Sitting of 18 June 1969

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

    Service Managers' Conference (Birmingham)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the President of the Board of Trade why, in view of the contribution of after-sales service to the export drive and to general consumer satisfaction, his Department refused to be represented at the First Annual Conference of Service Managers on 2nd May and 3rd May in Birmingham.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Attendance at every conference of interest to the Board of Trade would require extra staff. But if there were to be another conference of this kind and we were invited, I should certainly consider whether we could be represented.
    Mr. Roberts: Would my right hon. Friend accept that a conference of this type is extremely important, not only in terms of consumer satisfaction, but also because of its particular contribution to the second, if not the third, sale in the export drive? Is she aware that I am glad that she is to reconsider this matter, and that I hope that for the second conference the Department will be represented?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We would all agree that it is essential to have an adequate after-sales service, and anything which contributes to a greater knowledge of the necessity for consumer protection is to be welcomed.

    Industrial Development Certificates (West Midlands)
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade how many industrial development certificates have been granted since 1st January 1965 to companies already operating in the West Midlands: and how many applications have been refused.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: A total of 1,887 industrial development certificates for a total of 32·8 million square feet have been issued to existing firms in the West Midlands since 1st January 1965. In the same period 185 such applications for 5·5 million square feet have been refused.
    Mr. Smith: Is the hon. Lady aware that many West Midlands firms are under the impression that if they apply for an i.d.c. they are likely to be refused? As many of them are long-established in the area, what would she suggest to encourage them to apply for a certificate?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that people sometimes use subjective rather than objective judgments. My Department is anxious that all modernisation schemes should go ahead, and the only way to find out whether an i.d.c. will be granted is, obviously, to ask for one.
    Mr. William Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members in the West Midlands are always complaining about the so-called ban on i.d.c.s? Is this not rather odd since more development has taken place in the last two years than took place in 1963–64? Does it not show that we cannot believe a word that they say?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am well aware that, for various reasons, there is in the West Midlands a constant campaign to try to misrepresent the i.d.c. policy of the Board of Trade. We are not in any way restricting growth that is adequate or necessary for the region. What we are trying to do is to alter the situation in which in the hon. Gentleman's constituency there is a 1·4 per cent. unemployment rate, while in Great Britain, on average, it is 2·3 per cent., and higher in the development areas.

    Selective Employment Tax (Tourist Industry)
    Mr. Crouchasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set up an independent inquiry into the effects of the selective employment tax on the tourist industry with instructions to report in advance of Professor Reddaway.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): No, Sir. Professor Reddaway's inquiry will cover the hotel and catering industries which are liable to S.E.T., and he has already started work on this part of the inquiry.
    Mr. Crouch: Does the President of the Board of Trade not think that this industry, which is a growth industry earning this country nearly £400 million a year from overseas tourists, is worthy of more speedy investigation as to the burden of S.E.T.? Is he aware that the Budget proposals will mean that £35 million will be recovered from it in one year? Will he give further thought to a more speedy investigation?
    Mr. Crosland: There has been a great deal of discussion on this matter in the Committee stage of the Tourism Bill and no doubt there will be more when the Bill comes to Report and Third Reading in the House. I must point out two things. First, not all of the tourism industry by any means is subject to S.E.T. For example, the transport part of the industry is not. Second, whatever the alleged burdens of S.E.T. on the industry, our earnings from tourism continue to rise in the most encouraging way.

    Investment
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give his latest estimate of the level of fixed investment in 1969, expressed as a percentage increase or decrease on the 1968 figure.
    Mr. Sheldonasked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has now made of the level of investment in 1969.
    Mr. Crosland: An official estimate of total fixed investment in 1969 was published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1969–70 on 15th April.
    456
    Results of the May, 1969, Investment Intentions Inquiry were published on Monday, 16th June.
    Mr. Jenkin: Since the results of that inquiry showed that there is already a marked reduction in industry's expectations of investment, and since on the very day it was published the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the Finance Bill Committee that on the latest information investment intentions were high, and satisfactory and that there was no reason to change the view on that, was not the Chief Secretary talking out of the back of his head?
    Mr. Crosland: My right hon. Friend is notable for talking out of the front of his head and notable for his judgment and ripe experience. We must keep this matter in perspective. The investment inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman referred, while it showed that expectations in manufacturing industry were marginally down, also showed that expectations of investment in services and distribution were not down at all, and that expectations of investment in shipping were markedly up.
    Mr. Sheldon: Since the most important aspect of investment concerns manufacturing investment, and this is what is causing great concern among many hon. Members, will my right hon. Friend see what can be done to stimulate this kind of investment, bearing in mind also the very serious concern expressed by the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin?
    Mr. Crosland: Investment in any of these sectors contributes to the growth and productivity of the British economy. I agree with my hon. Friend that manufacturing investment is crucially important, but I must point out that there is a limit to the extent of the investment boom that we can have in any year when we are trying for a rapid increase in exports, because exports and capital investments, to a very considerable extent, fall on the same sectors of industry—namely, the engineering sectors.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the categoric answer he gave me on 30th April, that there was no evidence of any turn-down in manufacturing industry investments? Would it perhaps not increase confidence in the Board of Trade's sensitivity to changes

    457
    in trade if he was a little less categorical in future, when he has been overtaken by events so rapidly?
    Mr. Crosland: I find it incredible that I was as categorical as the hon. Gentleman says. If he says that I was, then obviously I would admit it. I should like to make the general point because the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) mentioned this some weeks ago, that looking back over the history of the Board of Trade investment inquiries, they have tended to be more often on the pessimistic side than on the optimistic side.
    Mr. Barnett: Is not the present shortage of capacity a lesson to us all of what past deflationary squeezes have done to the economy and to investment in particular? Will my right hon. Friend have words with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor with a view to mitigating the worst effects of the present squeeze on this vital aspect of the economy—manufacturing investment?
    Mr. Crosland: The effect of the squeeze is something that my right hon. Friend and I and other Ministers keep constantly under review. I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, that this crucial problem of a shortage of capacity has been due to a consistent failure on the part of this country over 20 years to invest a high enough proportion of its national income.
    Mr. Higgins: Is it not quite ludicrous that we should have two headlines on the front page of the Financial Times, one reporting the right hon. Gentleman, the other reporting the Chief Secretary, both saying two totally different things? Would he co-ordinate his efforts with the Chief Secretary?
    Mr. Crosland: I find it impossible to believe that my right hon. Friend and I could be at odds in any way. I will certainly look into the right hon. Gentleman's point and discuss it with my right hon. Friend.

    Investment Grants
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will pay investment grants to firms in the textile waste processing industry.
    Mr. Tom Boardmanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now seek to extend investment grants to machinery used for processing rubber waste and textile wastes.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): Those firms in the textile and rubber reclamation industries which carry out manufacturing processes resulting in an end product significantly different from the original waste materials can qualify for investment grants on their new machinery or plant. Firms carrying out less substantial processes, such as sorting rubber or textile waste, do not qualify.
    Mr. Jenkin: Since both investment grants and S.E.T. are governed by much the same principles, will the hon. Gentleman accept that the industry does not agree with his assertion that large parts of the textile waste reclamation industry do not produce goods to a specification for the purposes of their customers and that the grounds on which he is refusing such firms investment grants and advising that they are not entitled to refunds of S.E.T. are bogus?
    Mr. Dell: There are several questions, such as whether there is a manufacturing process, whether there is a substantial change and whether goods are produced to a specification. We attempt to maintain a clear line between those processes which benefit from grants and those which do not. I think that we are maintaining a clear line here.
    Mr. Boardman: Is it not relevant that the reclaimed products are the result of a manufacturing process? Should not they, therefore, qualify for investment grant? In view of the enormous import saving produced, will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?
    Mr. Dell: I have said that where there is a manufacturing process resulting in end products significantly different from the original waste materials, we make an investment grant. Where it is merely a matter of sorting, we do not.
    Mr. Blackburn: Since this is an import saving industry, does not my hon. Friend think that such firms are treated unfairly as regards both investment grants and S.E.T. in comparison with the scrap metal and waste paper industries?
    Mr. Dell: The principles involved are similar to those which operate in waste paper and scrap metal. We have never been able to take account of whether a process is import saving. However, one of the beneficial characteristics of the investment grant scheme is that it concentrates on manufacturing industry which produces a large proportion of our visible exports.
    Mr. Ginsburg: Is my hon. Friend aware that the woollen rag trade is centred in my constituency? I am sure that he will have read the report of the Wool Textile Working Party, which was commissioned by Sir Stafford Cripps, and which reported to the present Prime Minister when he was at the Board of Trade. Is my hon. Friend aware that in that report the woollen rag trade was treated as an integral part of the wool textile industry? That being the case, why is not the woollen rag trade on the same basis as the wool textile industry for the purpose of investment grants?
    Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend is requiring me to have a long memory in several respects. I will look at that report. Nevertheless, in respect of investment grants, the division of principle was clearly laid down in the Act. Where there is a manufacturing process, there is grant; where there is merely sorting, there is not. We have to stick to that distinction.

    Trade Descriptions Act (Prosecutions)
    Mr. Gardnerasked the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions have been initiated since the Trade Descriptions Act came into force.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: By the end of last week local weights and measures authorities had notified us of 435 cases in which it was intended to prosecute.
    Mr. Gardner: Has my hon. Friend noticed an improvement in the selling practices of retailers, and is she satisfied that weights and measures departments have sufficient staff to deal with complaints which come in from the public?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not think that we can be satisfied that the weights and measures departments are fully staffed. There is a shortage of qualified people and one would like to see the departments
    460
    with more staff. The number of prosecutions which have been set on foot shows that this sort of legislation was needed.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is the discrepancy between the activities of various local authorities being ironed out now that they have a duty laid upon them to enforce this Act?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: It would be foolish to pretend that some are not more active than others. We are trying to deal with this by encouragement from the Department.

    Visible Trade Balance
    Mr. Hall-Davisasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the three-monthly average of the visible trade balance for the three-monthly periods ending with each of the months from January to May, 1969.
    Mr. Crosland: The figures were released in a Press notice issued last Thursday, and they are also published in today's Board of Trade Journal.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: What is the right hon. Gentleman's assessment of the contribution made by the import deposits scheme to the containment of the level of imports during this period?
    Mr. Crosland: The contribution has been a useful one, although it is not possible at the moment to quantify it.
    Mr. Barnett: Would it not be better to admit that there are grave dangers, because of the United States monetary squeeze and the West German policy, of a serious effect on world trade and on our own trade figures this year, especially towards the end of the year and the beginning of next year? Is there not some urgency about having a meeting with both countries and, indeed, an international meeting, to consider the possible effects on our trade figures and on world trade generally?
    Mr. Crosland: I take note of the suggestion in the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. On the prospects of world trade for the rest of this year, all our evidence is that while it will not expand at the dramatic rate at which it did last year, we should still have a reasonably healthy growth of world trade in 1969.
    Sir K. Joseph: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider altering the presentation of the monthly trade figures so as to make the central figure in the eyes of the public and the Press the net outcome of current trading, visible and invisible, and using the invisible figure gross before the deduction of Government overseas expenditure because by that criterion, we were, last quarter, due to invisibles, in current trading surplus?
    Mr. Crosland: There are two aspects to this. One is the separation of private invisibles from Government invisibles, and that is a point made to us by the Committee on Invisible Exports which the Government are still considering. The second aspect is whether we could publish every month a joint figure of visibles and invisibles. The difficulty is that, whereas we get the visible figures monthly, we get the invisibles for each quarter some time after the event.

