bill was largely welcomed in another place and has been fully considered over a long time and while in other circumstances your Lordships might have wished to have another go at some of the Amendments which were moved in another place, I welcome the realistic attitude that has been taken and the indication that this will not be done on this occasion. I think that we are all of a mind that the important thing is to get these improvements in legislation for Scottish housing into operation as soon as possible, and that a little inconvenience to ourselves, and perhaps a little harder work over a shorter period, is a small price to pay for bringing that about.
The noble Earl referred to the figures on page 82 of the Cullingworth Report and gave comparisons between Glasgow and Dundee. Nothing could have brought home more clearly the need for the fixed standards which we are laying down in the nine tests for a tolerable standard than the figures which the noble Earl quoted. Here we are comparing facts with facts; the figures in Dundee and in Glasgow for household sharing or lacking a fixed bath; for households sharing or lacking a water closet, and for households containing only one or two rooms. These are all things which can be seen. They are not matters of opinion, because one has only to go and look. This is what we are doing in relation to the determination of a tolerable standard. We find out whether any one of the nine items that I mentioned is missing, and if it is missing, then the house falls below the tolerable standard and must either be improved or be taken down as soon as possible.
On the old standard of what was an unfit house, the opinion in one part of the country might be totally different from the opinion in another part, and that is how we got this figure of 24·5 per cent. of houses declared unfit in Dundee and of 3·4 per cent. in Glasgow. It is a matter of some satisfaction to me that I was Lord Provost of Dundee during the time when we reached this 24·5 per cent. recognition of the problem with which we had to deal. I am not making any comparison with Glasgow, because it may be that we had an easier task and that the problems of Glasgow were of a
1040
greater magnitude in other directions. But it was recognised in Dundee that no useful purpose was served by closing our eyes to facts, and that it was better we should know and recognise the situation rather than ignore it, or put off to next year or the next decade any attempt to deal with it.
The noble Earl also referred to the part which the late Walter Elliot expected to be played by the Scottish Special Housing Association. I am sure that he would have been very happy indeed to know that his creation was playing an even more important part in solving Scotland's housing problems in the 'sixties—and will also in the 'seventies—than it ever did in the first years of its existence. In fact, approximately 10 per cent. of the new houses to be built in Scotland will be provided by the S.S.H.A. If the late Walter Elliot never did anything else than this in the period when he was a Minister he would have served Scotland very well indeed.
The question as to whether or not skyscrapers, multi-storey blocks, will be built in clear areas where houses are demolished must of course always depend on the local authority's land availability. The preponderance of multi-storey building in Glasgow at the present time is dictated not by an overall preference for that type of building, but by the fact that, because Glasgow is so short of land on which to build houses of any kind, in order to meet the needs of their people as quickly as possible they have had to accept going up rather than spreading out. But it does not necessarily follow that this would apply elsewhere.
I was glad that the noble Earl made clear in his later remarks that not every multi-storey block was a potential Ronan Point. In fact, I was in a burgh in Scotland discussing this problem yesterday. They have 13 multi-storey blocks which are being appraised at the present time. But only three of these are of the type of construction of Ronan Point, and a fourth is partly of that construction and partly otherwise. But the local authority are playing safe. They are appraising all 13 blocks. And this is happening throughout the country.
This action has perhaps created a false impression about the danger of this type of construction. It is not multi-storey blocks which are dangerous; it is the