    Debt Recovery (Trade Protection Associations)
    Mr. Brooksasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set up an inquiry into the activities of trade protection associations and the methods they employ to seek recovery of alleged debts.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It would be premature to set up such an inquiry until the Government have decided what action to take on the recommendation of the Committee on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts that unreasonable harassment of debtors should be made a criminal offence.
    Mr. Brooks: In view of the fact that the committee confirmed the existence of some highly disreputable tactics involving intimidation and blackmail, has not the matter to be dealt with urgently? Speaking as one who has had a little personal experience of the arm-twisting methods employed, may I urge my hon. Friend that this part of the Committee's recommendations be acted upon forthwith?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that the whole House will deplore some of the disreputable methods used to harass debtors. But we must make up our minds on this before deciding which action to take.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Is the hon. Lady aware that, following recent legislation, there is a small but growing number of layabouts who contrive to live in London all but rent-free except for occasional down-payments and on debts that they never intend to pay?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: One can deal easily with people who are layabouts without making it difficult for people who are genuine debtors and are being harassed unnecessarily.

    Investment Grants (Expenditure)
    Mr. Biffenasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the expected total expenditure on investment grants during the current year; and what plans he has to vary the rates of investment grant.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated cost, in the current year, of investment grants.
    Mr. Dell: The estimated cost is £460 million as shown in the Civil Estimates for 1969–70 presented to the House on 19th February, 1969.
    The answer to the second part of the question is "None, Sir".
    Mr. Biffen: Is it not clear that the International Monetary Fund's indicated policies require the Government to pursue monetary and money supply policies which themselves are having an effect upon manufacturing investment? If, in those circumstances, the Government are not prepared to use the investment grants as a contracyclical device, would it not be better to scrap them altogether?
    Mr. Dell: Investment grants give assistance to manufacturing industry in their investment programmes. In 1967 and 1968, we supplemented the standard rate of investment grant by 5 per cent., and, as the hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noticed, this had a beneficial effect on the level of investments in 1968, especially during the last quarter.

    Exports (Greece)
    Mr. Biffenasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of United Kingdom exports to Greece for

    463
    the current year to date; what percentage change this represents over the corresponding figure for 1968; and if he will make a statement on the prospect for British exporters during the coming 12 months.
    Mr. Crosland: The provisional figure to the end of May is £22·5 million, which is an increase of 43 per cent. over the corresponding period of 1968. On prospects for British exports generally this year, I would refer the hon. Member to my speech in the Budget debate.
    Mr. Biffen: Would it not be regrettable if this valuable market were imperilled by those ideological zealots who constantly criticise the domestic policies of the Greek Government? Furthermore, would the right hon. Gentleman take this occasion to indicate what are the prospects now of the deal involving the nuclear power station, which has been the subject of a great deal of Press comment?
    Mr. Crosland: There are many developments in Greece which I am sure hon. Members on all sides find regrettable. As to the trade aspect. I am constantly asked to limit trade with different countries because of the views taken in this House on the régimes of those countries. I always reply that if I were to encourage trade with only countries of whose régimes we approve, we should trade with very few countries. That, in my view, has nothing to do with the political aspects of what view might be taken by reasonable people of a régime or its behaviour.
    As to the atomic energy deal, there have been difficulties about this on the tobacco side of it, but I hope that tobacco manufacturers will be willing to participate in a study with the Greek producers with a view to helping them produce a type of tobacco to suit the requirements of the British market.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is the agreement to sell the atomic reactor inevitably linked with the purchase of Greek tobacco, or is there some other way of clinching the deal?
    Mr. Crosland: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would put down a Question on that. I am not certain about the word "inevitably". Obviously, there
    464
    has been a link but, off the cuff, I would not like to say whether it is an inevitable link or whether the atomic energy deal can be concluded without the settlement of the tobacco point.

    Home and Export Sales (Relative Profitability)
    Mr. Silvesterasked the President of the Board of Trade what studies he has made or has in progress of the relative profitability of home and export sales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dell: Sample inquiries carried out in 1967 and 1968 indicated a wide range of experience of relative profitability, and I hope it will be possible to publish the results soon. For the samples, average levels of export profit rates were lower than for home sales before devaluation, but the gap was narrowed in 1968.
    Mr. Silvester: Would not the Minister agree that there is something in the argument of Mr. Tessler of The Times that some firms which regard exports as unprofitable are not making a proper analysis of the relevant costs as between home and export sales? Will the report, when published, cover this point?
    Mr. Dell: Mr. Tessler's views may be correct concerning a number of firms. I cannot say whether the report, when published, will cover this point, but it is very important that in costing the profitability of exports firms should do the job properly.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Would the Minister say why those studies do not include the very promising opportunities between North-East Scotland and Scandinavia? Will he take those into account at an early date?
    Mr. Dell: I think that those opportunities are well known, but the report will cover the relative profitability of home and export sales.
    Mr. Higgins: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that the Government's own actions since devaluation have virtually eroded any increased profitability which might have arisen from it? If he does, will he publish the Government's estimates of how much their various measures have produced profitability on export sales?
    Mr. Dell: I do deny it. My right hon. Friend only recently stated in the House his current estimate of the continuing advantage of devaluation price-wise.

    Radishes
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that growers of radishes in the Vale of Evesham and elsewhere have been prevented from marketing their early spring crops grown under glass by market flooding by Californian radishes; what regulations regarding radish imports are in force to provide protection of home crops; and, in view of the cost to the balance of payments of importing food from abroad, if he will impose fresh import quotas for radishes and similar crops.
    Mr. Dell: I have no evidence that the market for home grown radishes has been depressed by imports. Radishes from the Commonwealth Preference area enter duty-free. Other imports pay a 10 per cent. duty. There are no quota restrictions on imports of radishes, except for the Sino-Soviet bloc, and I do not propose to introduce any.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must bear the truth about radishes.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman pay a visit to the Vale of Evesham and ascertain for himself why it was necessary to bring Californian radishes into this country in vast quantities in the spring of this year, at the peak of the English market season, thereby destroying all prospects for the English growers to sell their produce at reasonable prices?
    Mr. Dell: What the hon. Gentleman should be worried about is the price which radishes, grown in the Vale of Evesham or elsewhere, are bringing in the market. I have no evidence that, generally speaking, the prices currently being obtained for radishes, particularly in late April and May, are lower this year than they were in 1967 and 1968. In fact, I understand that they are higher. Nevertheless, if people in the industry think that there is a substantial case for an increase in duty, they should present it to the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Would my hon. Friend agree that this was an appropriate subject for the Leader of the Opposition to discuss when he was at the White House?
    Sir G. Nabarro: Fatuous.

    Imports (Fruit and Vegetables)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the trade deficit in 1969 to date, if he will revise the regulation of imports of foreign fruit and vegetables and all horticultural products in order to enhance prospects for home producers.
    Mr. Bodyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will seek to amend the existing controls over the import of foreign fruit and vegetables in order to enable United Kingdom growers to increase production and thereby reduce imports.
    Mr. Dell: As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member on 14th May, our agricultural programme provides for the expansion of home production. Horticultural growers receive financial and other help to enable them to compete more effectively with imports, and the Government see no need to alter the present arrangements concerning fruit and vegetable imports.—[Vol. 783, c. 1377–8.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the cumulative figure of horticultural grants is now approaching £30 million and that unless there is intelligent co-operation between his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture in regulating imports of foreign horticultural products to keep them off our market during the peak season for English growers, much of that heavy investment will be wasted?
    Mr. Dell: I believe that there is intelligent co-operation between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and the Board of Trade. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the main horticultural crops from most-favoured-nation sources are subject to various specific tariffs during the main United Kingdom marketing season. Imports from the Commonwealth Preference area enter duty free.
    Mr. Body: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that import duties have remained

    467
    the same for 16 years and that, therefore, as each year goes by there is less protection and security for our growers?
    Mr. Dell: I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro): if there is a substantial case for changing the duties in this area, that case can be made to the Board of Trade. We should have to consider the effect on consumers and on our international obligations.
    Mr. Dickens: Apart from the effect on consumers, is not my hon. Friend concerned about the high and rising cost of luxury imports? Is not this not only a most serious matter but one to which his Department must give increasing attention?
    Mr. Dell: The Question is about horticultural products. I do not think my hon. Friend's supplementary question arises in this context.

    Davies Investments Limited (Liquidation)
    Sir A. V. Harveyasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made in the liquidation of Davies Investments Limited; and whether another creditors' meeting will be arranged.
    Mr. Dell: The liquidator appointed by the court has made satisfactory progress with the realisation of the assets and hopes to make an interim distribution to the creditors in July. Further realisations and distributions are likely to be spread over a period of years. The liquidator, to save expense, does not propose to call a further meeting of creditors but will send the creditors a report with the interim distribution.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I recognise the difficulties in bringing about this liquidation. How much will the interim dividend be? How much will these unfortunate investors, many of whom ill-advisedly put their life savings into this company, eventually get to the pound?
    Mr. Dell: I understand that the interim distribution will certainly not be more than 5s. in the pound. The payment of any further dividend must depend on what the liquidator is able to realise, and it is obviously likely to take some time if he is to get the best figures of realisation.
    468
    So I cannot answer the second question.
    Mr. Barnett: Is the new legislation in the Companies Act now working in such a way as to prevent this sort of thing from happening again?
    Mr. Dell: The legislation in the Companies Act would not help particularly in this case. This is a matter concerned with the Protection of Depositors Act. But if hon. Members have any proposals to make which would help to prevent such an event as this, we should be glad to hear them.

    Foreign Exchange Earnings
    Mr. Blakerasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the net foreign exchange earnings of the consulting engineering industry in 1968.
    Mr. Dell: Information on these earnings is not available, but discussions are proceeding with the profession with a view to obtaining it.
    Mr. Blaker: Will the Minister press ahead with these discussions in view of the recommendation of the Bland Committee in 1967 that the statistics for invisible earnings should be improved? Will he also investigate the import content of the earnings of this industry?
    Mr. Dell: I will certainly press ahead. I note the hon. Gentleman's second point, and will see what information we can obtain.
    Mr. Blakerasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the net foreign exchange earnings of the insurance industry in 1968.
    Mr. Crosland: The 1968 figures are not yet complete, but I expect the net earnings (including portfolio income) to exceed the £135 million recorded for 1967.
    Mr. Blaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in 1967 the Bland Committee recommended that the Government should find ways of mitigating the impact of S.E.T. on service industries which made overseas earnings? Is not this a good case in point?
    Mr. Crosland: I understand that this very matter has recently been discussed at length in Committee on the Finance Bill.

    Liquidations (Workers' Wages)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to ensure the rights of a workman as a preferential creditor for wages owing him, even if the assets of the firm for which he was working are seized on liquidation by local authorities employing such a firm when it fails to complete its contract.
    Mr. Dell: I doubt whether this would be desirable but will consider the suggestion again in preparing any further companies legislation.
    Mr. Allaun: Is not this in conflict with the accepted principle that unpaid wages are a priority claim? In the case of the Salford workers which I raised with the Minister, did not several local authorities seize valuable plant belonging to the building company?
    Mr. Dell: As I indicated, my mind is certainly not closed to this idea. In the case mentioned, most of the equipment which was on hire or hire purchase was repossessed by the owners before the winding up. The problem is to balance the interests of the individual, who has certain preferential claims, and the interests of the community, which, through the local authority, wishes to enter into advantageous contracts. Nevertheless, I will certainly consider the matter.

    Petro-Chemical Plant (Scottish Highlands)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received any request for Board of Trade assistance towards the establishment of a petro-chemical plant in the Highlands of Scotland.
    Mr. Dell: As the hon. Member has already been advised, it is not our practice to reveal details of individual applications to, or inquiries from, the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: As in this instance a taxpayers' subsidy of £72,000 to an American company for every job created is involved, and in view of the recent advice from several independent authorities that the Government are giving excessive encouragement to the development of capital-intensive, as opposed
    470
    to labour-intensive, industries in development areas, is it not essential that the House should be informed of and have an opportunity to discuss any such grants or loans before they are made?
    Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman is now talking about £72,000 a job whereas last time he referred to £176,000 a job, so any rate the figure is coming down. The sort of investment incentives given by Governments over a period have been capital-intensive in the way the hon. Gentleman says. I am not myself persuaded that that is a bad thing. At any rate, it is possible that the present system of incentives which we operate is less capital-intensive than that operated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are powerful vested interests in the Highlands which do not want any industry there? Will he give an assurance that if the Department is satisfied that this is an economically feasible project, the Board of Trade will give all the assistance it possibly can?
    Mr. Dell: We will consider this project in exactly the same way as any other project. I am glad to note my hon. Friend's welcome for what the Board of Trade is doing to assist employment in the Highlands.

    Imported Boned Beef
    Mr. Gardnerasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee on the importation of carcase meat from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic, he will so reduce the 20 per cent. duty on imported boned meat as to ensure that the present levels of beef prices are not increased.
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on the proposed reduction of import duty on boneless meat.
    Mr. Dell: It is the Government's intention that the duty should be reduced so that a reasonable amount of trade may flow. Before recommending the new rate, I shall take account of all relevant factors, including the probable effect on prices. Discussions with the interests concerned are continuing, and a statement will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Gardner: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that his Department is responsible for consumer protection, and will he assure us that the duty will be reduced to an extent that will maintain beef prices? Will he resist pressure from sections of the agricultural industry which appear to want meat imports to be stopped altogether?
    Mr. Dell: I note what my hon. Friend says. I hope that we shall be able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion which will have a minimal effect on prices.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that many South American countries which supply us with this meat run appalling trade deficits with us? Will he try to reduce this drain on our currency, in particular by encouraging home meat production instead of buying from overseas?
    Mr. Dell: We are encouraging home meat production. What we are here considering is the duty on boneless beef.

    Exports (Rhodesia)
    Mr. Boothasked the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been granted for exports to Southern Rhodesia since the commencement of sanctions.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The information is not readily available and its value would not justify the amount of work which its extraction would entail. Licences have been, and are being, issued for supplies for medical and educational purposes for books and news material and for the essential needs of those Central African common services which are vital to the economic well-being of Zambia.
    Mr. Booth: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have evidence which I have sent to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that trade in engineering goods is taking place? To exert the maximum economic pressure on the régime, will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that there will be no further exports to Rhodesia by licence granted by the Board of Trade, and will she deal with the problems arising from this for other countries by direct means?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We will certainly look at any evidence which the hon. Gentleman has. As he realises, export
    472
    licences have to be granted, and normally these are a very efficient check. However, we will look at the matter again.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the hon. Lady be very careful in taking such action so that it does not lead to hardship to Africans in Rhodesia and Zambia?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am a very prudent lady and I shall do nothing to contravene the United Nations resolution.

    Registration of Hotels
    Mr. Milneasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now announce the date on which he will introduce the registration of hotels in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): The Development of Tourism Bill now before the House contains enabling powers for the registration of tourist accommodation, and the tourist boards for which it also provides will no doubt consider the question in due course and make recommendations.
    Mr. Milne: Will my hon. Friend take steps to put this legislation into operation as early as possible, in view of the emphasis laid by his right hon. Friend on the importance of tourism?
    Mr. Rodgers: I hope that the further stages of this important Bill will be completed quickly. We shall then set up the boards, but we must allow them an opportunity to consider these proposals and suggest to us what they would like to see done.

    United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
    Mr. Juddasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the latest developments within the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    Mr. Crosland: Over the past several months the Trade and Development Board and all its main committees have met to follow up the results of the Second United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. In addition, the Board has considered, and will continue to consider at its next meeting in the autumn, the proper contribution of U.N.C.T.A.D.

    473
    to the preparatory work of the Second United Nations Development Decade.
    Mr. Judd: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but does not he agree that if our aid and development programme is to have any meaning, progress must be made on this front? What steps does he propose to take in terms of initiative by the Government?
    Mr. Crosland: Aid questions are obviously a matter for my right hon. Friend. On trade, by far the most important thing is to follow up the initiative taken at New Delhi on generalised preference. Since New Delhi, the Government have consistently taken the lead on this. We are waiting particularly for one other major Government to table their proposals.

    Balance of Payments (United Kingdom and Canada)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken to correct the balance of payments between the United Kingdom and Canada.
    Mr. Crosland: Although we do not aim at an exact balance of trade with individual countries, it is our continuing object, through the Government export services and in conjunction with B.N.E.C., to give all possible assistance to British exporters to exploit the opportunities of this important and expanding market.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does not my right hon. Friend find it extraordinary that the Commonwealth country of Canada is making large purchases from the United States and elsewhere? Cannot Canada make more purchases from this country to help our balance of payments, otherwise what is the point of Canada remaining in the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Crosland: The last part of my right hon. Friend's supplementary question raises rather wider issues. Of course we are extremely anxious to increase our exports to Canada, but I must insist that it would make no sense for this country to aim at an exact balance of trade with every country. Our imports from Canada are mostly of wheat and essential raw materials, and there is no reason why we should have an exact balance of trade with Canada or any other country.

    Minister's Visit to Moscow
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on his official visit to Moscow and on the future of Anglo-Soviet trade.
    Mr. Crosland: I visited the Soviet Union at the beginning of this month to discuss with the Soviet Minister of Foreign Trade the development of trade between our two countries, and to sign a new trade agreement for the period from 1st July 1969 to 31st December 1975. The text of the agreement will be laid before Parliament as a White Paper later this month. I expect Anglo-Soviet trade, which doubled in value between 1964 and 1968, to continue to grow; and I hope it will become more diversified.
    I also took the opportunity of being in Moscow to meet the Soviet Minister of Civil Aviation to express my interest in negotiations being opened for an air route across Siberia to the Far East.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: While I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, unlike the Minister of Technology, took the opportunity to raise the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke, may I ask him whether there was full discussion of the persistently adverse balance of trade with the Soviet Union, and what will be done to redress it?
    Mr. Crosland: Yes, there was, of course, discussion on the adverse balance of trade, and the Minister of Foreign Trade assured me that he wished to see an increase in British exports to the Soviet Union. I must point out that this adverse balance has diminished considerably in the last two or three years, and that a considerable part of it is due to our imports of diamonds which we then re-export to other countries.

    Retail Distribution (Money Offers)
    Mr. Milneasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will institute a study into the cost effect of money offers in the various fields of retail distribution.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: How far the benefit of increased sales will outweigh the cost of redeeming coupons is

    475
    a matter for the individual retailer's judgment.
    Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a matter of consumer protection and that an examination of this method of selling and of methods of fixing prices is urgently required?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We should welcome any possibility of examining whether such a cessation of trading practice would really mean a drop in prices, but I am afraid that the form of publicity used by commercial firms does not equal in amounts of money a considerable price reduction.

    Hoverports
    Mr. Woodnuttasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now introduce an Order under the Hovercraft Act 1968 giving local authorities control over the siting of hoverports as defined in Section 4(1) of the Act where a material change of use of land is not involved and building or engineering operations are not involved.
    Mr. William Rodgers: No, Sir. The need for this has not been established.
    Mr. Woodnutt: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that he and his right hon. Friend have misunderstood every letter I have written to them? Most of these hoverports are being established where there is no material change of user and local authorities have no control whatever. If we are to avoid chaos in the Solent, the Government must introduce an Order in Council under the Hovercraft Act to give local authorities power and control.
    Mr. Rodgers: I am sorry that we have not been as helpful to the hon. Member as I had hoped. I realise that he has a difficult local problem. There are some strong feelings involved. The fact remains that the need has not yet been established for the sort of legislation the hon. Member has in mind.

  AVIATION

    Third London Airport (VTO Aircraft)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he
    476
    will submit to the Roskill Commission on the location of a Third London Airport Departmental evidence on the development of vertical take-off airliners, in view of its relevance to the siting of airports.
    Mr. William Rodgers: The Commission on the Third London Airport has already received evidence from the Government on this.
    Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend not agree that there is a great need to stress this matter since it is quite useless to have the present long and complicated inquiry involving time, labour and resources if by the '80s and '90s, when such an airport comes into operation, people can fly direct from the centre of London to the centre of New York?
    Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that my hon. Friend's conclusions follow. I entirely agree with him that the prospects for short take-off and vertical take-off airliners are very interesting. That is why so much work is being done on this, particularly by my right hon. Friend's Department.