1041
multi-storey block of a particular type of construction which may create problems. But because this was not anticipated, and because it did happen, it is only reasonable that people should look to see whether there are any other possible defects in other blocks. All of this will be taken into account. But I am quite certain—and I think the noble Earl expressed this point—that at the end of the day it will be shown that the bulk of the houses built by this method are just as safe to live in as any other type of construction.
The noble Earl went on to say that he did not believe that the traditional two-storey blocks in Scotland necessarily had any more privacy than multi-storey blocks. In fact, one of the complaints of some of the people who live in multistorey blocks is that they find themselves much more remote than they ever were in their lives. The only people they know are the ones they meet in the lift going up and down.
The noble Lord asked me about increasing the grant for repairs to these blocks. It does not figure in the Bill, and he has indicated that this is not an Amendment which will be moved. I would remind your Lordships that the Secretary of State has stated that he wishes me to make arrangements to meet any of the local authorities concerned who may wish to discuss this matter, not individually, because this would be far too time consuming; but as and when they wish to have a joint meeting to discuss this, and consider it further, I shall be very happy indeed to have this meeting.
The noble Duke referred to Clause 2 and suggested that the tolerability standards seem to be rather low. He expressed the hope that it should be regarded as a minimum to which landlords should aspire. I must point out—and I wish to emphasise this—that this is a standard below which houses are condemned; it is not a standard to which people should be aiming. After all, when they reach this they have only managed to escape condemnation, and no more. The desirable standard is the type of thing for which we wish to pay improvement grants, so that houses have all the standard amenities, including a fixed shower or bath, with hot and cold water supply; a wash-hand basin, with the
1042
same facilities; a sink and internal water closet, and so on. Certainly it is the intention that the tolerable standard will be raised as soon as possible, area by area, until the whole country is covered. One local authority have already asked about having a meeting to discuss when the standard can be raised in their area, and we have undertaken that we will consult with them about raising his as soon as it is appropriate to do so, having regard to the speed with which they tackle the houses to bring them up to the standard as it is set.
In Clause 24, on the subject of repairs, the noble Duke asked about exceptions. It is very difficult to do this; in fact this solution has been put in the Bill very largely because it has been shown how inadequate the existing powers are. Far too much time was lost in Glasgow, and other areas, before the authorities felt they could reasonably take the risk of applying the limited powers which they had in the Act, when it was quite certain that public opinion was overwhelmingly on their side, in a way which they could not have been certain about if they tried to do it a week or a fortnight after the disaster took place. We are now seeking to enable authorities to act immediately, and with real power. May I say also that the steps by which the local authority can undertake these repairs have sometimes proved, as in Glasgow, to be the cheapest way in which an owner can get things done. So it can be a decided advantage for the local authority to step in in this way.
On Clauses 37 and 38, the noble Duke said that he considered the amounts were reasonable, and he hoped that the local authorities would apply them. I can assure the noble Duke that I have missed no opportunity in the past two years of pressing on local authorities the desirability of not allowing houses which otherwise could be fit to live in for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years to become the slums which they would have to deal with 10 years or so from now. I have had a fair measure of success in this, particularly in Glasgow, where the authority agreed they would be very willing to co-operate with private owners in rehousing, where necessary, to enable these improvements to be carried out in return for an undertaking (which was given by the private owners) that they

1043
would then accept as tenants for the improved houses people who were on the housing lists. It is the intention of the Government to press local authorities to take the maximum advantage of this.
My noble friend Lord Leatherland referred, in discussion on the previous Bill, to the change of attitude in regard to giving grants to owners of privately-owned property to improve them, although, he said, people might have thought such owners should have improved their properties out of rents received a long time ago. It is an indication of a change which is taking place; I believe the local authorities share in this change of attitude, and I hope it will be easier for us to get better results than we have ever had in the past.
Finally, on the noble Duke's point, he referred to the Schedules, and to the fact that you seem to get the two-thirds and the four-fifths, but never reach all the way. I can assure him that all the way is reached, but it may be that this is not as felicitously drafted as it might have been. I will have a look at it to see whether or not there is any need to put in the Bill that in fact we reach 100 per cent. in the third and fifth years.
I was very glad to have the intervention of my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and to know that my home town of Dundee, even in its defects, can claim credit for having him sitting on these Benches to-night, instead of perhaps in another part of your Lordships' House—or, perhaps more likely, not in your Lordships' House at all. I look forward to his assistance, along with that of noble Lords opposite, in getting this Bill on to the Statute Book as quickly as possible and with the minimum of further inconvenience to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
9.46 p.m.
LORD LLEWELYN-DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. It is needed to amend the Architects' Registration Act 1931 as amended in 1934. It is needed because
1044
the provisions of that Act are now out of date in one important aspect. The original Act provided that 50 per cent. of fees received by the Architects' Registration Council should be devoted to the provision of scholarships and maintenance grants for the assistance of students of architecture; and in the early years of the operation of this scheme they were so used. But with the passage of the Education Act 1944 it became possible for students to obtain maintenance grants and scholarships from public sources, and as a result the calls on the funds of the Architects' Registration Council within the terms of the Act became very few. As a result, substantial sums have accumulated in this fund which cannot be spent, although the Architects' Registration Council make every attempt to find appropriate cases on which to spend it.
The Bill now before your Lordships proposes two changes in the original Act. The first of these would widen the scope of the purposes to which this fund could be applied. It would widen it beyond merely providing for grants and scholarships for students to its use for the general purposes of the support of architectural education and research. It would not prevent the use of the fund where occasion arises—and anomalous cases do occasionally arise—to support students, but it would enable it to be used for a much broader contribution to the development of architectural education.
The second point in the Bill is to enable the Architects' Registration Council to vary from time to time the proportion of its income fees devoted to these educational purposes. In doing so, it would, of course, have to receive the approval of the Privy Council. The Bill is before your Lordships with the approval of the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Architects' Registration Council, and the Privy Council; and I commend the measure to your Lordships for favourable consideration.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Llewelyn-Davies.)
9.49 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Llewelyn-Davies, with his expert knowledge has given a concise description of this Bill, which received unanimous support in another place. In