    Municipal Airports (Consultative Committees)
    Mr. Speedasked the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department is giving to municipal airports setting up consultative committees under Section 8(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1968; and if he will list the authorities that are setting up such committees.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Discussions have been held with the bodies representing most aerodrome owners, and advice will continue to be available to individual aerodrome owners about the provision of facilities for consultation. In the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) on 23rd May 1969, I listed the 13 aerodromes which have been designated so far. In practice, nearly all their owners have, or intend to, set up consultative committees.—[Vol. 784, c. 171.]
    Mr. Speed: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is essential that these committees should be working as soon as possible? Can he give an assurance that the Maud proposals will not be used

    477
    as an excuse to delay setting up these committees?
    Mr. Rodgers: We favour widespread consultation with the interests concerned, where aerodromes are sited. We are certainly playing our full part.
    Mr. Onslow: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many other inquiries he has had recommending the establishment of such committees on which he has not yet given a decision, and what are the criteria which lead him to a decision?
    Mr. Rodgers: We have so far designated aerodromes where there is most public concern. In general, we attempt to respond to local opinion, bearing in mind that a single criticism would not be sufficient to make us feel it necessary to invoke the provisions of the Act.

    Roskill Commission's Report
    Mr. Onslowasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the complete report of the Roskill Commission.
    Mr. Crosland: During the course of next year.
    Mr. Onslow: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon thereafter he will be willing to publish the report and when he would expect the House to have an opportunity to debate it? Assuming that the recommendations are acceptable to Parliament, how soon would he expect construction to start?
    Mr. Crosland: The answer to all three parts of the supplementary question is "as soon as reasonably possible".

    British European Airways (Aircraft Requirements)
    Mr. Onslowasked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the Chairman of British European Airways concerning the corporation's future aircraft requirements; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Rodgers: We are in close touch with B.E.A. but it has not yet made any proposals to us.
    Mr. Onslow: Although I understand that it is very difficult to get firm dates out of the Board of Trade, can the Minister say what target dates he sees
    478
    as being necessary for a firm decision on the BAC311?
    Mr. Rodgers: It is now for B.E.A. to come back to us with firm proposals. The consequences of these for the BAC311 or any other aircraft are a matter which we would have to consider with B.E.A. and with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

    Edwards Committee (White Paper)
    Mr. Fortescueasked the President of the Board of Trade when he now expects to publish the White Paper on the proposals of the Edwards Committee.
    Mr. Crosland: I am proceeding with the consultations to which I referred in my answer of 30th April. I aim to publish a White Paper as soon as possible but I now think it unlikely that this will be before the summer recess.
    Mr. Fortescue: Can the President of the Board of Trade confirm or deny that the delay in discussing the future of the multi-million pound aircraft industry is due to the fact that 170 warehousemen have been on strike and, therefore, 10,000 copies of the Edwards Report have been locked in a warehouse for many weeks? If this is the chief reason for delay, would it not have been better to print a few more copies?
    Mr. Crosland: This is not the chief reason for the delay. We have ensured that, despite the strike, which created difficulties, copies of the report have gone to all persons and organisations closely affected. The main point is that the Edwards Report, as hon. Members who have read it will know, is a very complex and very controversial document. There are passionate feelings about it in different sections of the aviation industry. I wish to be absolutely certain that every section of the industry has the fullest opportunity to make its views known before the Government take action.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all that he has just said is completely true?
    Mr. Corfield: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that a decision on many recommendations in the Edwards Report is very urgent. Will he consider making his decisions known, if necessarily, piecemeal when they are

    479
    important, rather than wait until he is in a position to take a decision on all the recommendations?
    Mr. Crosland: We might consider that in particular cases. But I must insist that, given how complex and controversial the report is, it is much better for hon. Members on both sides of the House to know in detail the views of all parts of the industry before we finally make up our minds.

    Airports (British Overseas Territories)
    Mr. Fortescueasked the President of the Board of Trade what facilities are normally provided by his Department at airports in British overseas territories.
    Mr. William Rodgers: The provision of facilities is primarily the responsibility of the territory concerned. But in certain cases, taking into account, for example, the financial position of a territory, the Board does from time to time contribute to the cost involved.
    Mr. Fortescue: Would not the Minister agree that in territories such as Hong Kong, to which much wanted tourist traffic is denied by the British Government's action in refusing landing rights to foreign airlines, there is a moral obligation on the British Government to help the Government of Hong Kong to provide facilities such as the lengthening of runways at Kaitak airport?
    Mr. Rodgers: No, I do not accept that a moral obligation is involved. Some proposals about Hong Kong have been made to us and we are considering them.
    Mr. Dalyell: To come a bit nearer home than Hong Kong, to the capital city of Scotland, can something be done urgently about Edinburgh airport and, in particular—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House did not know that Scotland was overseas.

    Commonwealth Air Transport Council
    Mr. Bostonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the meeting of the Commonwealth Air Transport Council.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the President of the Board of Trade when he will make a statement about the recent meeting of the Commonwealth Air Transport Council.
    Mr. William Rodgers: The meeting was a successful one. Nineteen members of the council and five British overseas territories were represented, and the very full agenda was usefully discussed.
    With permission, I will arrange for some additional information to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Boston: What progress is being made on noise certification? What action is being taken to obtain further international agreement on this? What international agreement is being sought on the problem of sonic bangs from supersonic airliners?
    Mr. Rodgers: The conference was not concerned primarily with certification, because, as my hon. Friend knows, this is mainly a matter for the British, French and United States Governments. The problem of noise was certainly mentioned, including by myself when opening the conference. Good progress was made in discussing all the consequences of the development of Concorde and the operation of S.S.T.
    Mr. Dalyell: At the Commonwealth Air Transport Council, was it considered appropriate to discuss the Commonwealth Games, which are to be held in Edinburgh in 1970? In particular, what is to be done about the ground landing equipment and the ground radar equipment and Trident installations at Edinburgh airport?
    Mr. Rodgers: I very much regret that this very important item did not find its way on to the agenda.
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman said that good progress was made in discussions on the operation of Concorde. Can he say anything about what decisions were taken, or what recommendations were made, about the operation of Concorde at supersonic speeds over land?
    Mr. Rodgers: The Council did not expect to reach decisions. It was convened largely in order to inform interested Governments of the progress which had been made in the United Kingdom. We shall keep them in touch in future, but we cannot expect just now

    481
    any decisions of the kind the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
    Following is the information:
    The Seventh Meeting of the Commonwealth Air Transport Council was held at the premises of the Royal Commonwealth Society, Northumberland Avenue, W.C.2, from 3rd to 13th June, 1969.
    2. The following member countries of the Council were represented:

    Australia

    Barbados

    Canada

    Ceylon

    Cyprus

    East African Community

    Ghana

    Guyana

    India

    Jamaica

    Lesotho

    Malawi

    Mauritius

    New Zealand

    Nigeria

    Pakistan

    Sierra Leone

    Singapore

    United Kingdom.

    Representatives from Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Fiji, Hong Kong and Gibraltar also attended. Representatives from France and from the Commonwealth Secretariat were present by special invitation.
    3. Observers from the United Kingdom aeronautical and electronic industries, Commonwealth airlines, the Air Registration Board and the British Airports Authority were present and contributed to discussion.
    4. The first week of the Conference was devoted to discussion of the development of Concorde and the operation of SSTs. Later discussions included the introduction of jumbo jets, and future civil transport aircraft. Papers were presented by the United Kingdom, and by
    Australia (Satellite communication)
    Hong Kong (ATC requirements for SSTs and the impact of the jumbo jets on aerodrome design)
    Singapore (Proposed routes to be operated by SSTs and Training requirements)
    New Zealand (Hovercraft).
    5. Delegates visited the BAC and Rolls-Royce works at Filton where they saw the Concorde assembly line and the Olympus 593 under test. They spent a day visiting RAE Farnborough and the National Gas Turbine Establishment and crossed the Channel to Calais in a SRN-4 hovercraft.

    Aircraft Noise
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will institute discussions with the controllers of municipal and private airports on the question of aircraft noise, in order that
    482
    they may have the best available technological advice in preventing undue nuisance to the public living within the radius of such airports.
    Mr. William Rodgers: As I said in reply to the hon. Member's question on 19th March, the Board of Trade is always prepared to give advice to aerodrome owners on ways to reduce aircraft noise disturbance. This advice takes account of the relevant technological factors.—[Vol 780, c. 104–5.]
    Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that, with the trend towards greater use of municipal airports for private flying and training flying, the nuisance is increased to residents unfortunate enough to live in the area? Will he therefore do something more positive to help these people?
    Mr. Rodgers: The arrangements which we have made for consultation at municipal airports are a good way in which local opinion can make its views known. At that stage a balance may be struck between what are sometimes competing interests.
    Mr. Bostonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress being made with the social survey being carried out into the effects upon people of aircraft noise.
    Mr. William Rodgers: We hope that the computer programmes needed for the analysis of this major sociological study will soon be ready.
    Mr. Boston: Does my hon. Friend agree that serious doubts have arisen about the conclusions of the Wilson Committee on the noise and number index; and that people may be more widely affected than was previously thought? Does he agree that any conclusions on this arising as a result of the new survey need to be taken into account before a decision on the third London airport is reached?
    Mr. Rodgers: This sociological study is in advance of anything which has been undertaken anywhere else in the world. We think that its results will be important. We shall seek to give priority to those of greatest interest to the Roskill Commission.
    Mr. McMaster: Will the Minister say in this context the range within which houses can be situated to an airfield used by vertical take-off airliners, and whether it is possible for such an airliner carrying 100 or more passengers to take off from the centre of a city?
    Mr. Rodgers: In all our discussions on noise we must certainly bear in mind the prospects of vertical take-off aircraft coming into operation in, say, ten years' time.
    Mr. Corfield: Will the Minister bear in mind the importance of giving the House any information on this subject as soon as it is available?
    Mr. Rodgers: Yes, we will tell the House all we can about the results of the studies.

    OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)
    Mr. Fortescue: On a point of order. I yield to none in my admiration of the daily miracle of HANSARD and when I do find an error, which is rare, my only reaction is one of astonishment. But I have to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, to the fact that in yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT there was an error in which a gross injustice has been done to the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones).
    By mistake, nearly all my remarks in the debate on the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill last night were attributed to him. Since perhaps he would not be fully in agreement with those remarks and since my manner of expression is certainly not worthy of him and since I would hate to detract from his triumph on the Divorce Reform Bill, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to instruct that the necessary correction should be made.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has raised his point of order with becoming modesty. I quite understand the embarrassment to both hon. Members if one hon. Member's remarks were attributed to an hon. Member on the other side. The correction will be made. I am glad that the hon. Member took the opportunity of paying a tribute to those who report so assiduously and accurately what is said in the House. As the hon. Gentleman
    484
    has said, the miracle is that there are not more errors.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Mr. Speaker, I recollect that on one or two occasions in the past you have expressed the view that it is undesirable that late Questions should be tacked on to earlier Questions by Departments.
    I notice today that Questions No. 70, 72 and 74, to the Board of Trade, were taken with an earlier Question. I do not raise this as any point of criticism, but I wanted to ask you whether this rule or advice still stands, or whether it has been changed.
    Mr. Speaker: I might have had today an opportunity of invoking my own Ruling. It is not my practice to insist that an hon. Member who has down a late Question which is answered with an earlier one has the right to put a supplementary question.
    I studied the matter carefully this morning, I watched the shape of questioning and it depended upon the shape of the questioning today. I was aware of the point and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention to it. It would otherwise be possible for a Question that was put down very late, say, Questions Nos. 70 or 75, precluding an hon. Member who had a question at, say, Nos. 30, 35 or 40.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that I watch this point carefully every day.

BILL PRESENTED
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS)
  Bill to provide for the making of a special report by the Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland and Wales constituted by the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949, for the amendment of the Representation of the People Acts, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Ronald Bell; supported by Mr. John Hall, Mr. Airey Neave, Mr. Edward M. Taylor, and Mr. Peter Hordern; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

  TRAVEL TRADE REGISTRATION
  3.35 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Milne: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to register certain sections of the travel trade and to introduce a code of conduct for the travel trade.
  I introduced a similar Bill on 30th May, 1962. I now seek to show greater necessity for this type of Bill than even at that time, despite repeated efforts of the trade to put its house in order.
  On that occasion, I stated:
  "The Association of British Travel Agents and its code of conduct, the integrity, competence and high standard of service given by the profession will be the background to the standard needed in this flourishing industry".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, May, 1962; Vol. 660, c. 1365.]
  There is little time to give figures, but everyone is aware of the mushroom-like growth of the travel trade in the past seven years. Despite the passage of time the fact must be faced that A.B.T.A. is still on trial. It has not yet demonstrated that it can and will deal with the problems of the future.
  Arising from the efforts to introduce legislation to deal with the travel industry, and encouraged and assisted by the Board of Trade, A.B.T.A. introduced its "Operation Stabiliser" on 1st April, 1966, as a safeguard to holiday-makers faced with the loss of holidays and holiday money arising from liquidations and bankruptcies, but it still did not deal with many of the other problems arising in the travel trade.
  From that date, many non-A.B.T.A. travel agents all over the country had the greatest difficulty in continuing to earn their livelihood, despite the fact that they had been long established and had given excellent service to the public. A leader in The Times on 13th August, 1964 said:
  "A trade association exists, first and foremost, to advance the commercial interests of its members, make it a closed shop, and its primary interest may diverge sharply from the public or of newcomers to the business."
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade, in reply to an Adjournment debate raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) on 14th June, 1966, said:
  486
  "I am aware that the introduction of 'Operation Stabiliser' has caused some disquiet, particularly among travel agents who are not members of A.B.T.A."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 1425.]
  My hon. Friend repeated the assurance that he would not hesitate to act should it show signs of developing in an undesirable way.
  I again introduced a Bill similar to the Bill which I seek to introduce today on 1st February, 1967. That was a day which you, Mr. Speaker, will recollect as the first of our morning sittings and the very first item of business in that experimental period. The Bill was given leave to be brought in by a substantial majority of the House, but was vigorously opposed by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) who, unfortunately, is today otherwise engaged, but I have given him notice of my intention to raise this matter.
  On that occasion, the hon. Member said that the travel trade had been flogged to death with a good deal of exaggeration. He added that he knew something about the travel business, since he had an interest in it, and he referred to the rescue fund that had been set up for holiday makers by A.B.T.A., which at that time stood in the region of £100,000. At the beginning of this year the director general of A.B.T.A. stated that the payments from the common fund in 1967 had been made good and that no claims on the fund had been made in 1968. Nevertheless, he stated that the fund was still insufficient to meet the liabilities which are likely to be incurred in the event of a major failure in the height of the holiday season.
  It is felt that there are imminent failures on the way to the knowledge of the travel trade and that liquidations are still proceeding. The figures I have mentioned have to be contrasted with a similar fund set up by the Danish Travel Trade, following the collapse of several large Scandinavian travel companies. The figure planned by the Danish travel agents is in the region of £500,000—a substantial increase on the amount felt to be needed by our own travel agencies.
  The events of the past weekend have placed the travel trade and its major organisation at the cross roads. We read in the Travel Trade Gazette that the

  487
  Secretary-General of A.B.T.A. and his assistant are no longer in their posts.
  In the same journal there is talk of the reasons for this crisis in A.B.T.A., including the expensive failure of the Economist Intelligence Unit Report, commissioned by the Association, and the lack of guidance given to A.B.T.A. members after the British Eagle failure.
  One instance of the dangers inherent in the fact that A.B.T.A. is the only voice of the travel industry which is recognised by the Government, can be given by briefly citing a case being examined in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw), where a travel agent in Jersey, whose name was circulated by A.B.T.A. on its special list at the end of 1967, found himself out of business, and an agency with a turnover of about £70,000 a year was closed down. The Board of Trade have since written to me saying that this was based on incorrect information. In fairness to all concerned, an inquiry or legislation is needed on this matter.
  My Bill would also deal with holiday camps, into which a close inquiry is needed. Holiday camps are very helpful indeed to our balance of payments, to which reference was made at Question Time today, and proper supervision of them is necessary to give this country prestige abroad, as many foreign nationals are working within the travel industry.
  As long ago as January, 1963, the Association of National Tourist Office Representatives in Great Britain supported a Bill of this kind as beneficial, not only to holiday makers in Britain, but to holidaymakers throughout the continent. The Bill would seek to give unshakable guarantees to the travelling public and to such parties with whom they contract. It would seek to provide indemnity for any failure on the part of a travel agent to produce the service and amenities for which he had contracted.
  Knowing the tolerance and interest that the House takes in this subject, I ask, with confidence, for leave to be given to bring in the Bill.
  3.43 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: I followed with great interest the submission of the hon. Member for Blyth
  488
  (Mr. Milne). I know and, indeed, recognise the interest that he has brought to this subject over a long period. We all admire his sense of purpose and tenacity, but I hope to show briefly that these excellent attributes are misdirected and that much of what he seeks is already in operation.
  The hon. Gentleman and I had the opportunity of debating the issues which lie at the root of his advocacy in September, 1967, at a weekend study course at Merton College, Oxford, organised by the Institute of Travel Agents. I was invited as a shareholder and director of a firm of travel agents. Clearly, my advocacy on that occasion did not achieve its purpose.
  In his submission, the hon. Gentleman has extended the scope of his proposed Bill to include holiday camps. But I think that this matter is adequately dealt with, certainly concerning the points that he mentioned, in Part III, Clause 17, of the Development of Tourism Bill, which is going through the House, and is likely to reach its Report stage in the near future.
  The two issues with which we are concerned essentially, as heretofore, are the proper conduct of their business by tour operators and travel agents and provision against the loss of public money. The introduction of "Operation Stabiliser" in October, 1965, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, is the key to the method by which A.B.T.A. hoped to achieve its objectives, and I think it has. "Operation Stabiliser" introduced this condition:
  "Tour operators who are members of A.B.T.A. shall appoint as agents and pay commission only to travel agents who are also members of A.B.T.A. and, secondly, travel agents who are members of A.B.T.A. shall sell tours and holidays as defined above only on behalf of tour operators who are members of A.B.T.A.".
  Membership of A.B.T.A. must inevitably, to some extent, be selective, because it calls for knowledge and experience, but it is in no way intended to be restrictive, as the hon. Gentleman implied. It wills the means, and its success during the past four years clearly shows that it is able to secure the protection of the public. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman should say that A.B.T.A. is still untried, because there is substantial evidence of success in what it is trying to do.

  489
  The hon. Gentleman made reference to his Adjournment debate on 13th December, 1965. The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), who was then Minister of State, Board of Trade, said:
  "… we are now proposing to await some experience of how the travel trade and its structure are in practice being affected by the introduction of the A.B.T.A. 'Stabiliser Operation' … we do not feel that we should be justified in urging A.B.T.A. to reconsider its scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1965; Vol 722, c, 1053.]
  That, I understand, is the position today. A.B.T.A. has not been asked to amend its scheme in any way by the Board of Trade.
  This brings me to the second and equally important part of A.B.T.A.'s policy, namely, financial protection for the public. The Association introduced accountancy rules in October, 1964, followed by the establishment of a common fund in February, 1965. This immediately followed the attempt by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), who failed in his efforts to secure a Travel Agents Bill which, at that time, had the support of A.B.T. A.
  Members of A.B.T.A. subscribed to this common fund on the basis of their turnover. With a turnover up to £100,000, £12 10s. per annum; over £1,800,000, £125 per annum. These regulations produced about £30,000 a year with an agreed responsibility for a further call of a similar amount in the event of additional demands arising against the fund.
  Costs against the common fund to date have been of a substantial character. Two tour operators were involved in August and September, 1967, totalling over £30,000, of which £4,700 had been recovered. There were also two retail agents, involving a total sum of just over £1,500.
  Mr. Dennis Walsh, the Chairman of the Association of British Travel Agents, in a message to its members in April this year, said:
  "Since the Common Fund was established four years ago it has been the proud boast of our Association that no client of ours would lose an overseas holiday or be stranded abroad through the financial failure of an A.B.T.A. member. We believed that we had a moral
  490
  obligation to provide protection in this way to the members of the public who trust us with their holiday money. We also realised that such an assurance had a hard commercial value in building up public good will and confidence in our industry."
  I think that it was a little unfair or ungenerous of the hon. Member for Blyth to refer to a leader in The Times as far back as 1964, because circumstances have changed so much since that time.
  The fund now stands at £40,000, and annual contributions due on 31st July this year will bring the total to £70,000, against which there is a demand, due to the failure of Wrights Holidays Ltd., of Birmingham, which occurred in February this year, for an estimated £30,000. Surely A.B.T.A. is to be congratulated on its achievements over the past four to five years, in which it is recognised—certainly by myself—what an important part the hon. Member for Blyth has played.
  Since 1962, the travel trade turnover, excluding insurance and freight, has risen from under £150 million to over £300 million for 1968. The measures taken by A.B.T.A. have, surely, in the main, given the hon. Gentleman what he wants. I see no point of substance which justifies a Bill such as he proposes, and I must, therefore, oppose it.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Milne, Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Mr. Maurice Edelman, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Arnold Gregory, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Will Owen, Mr. Laurence Pavitt, Mr. Arnold Shaw, and Mr. W. T. Williams.