1045
this House we have come to appreciate the incisive thought of the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, and I am sure that when she replies the noble Baroness will successfully avoid the danger to which Gilbert and Sullivan's Gondoliers succumbed when they sang,
"Replying, we sing as one individual."
The noble Lord has explained the difficulties which the Architects' Registration Council have been experiencing because the 1931 Act required at least one-half of the Council's annual fees to be devoted to student scholarships and to grants. Clause 1(2)(b) of the Bill will give the Council discretion over its fee income, with continuing surveillance by the Privy Council, and I am sure the noble Lord has satisfied the House that architectural education need in no way suffer. On the contrary, Clause 1(4) will widen the scope for the Council's grants which will be allowed, as the noble Lord has explained to us, not only to students but in future to research and to the arts and sciences connected with architecture. Surely this is welcome news: for although I believe it is a fact that this country is in no way short of architects, none the less it is perhaps possible that the profession increasingly needs the help of people with other skills to master the complex problems associated with construction to-day.
To take one example, my Lords, there are surely social problems increasingly connected with construction. Only a few moments ago the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned the problem of loneliness in multi-storey blocks. I have often wondered whether sufficient research has been undertaken, or the results disseminated, into the effects of layout in the planning of large housing estates. Are people happier living in long roads or in small closes? Is it right to segregate the old from the young? This Bill will allow grants to such people as sociologists, as well as to those whose work lies directly within the construction industry. Under this Bill the Architects' Registration Council can make the fullest use of its income from fees, and I very much hope that the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.
9.52 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the Government are happy to give a welcome to this Bill,
1046
and I should like to thank my noble friend and relative for introducing it, and perhaps specially for doing so in such an admirably brief speech. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the kind words he said, and indeed to assure him that noble friends, and perhaps particularly noble relatives, do not always speak with one voice.
My Lords, this is a non-contentious, non-political Bill which corrects an anomaly that has developed over the years. It will enable the Architects' Registration Council to use its funds in ways which are suitable for present-day conditions. I am sure there will be general agreement in the House that no useful purpose could be served by allowing money to rest unusable because of an out-dated provision. It is important to realise that the Bill would retain the Council's powers to support needy architectural students. Noble Lords will know that the Council has done spendid work in this sphere in the past. There will always be cases of special hardship, and I think it right that the Council should continue this work, but it is equally sensible that it should have power to finance education and research and to support work which will be of benefit to the architectural profession as a whole. My Lords, I am very glad to support this Bill and also that your Lordships have given it such a warm welcome.
LORD LLEWELYN-DAVIES: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and particularly to say how very much I agree with the point he made about the need for many other professions, skills and branches of knowledge to be brought to bear on the problems of housing and architecture; and I should like to thank my noble relative for agreeing with me on this occasion.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RACE RELATIONS
9.54 p.m.
LORD O'HAGANhad given Notice of his intention to ask Her Majesty's Government: Whether they are aware of the deterioration of race relations in the United Kingdom, and of the harm being

1047
done by the tone of public debate on race and immigration; and whether they will come forward with proposals which will reassure the inhabitants of the United Kingdom, whatever their colour. The noble Lord said: My Lords, because the hour is so late I must ask leave to postpone the Unstarred Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I apologise now, as I hope I have apologised in person, to those of your Lordships who have been inconvenienced. I hope you will nourish your resentment and let it blossom forth into vigorous speech when my Unstarred Question comes up again, which will be soon.

  CAR MILEAGE ALLOWANCES
  CAR MILEAGE ALLOWANCES