  TRAVEL TRADE REGISTRATION
  Bill to register certain sections of the travel trade and to introduce a code of conduct for the travel trade; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 20th June, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Mr. Speaker: I have published my list of sleceted Amendments, as is my wont. We come now to new Clause 5.
  Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have kindly indicated that we can discuss, as Amendments to the new Clause, Amendment (a), in line 1, leave out 'where' to 'powers' in line 3 and insert:
  'a local authority have by resolution declared an area of land to be a general improvement area'.
  Amendment (b), in line 1, leave out from 'have' to end of Clause and insert:

  New Clause 5

  PROTECTION AGAINST BLIGHT

  5

  Where, in pursuance of section 35 of this Act, a local authority have published information indicating that they propose to acquire any land in the exercise of their powers under this Part of this Act, sections 139 to 151 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 (protection of interests in land affected by planning proposals) shall have effect as if

  (a) the land were included in that specified in subsection (1) of section 138 of that Act and its description in the definition of 'the specified descriptions' in subsection (5) of that section; and

  10

  (b) in section 139(3) of that Act 'the relevant date' were defined, in relation to on the land, as the date on which the information was first published;

  and section 152 of that Act (no withdrawal of constructive notice to treat) shall have effect accordingly; and section 34 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 (power of mortgagee to serve blight notice) shall apply in relation to the land as it applies in relation to land of the descriptions mentioned in subsection (2) of that section.

  —[Mr. Skeffington.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.52 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  I hope that I might move this Motion with some despatch, because I am sure that the Clause will be generally welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and also because, in part, it owes its existence to the advocacy of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page).
  'declared an area to be a general improvement area then any person being the owner-occupier of any dwelling within that area may serve on the local authority concerned, at any time within six months from the date of the declaration, a notice in writing requiring such authority to purchase his interest in the dwelling whereupon the local authority shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire such interest compulsorily by compulsory purchase order in relation to which Part I of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 applies and to have served a notice to treat on the date upon which the owner-occupier served his notice by virtue of this clause'.
  Amendment (c), in line 10, leave out from 'which' to end of line and insert 'the resolution was passed'.
  May I ask that we might have Amendment (a) called for a Division if the Minister does not satisfy us?
  Mr. Speaker: I am in a gentle mood at the moment. I am prepared to concede a Division on Amendment (a).
  The position about compensation for blight as a result of planning procedures, as is well known to hon. Members who interest themselves in this problem, is broadly that if an owner-occupier, a small person, or indeed, a small businessman, occupying premises with a rateable value of £750 a year is adversely affected by what appears to be a fairly precise indication that at some stage the land on which the premises are situated will be acquired, he can in certain circumstances serve a notice asking the appropriate public body to purchase.
  Normally speaking, the categories are the case of land comprised in a compulsory purchase order, or where there is a firm indication that land under a structure plan, as it will be in future, or under a development plan sometimes in the past, is likely to be acquired by a public body. The public body has the opportunity of serving a counter-notice that, in the end the land is not likely to be required.
  As the law stands, it would not be possible to apply the blighting provisions in improvement areas. Improvement areas are only just being defined and discussed in the Bill. When this matter was first considered by the Government, it was considered not necessary to include this provision, for the simple reason that the declaration of an improvement area will, in most cases, have an extremely beneficial effect on the area as a whole because here, by quite substantial grants, owner-occupiers will be encouraged to improve their houses to bring them up to a very high standard.
  Furthermore, by the environmental grant, with the help of substantial Treasury backing, there will be the equivalent of a maximum of £100 per house to be spent on improving the neighbourhood. Consequently, the last thing that will normally happen when an improvement area is declared is any deterioration in the value of property.
  Subsequently, the hon. Member for Crosby pointed out that there might occasionally be the case where, after the resolution had been passed under Clause 32, and the declaration under Clause 35 made about details of the improvement area, some property was affected, and that in these circumstances—although such cass will be rare—an owner might find difficulty in getting the market price for his property.
  The sort of thing that one has in mind is where there is a derelict piece of land and if the end house next to it were added, or if the area of the land on which that house stands were added to the derelict piece of land, it would be possible to make a play space, or a small garden, or something which would improve the quality of the environment.
  In those circumstances, it is possible that an owner-occupier or small business man might be in difficulty. The Clause will provide a suitable opportunity for a
  494
  local authority to make its position clear by a counter-notice if the land is not to be ultimately acquired, and for the small man to claim the blight provisions. I hope, therefore, that the Clause will receive general approbation.
  In view of this substantial Clause, in the sense that it can cover any real hardship, I hope that the Opposition will not press their Amendments. I say that for two reasons. First, if they press them, they might find that they would have an unfortunate effect upon the determination of some local authorities to go ahead with improvement areas. One Amendment would enable any owner-occupier in an improvement area to serve a notice on the local authority requiring it to purchase. I think that some authorities would not want to face a situation in which, under the Amendment as drafted, they have no option to refuse. There is no question of serving a counter-notice. They might have to buy a large number of properties which they do not require, and therefore it would be difficult to say that any hardship arose. The whole point is to deal with hardship.
  The other Amendment would give a similar provision, but in respect of any land within the improvement area. Again, unless one can say that there is hardship in this, there is the opportunity for a local authority to serve its counter-notice. It would be making the blight provisions go very wide indeed, with the result that it could have a seriously inhibiting effect on local authorities and their determination of the areas. That is all I say now, but I am sure that the Clause will be generally welcomed.
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we have a mass of work ahead of us. Reasonably brief speeches, and reasonably brief debates, will help.
  Mr. Hugh Rossi: We are grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the concession he has made in seeking to meet the real objections that we raised in Committee. This Clause was foreshadowed by new Clause 11, which was moved in Committee. We are, however, somewhat disappointed, because the Clause does not follow some of the assurances that we thought we received on that occasion.
  New Clause 11 which I moved in Committee—and the hon. Gentleman will find

  495
  this at col. 865—proposed that any person having an interest in any dwelling included in a general improvement area might serve notice on a local authority at any time within six months of the making of the declaration, and that following on the service of that notice the local authority would be obliged to acquire that person's interest, following the general law that exists where a clearance area has been made.
  4.0 p.m.
  The cogent objection of the Parliamentary Secretary, in Committee, was that to give this right to a person with any interest in any house might be far too wide and unworkable. He suggested that consideration might be given to tabling on Report a new Clause limiting this right to the owner-occupier. As a result of that, Amendment (b) was tabled to the new Clause.
  It seeks to give the owner-occupier of any dwelling within an area prescribed by a local authority as a general improvement area the right to serve a six months' notice, as suggested in the new Clause which we discussed in Committee and which I thought was acceptable, apart from the description of the interests in respect of which this procedure could be adopted. It is, therefore, disappointing that, since we have tried to meet the objections expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, he proposes on Report to narrow the field of operation still further.
  Only Amendment (b) deals with the owner-occupier. The other Amendments deal with the point in time when a person affected can serve notice on the local authority requiring it to buy the house. The new Clause states that the right to serve the notice can arise only when the local authority says that it wants the property and has published information under Clause 35 saying, "We intend at some time to acquire the property". When that happens, the individual concerned can say, "Do not let us wait until you are ready. Buy it from me now".
  We suggest in the Amendments that as soon as the local authority declares an area to be a general improvement area, whether or not it says that it may want to acquire later, the owner of any property in the area should be able to
  496
  say to the authority, "If you want to make this a general improvement area, take my property from me, whether or not you say that you will acquire it at some future time".
  The Government's attitude is that the initiative must always rest with the local authority, which can say, "We wish to acquire" and the owner can say, "Please acquire it now". We say that, whether or not the local authority exercises this power, an individual who may be affected in a variety of ways by the declaration of a general improvement area should be able to say, "As you want to do something in this area which may detrimentally affect my property, you should acquire the house now. Here is a notice requesting you do so".
  Mr. Skeffington: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that under the compensation provisions it should be possible for public authorities to purchase even when there is no element of hardship? If that is his argument, he will realise that that would be an enormous extension of the commitment with which local authorities might be faced in many developments. That has never been the basis of compensation up to now.
  Mr. Rossi: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman assumes that there will be hardship only when the local authority says that it will acquire the property. Hardship can also be caused when the general improvement area declaration is made, because that gives many powers to local authorities, apart from the power of acquisition which we are discussing.
  The mere fact that a local authority says, "We are declaring this to be a general improvement area", which immediately gives the authority all the powers contained in Clause 36, could well blight property in the area. Individuals concerned may easily find that there is no longer a market for their property, whether or not the local authority intends to buy. If the local authority wishes to exercise its power to carry out works on the property, it may discourage other people from buying it.
  Therefore, I urge the Government to consider that hardship can easily arise outside the intended exercise of acquisition powers by a local authority. It can arise by the mere declaration of a development area. I urge the Government

  497
  to accept one or more of the Amendments. Judging from the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary, it would appear that he has made up his mind. In accordance with what you said, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to keep battering at a door which is firmly shut. However, I hope that my comments and those of my colleagues will have persuaded the Minister to reconsider the matter and to satisfy himself about whether hardship can arise in circumstances other than in the case of acquisition. If he so satisfies himself, I urge him to have second thoughts and perhaps table an Amendment in another place.
  Mr. Speaker: I should like to point out to the House that this is the first of at least 40 debates which we are to have on Report.
  Mr. Martin Maddan: It seemed to me that the Parliamentary Secretary answered the objections in his speech when he intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). He said in his speech that cases of fright of blight in improvement areas would be few and far between. We can take it, therefore, that there will be even fewer instances of fright of blight when the local authority does not declare that it wishes to purchase.
  The hon. Gentleman said that we might be opening the door wide to an enormous number of demands to purchase. What he has said since shows that that could not happen. There would be only a restricted number of cases, albeit important cases for the occupiers.
  Mr. Skeffington: That is not what the Amendment says. It provides that, once a declaration was made, any owner-occupier would be able to serve a notice requiring the local authority to purchase and the local authority would not have, as it has under general compensation law, the right to serve a counter-notice.
  Mr. Maddan: That brings me to my second point, which is that presumably owner-occupiers would want a local authority to purchase their property only if they had fright of blight. Otherwise, why would they want their property purchased? The Parliamentary Secretary will not, for fear of letting the horse bolt out of the stable, even let the mouse run out from beneath the stable door. I detect in his interventions a complete
  498
  non sequitur. I support the Amendment and hope that the hon. Gentleman will have second thoughts on the subject.
  Mr. James Allason: The Government have always been unwilling to extend the blight provisions. Here they are extending them, but only an extraordinarily small amount.
  The circumstances which we are discussing are similar to those applying to roads, and in that connection, if there is a plan that a road will at a future time be laid down, an owner can claim blight. In exactly the same way, if a local authority says, "We intend at a future date to purchase your property", the owner can, under this concession, claim blight.
  Mr. Maddan: Is it not a fact that a local authority need not have determined that it will buy property for a new road at a future date, but merely say that there is a chance that it will buy the property to entitle the owner to require it to purchase the property?
  Mr. Allason: That is so in the case of roads. I suggest that the situation we are discussing is broadly similar and that, for this reason, the Government should be prepared to go further.
  Eventually, the Government will be forced to extend the blight provisions. In the case of motorways, they have had to give an indication that they are having second thoughts about the blight provisions because they recognise the harm that can be done to the owners of land and property immediately beside motorways. We are discussing a parallel case. If there is a general improvement area there may be injurious affection and any owner, not merely owners whose land is to be taken from them at a future date, should be entitled to claim blight if he is in the area concerned.
  The Parliamentary Secretary's answer to our claim is that this would be unfair to local authorities, which would have to face too many notices. To whom should we be unfair, if we must be unfair to somebody? I suggest that the onus should be placed on the local authority and that, if it wishes to damage somebody's prospects, it should be prepared to pay compensation. To that argument the Parliamentary Secretary replies, "There may not be any damage". Does

  499
  he really believe that a person whose interests are not being damaged will say to a local authority, "I require you to purchase my house"?
  Mr. Skeffington: That is precisely what the Amendment says. That is why it is unworkable and completely against the compensation principles.
  Mr. Allason: The hon. Gentleman's argument is that there is no need to prove damage before requiring a local authority to purchase. I am asking him to say what sensible man would require a local authority to purchase if no damage was being caused. He would be able to sell his property on the market. If damage is being caused, it is reasonable to expect the local authority to pay compensation. We are, in terms of compensation for blight and injurious affection, moving into a new era and I therefore support the Amendment.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: This is an extremely important matter. In Committee, we discussed the entirely new concept of the general improvement area. My hon. Friends welcome this new experimental form of development but, because it is experimental, we cannot expect to have got it exactly right in Committee. I therefore make no excuse for questioning the new Clause in an effort to put right some of the defects to which we referred in Committee.
  We are grateful to the Government for having tabled the new Clause. However, there are still some defects in this new experimental procedure, particularly in regard to the effects that it will have on the property owner and occupier.
  In discussing the new Clause and Amendment—I wish particularly to concentrate on Amendment (a) which would overcome some of the points raised in the Parliamentary Secretary's interventions—we are dealing with something which originated in 1959, which was embodied in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, and which was amended in the 1968 Act.
  The general intention of the procedure of a purchase notice when property is blighted is that an owner, and particularly an owner-occupier, should be given the right, if he cannot sell his property because it is required for the benefit of
  500
  the community, to call on the local authority which will eventually acquire it to acquire it immediately.
  When that general principle was embodied in legislation it did not go as far as the general statement which I have made. Limitations were placed on it. For example, one had to discover whether the road or whatever it might be interfering with the property was marked on a plan, and whether there was an order for compulsory purchase. The 1962 Act was so narrowly drawn that only under certain circumstances could one serve a purchase notice and take advantage of the provisions about blight.
  These limitations have been resented over the years, but there has always been this safeguard against any abuse of the right given in the 1962 Act; that the person who served the notice on the local authority must show that, by reason of the blight, he had been unable to sell his property at the price which he might reasonably have expected to get for it had the property not been so blighted. That is the safeguard and that is the way in which the interventions of the Parliamentary Secretary should he met.
  The general improvement area, which is the scheme created by the Bill, extends actual blight; that is, any property within an area declared as a general improvement area may be subject to blight. It may not be possible for the owner to sell his property at the reasonable price which he would have expected had it not been included in the general improvement area.
  We hope that the previous mistake which was made in embodying this sort of principle in legislation will not be made again and that we will not be too restrictive in stating when property is legally blighted, for frequently we find that a property is actually blighted but is not legally blighted, with the result that a purchase notice cannot be served on the acquiring authority.
  An extension of the principle, from what I call "legal blight" to "actual blight", was recognised in the 1968 Act and it is in that spirit that we seek to amend the new Clause. The 1968 Act said that property would be blighted—and, therefore, a purchase notice could be served—if the land was indicated in a structure plan for the district in which

  501
  it was situated, either as land which might be acquired for the functions of a Government Department, local authority, and so on. That is much the same as will happen under a declaration for a general improvement area. It will be put into an area in which the local authority may take any steps for improving that area, and certainly steps by way of compulsory purchase.
  I join issue with the Parliamentary Secretary on two points he made when introducing the new Clause. He said that the blight provisions applied to two categories of restriction: first, if there was a compulsory purchase order placed on property, or if it was indicated that it would be subject to a compulsory purchase order; and, secondly, if a structure plan showed that it was likely to be acquired.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that that was not what was said in the 1968 Act. It said that it was land which "may be required" by an acquiring authority. If it is included in a general improvement area it comes exactly within that sort of description; it may be required by an acquiring authority at some time in the future to improve the area, for example for an open space or to improve roads. I put the general improvement area directly alongside a structure plan—and, having recognised that principle in the Act, I ask that we recognise it again in this Bill.
  The second point on which I take issue with the hon. Gentleman is when he said that if we amended the new Clause as suggested by my hon. Friends—I particularly have in mind Amendment (a)—it would be a deterrent to local authorities to declare general improvement areas. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is wrong, because one would have the safeguard that the person who served a purchase notice must prove that he had suffered.
  The safeguard in Section 139 of the1962 Act is that to succeed with a purchase
  notice against an acquiring authority the person must prove that, since the relevant date, he has made reasonable endeavours to sell his interest and has been unable to do so, except at a price substantially less than he might reasonably have been expected to have got if no part of the hereditament or unit was comprised in the scheme. Unless the owner can show that, his purchase notice fails and that is the safeguard against abuse of this procedure.
  It may be, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that the declaration of a general improvement area will enhance the value of property in the area. There may be occasions when it is clear that property will not be touched for an open space, road improvement, the provision of walkways, and so on, so that its value will be enhanced because the tone of the neighbourhood will go up.
  In many cases, however, the value will be damaged, and it is in those cases that we should preserve the right of the owner to serve a purchase notice, whether or not there is an immediate intention that his property will be subject to compulsory purchase. He should be entitled, if he can prove that he cannot sell it at a reasonable price, to serve a notice on the acquiring authority and ask it to purchase it from him at that stage.
  I am sure that acceptance of Amendment (a) would not damage the new Clause, but improve it, and certainly improve the rights of individuals affected by a general improvement area declaration.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause accordingly read a Second time.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause, in line 1, leave out from the word 'where' to the word 'powers' in line 3, and insert 'a local authority have by resolution declared an area of land to be a general improvement area'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 201.

  Division No. 268.]

  AYES

  [4.25 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

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

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Astor, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Burden, F. A.

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Braine, Bernard

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Brewis, John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Bell, Ronald

  Brinton, Sir Tafton

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Biffen, John

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Clark, Henry

  Clegg, Walter

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Cooke, Robert

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Corfield, F. V.

  Jopling, Michael

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Costain, A. P.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Pym, Francis

  Crouch, David

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dodds-Parker, Dougles

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  McMaster, Stanley

  Speed, Keith

  Stainton, Keith

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maddan, Martin

  Tapsell, Peter

  Foster, Sir John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Maude, Angus

  Temple, John M.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mawby, Ray

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Gower, Raymond

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Grant, Anthony

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Waddington, David

  Grieve, Percy

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Monro, Hector

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  More, Jasper

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Wright, Esmond

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wylie, N. R.

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Nott, John

  Younger, Hn. George

  Holland, Philip

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Percival, Ian

  Mr. Reginald Eyre.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dunnett, Jack

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Ellis, John

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

  Alldritt, Walter

  English, Michael

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Anderson, Donald

  Ensor, David

  Lawson, George

  Archer, Peter

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

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

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Barnett, Joel

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ford, Ben

  Lubbock, Eric

  Binns, John

  Forrester, John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Blackburn, F.

  Gardner, Tony

  McCann, John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Ginsburg, David

  MacColl, James

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  McGuire, Michael

  Booth, Albert

  Gregory, Arnold

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Boyden, James

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Bradley, Tom

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

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

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

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

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

  Hannan, William

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Harper, Joseph

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

  Cant, R. B.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Manuel, Archie

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hazell, Bert

  Mapp, Charles

  Concannon, J. D.

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Marks, Kenneth

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hooley, Frank

  Marquand, David

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Horner, John

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mendelson, John

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Millan, Bruce

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hynd, John

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

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

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

  Delargy, Hugh

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Dell, Edmund

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Dempsey, James

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Neal, Harold

  Dewar, Donald

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisliam, S.)

  Newens, Stan

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ogden, Eric

  Dickens, James

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Dobson, Ray

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Doig, Peter

  Judd, Frank

  Orbach, Maurice

  Dunn, James A.

  Kelley, Richard

  Orme, Stanley

  504

  505

  Oswald, Thomas

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Ryan, John

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Sheldon, Robert

  Wallace, George

  Pardoe, John

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Park, Trevor

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

  Wellbeloved, James

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Silverman, Julius

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Skefflngton, Arthur

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Pentland, Norman

  Slater, Joseph

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Small, William

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Snow, Julian

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Steel, David (Roburgh)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Probert, Arthur

  Steete, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Woof, Robert

  Rankin, John

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Rees, Merlyn

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Taverne, Dick

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Tinn, James

  Clause added to the Bill.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Arising out of new Clause No. 9—Rents for rehousing—I am not querying the selection, which I accept must be in the hands of Mr. Speaker, but the three areas referred to—slum clearance, improvement, and comprehensive development areas—have a constituency bearing as 1,574 families in my constituency need to be rehoused and would be affected. Would I be in order to raise the constituency matter on the Adjournment to cover the specific case which prompted that new Clause?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): That point is not one for the Chair. The hon. Member can raise the matter on the Adjournment only so long as he so deals with it that it is not a matter affecting legislation.

New Clause 10

  TRANSFERABILITY OF APPROVAL OF GRANT
  The benefit of an approval, by a local authority, of a grant under Part I of this Act may be transferred (subject to the obligations arising therefrom) by the person entitled to that benefit to any person who has such an interest in the land to which the approval relates as is described in sections 2(6), 8(4) and 17(3) of the said Act and the transferor and transferee shall give notice to the local authority of such transfer.—[Mr. Clegg.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Walter Clegg: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  This is an absolutely splendid new Clause, a very practical one which would
  506
  cut out a great deal of red tape and lead to much smoother administration. It would be of great benefit to all concerned. I shall be very surprised and dejected if the Minister does not agree that it should form part of the Bill.
  The problem which faces us is due to the fact that under the present law and under the Bill, if a grant is made to an applicant in respect of premises that grant will be in personam to that person and not in rem. It would be impossible for a grant in personam to be transferred and this would lead to great inconvenience. One often sees advertisements in newspapers—I saw one in my constituency over the weekend—in which a country cottage is advertised. The advertisement I saw said clearly that the cottage was in bad repair but grants would be available for it to be repaired. It did not, of course, say what the grants would be or what amount would be available.
  It would be much more convenient if, before he sold, the owner could make application to the local authority and have the grants and plans approved so that he could go to the market saying what amount of grant there would be. Then the purchaser would have the advantage of knowing the amount of money concerned. A great deal of time spent in negotiation would be saved. The matter would be certain and it would save a lot of correspondence between solicitors and estate agents if the grants could be transferred with the property in the same way as planning permission is transferred.
  At present, if the vendor obtained a grant and before he took advantage of it he sold the house, a new application

  507
  would be required by the purchaser. That would have to go before a committee and be approved by the local authority, whereas under this Clause the benefit would be transferable. This is analogous to planning permission affecting property having the right of transferability.
  It would be different if the applicant's means had to be taken into account, but this is not so. It comes back to the point that these grants are designed to improve property. They are grants in rem. Difficulties may arise because of Clauses which bring in the three-year rule. The grant having been made, under the provisions of Clause 13 the property must be available for letting or be occupied by the applicant or a member of his family, but Clause 13 would not make it too difficult to give effect to the new Clause.
  Especially in the case of discretionary and improvement grants, during the course of work, and before the whole grant has been paid, because of death or illness it may be necessary for the work to be stopped and the property to be sold. It would be useful if there were power which there would be if the Clause were accepted to transfer the remainder of the grant to the person who was to do the work.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Allason: It is not very satisfactory to make a case against the Government and then to receive no answer. On the last Clause it was stated that the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary was inaccurate, but we received no reply. I hope that we shall receive an answer on this occasion.
  The process of obtaining a grant is liable to be lengthy. Even when a grant has been obtained it is not always possible for the builder to move in and do the repairs and improvements quickly A long period may elapse between the time of application and the time of payment of grant. Under the present system, during that time the house cannot change hands. This period, which may be as long as a year, is far too long. Death or illness may supervene requiring a change of ownership, but as the Bill is drafted during that time ownership of the house must remain in existing hands.
  508
  Then there is the question whether someone who has obtained approval for payment of grant should be able to sell the property. Planning permission follows ownership, but not so the grant. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that it is normal to discuss these matters with officials and for verbal undertakings to be given that the conditions for grant are satisfactory and the purchaser should be so informed. This is not good enough, because the would-be purchaser of a tumble-down property needs to know before he puts his money down that he can get the grant. It is not fair for him to be asked to buy what may well be a pig in a poke.
  We want the Bill to work and we want property to be improved. One method of improving property is for an owner who is not able to improve his property to sell it to somebody who is willing to fulfil the conditions of the grant and so improve the property. I hope that the Government will accept the Clause.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The hon. Member for North' Fylde (Mr. Clegg) knows that if my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary could have accepted his Amendment in Committee he, of all people, would have done so, but he was not able to do so. I am in the same position. The hon. Gentleman referred to the three-year limit on sales. That is not a relevant argument, and I shall not use it. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Amendment No. 24, which may interest him.
  This is a discretionary grant. There is no problem with standard grants. The problem arises with discretionary grants. Personal considerations may well arise which influence the local authority in deciding whether to make a discretionary grant. My opposition to the Clause was confirmed by the hon. Gentleman's statement that property advertisements sometimes state that grants are likely to be available. The hon. Gentleman said that owners cannot firmly state that a grant attaches to property.
  I welcome that, because it would be unfortunate if a sort of speculation in grants grew up, with people applying for grants and then advertising their property for sale and cashing in on the availability

  509
  of grant. The applicant for the grant might be living in the area of the local authority; and, because he was a well-established local resident, the local authority might think that it was worth spending money to provide him with a home, perhaps near his work. A person coming in might be looking for a holiday cottage and would be able to buy it on the strength of the grant at a greatly increased price.
  Mr. Clegg: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that would be a reason for refusing the grant?
  Mr. MacColl: It certainly is a reason for refusing a grant. In some cases local authorities have said, "We do not think that we should use our discretion to provide a home for somebody coming into our area, although we would think it right to do so for someone already living in our area". That might apply in a village where they were trying to restrict the population.
  These things can best be sorted out by accepting the principle that the grant goes to the applicant who is responsible for seeing that the work is done. If he cannot live in the house there are ways in which he can get rid of it. I could not advise the House to agree to this general power to pass on the grant.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: I do not think that we can accept this argument. I know nothing about grants in personam and in rem. This is a grant for improving houses. This is what the Bill is about. It is something that I have been wanting for a long time. This would speed things up, because it must simplify the work of solicitors. Sometimes they do seem to have inordinate delays in their work. As an estate agent, I know how important it is to be able to be clear to the purchaser about what the exact position is. If he knows that application has been made and is likely to be granted, or refused, then it is a great advantage.
  This long delay which can arise as a result of not allowing the transfer, will mean that properties will stand empty and derelict. We will have what is happening in London now—people occupying these empty homes. We cannot blame people for this if they see property standing empty when they are
  510
  living in horrible conditions with several children. They naturally feel aggrieved for their family and take these steps. This Clause will help solicitors and the local authorities. It will relieve the immense burden of paper work, and I ask the Minister to look at it again and to put forward something which could overcome these immense delays.
  Mr. Maddan: The Parliamentary Secretary missed an important point in his reply. Let me accept for the purposes of the argument, although I will contest it later, that because these are discretionary grants a local authority might give a grant in respect of a house to one owner but would not do so to another. Suppose that for some reason the occupier who has been given a grant has to move away. The person who comes into the house could be a rich, retired farmer, and it could be done on a family basis. It might be said, "Look, my house is empty, go and live in it". Alternatively, it could be sold.
  In the first instance, although the new resident might have been entirely unacceptable to the local authority, he would benefit from public money, because the grant would still be given. In the second case, all the difficulties to which reference has been made would arise and new occupiers might find themselves without a grant, or a house while the whole thing was renegotiated.
  Let us accept that discretionary grants are made at a certain time for a certain set of circumstances and that once they are made they remain. It does not make any difference what happens afterwards. In the case I have mentioned, suppose the person who is given the grant carried out the improvements while in residence and left the next day. What difference does it make? Someone else will enter the house and get the benefit of the grant.
  We must accept, regrettably, that in the dispensing of public funds there may be areas to which funds go and there may be a "hit and miss" element about it. Once it has gone through, the anomalies arising from not doing what this new Clause suggests are greater than the anomalies which would arise from adopting the new Clause. I hope that the Government will look at this again. Everyone wants to see an improvement made in the standards of old property.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Walker: This is an important new Clause. I was surprised at the Parliamentary Secretary's comments on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg). There are important applications here, and I would like to ask a few questions, to which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reply. He says that this has an effect only on discretionary grants. I presume that he means by that that under the standard grant the new person could apply in any case and would be entitled to obtain the grant. But it does apply to standard grants, in terms of the reduction of bureaucracy. Under the system advocated by the Government, although a standard grant has been agreed, for, say, a bathroom in a particular house, if that house is sold a great deal of further bureaucracy has to be gone through so that the grant can be used by someone else.
  If the Government's case is that it does not matter about standard grants, then they should accept this as it relates to standard grants only. Does the Parliamentary Secretary not think that it would be a good idea, in the interests of the Government, to have such a new Clause and to get rid of this bureaucracy?
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the situation that can arise when a person who has been given a grant dies and work has already started?
  Mr. Walker: That is another point. I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
  It may be that my next point is already covered by legislation, but what is the situation about dependants? What happens if the husband who has been given the grant dies, leaving a widow? Can the local authority, having granted a discretionary or standard grant, take it away? If the Government are unwilling to accept our overall argument, there is some scope for including provisions for widows, if they are not covered already.
  I was surprised when the Minister talked about local authorities as if it was important for them in dealing with discretionary grants, to take into consideration the standing of the individual. This has never come up before. I would refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the
  512
  pamphlet published by the Government "The Money to Modernise your Home". This sets out ways in which the public can obtain the grants, but nowhere is there any implication that the local authority will give consideration to the status or position of the individual when dealing with discretonary grants.
  Recallng previous debates in Committee, I cannot think of a time when anyone said that this would be a criteria. It is a dangerous policy. I had always understood the objects on both sides of the House to be that the Bill should improve old houses as speedily as possible. There is a Labour Party myth about the country cottage being something that they must not do anything for, because it is being used as a second home. I am all in favour of providing second homes, even with grants, rather than allowing houses to become derelict. If there is the option between a cottage becoming derelict or becoming a country home for a family, I would prefer the latter course.
  In any case, local authorities are not in a position to judge this. If we worked on this basis the prospective purchaser of a cottage would tell the owner to obtain the grant, carry out the work and then he would buy it. I want to see old houses improved. The transference of the grant, whoever purchases the premises once it has been granted, must be a practical and sensible way of doing that.
  The Parliamentary Secretary expressed horror at the possibility of advertisements saying that a building carried a grant. Advertisements appear all the time saying that land carries planning permission. The principle is exactly the same. On the hon. Gentleman's argument, planning permission should not be transferred, but attached to a person rather than the land. We can see the absurdities and horrors of that. The Government have not given enough consideration to this. They have not realised that they will cause hardship. There will be cases when improvements cannot be carried out, due to a sudden change in the fortune in the families which have applied for the grant. The whole operation of the Bill will be motivated against those people.
  On standard grants, it is in the Government's interest to cut out bureaucracy. On discretionary grants, if we want to modernise houses as quickly as possible,

  513
  we need a system of grants applied to improving houses. If houses are improved, Governments of all complexions should rejoice that they have been improved. Finally, on the technical point about widows and dependants of people given grants, what will be their legal position, and what are the Government's comments on the situation?
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. MacColl: I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman on the factual points that he has raised.
  I deal, first, with the position of a widow. In practice, local authorities arrange that a widow succeeds to the rights of the applicant, as the legal personal representative of the applicant, and I have had no complaints that widows have not had the grants. Nor have I had complaints from local authorities about the bureaucracy involved over the standard grant. I have had no suggestions from local authorities that they are dissatisfied with the present machinery or think that it puts a burden on them.
  Mr. Graham Page: It may be that no complaints from local authorities or from individuals about dependants being entitled have reached the hon. Gentleman. However, I gather that the legal position is that, if a person to whom a grant has been given dies, no one is entitled legally to succeed to it, whatever the lack of complaints may have been.
  Mr. MacColl: I prefer to put it the other way. I would not want to make a positive assertion that they have legal rights but I can say with confidence that I know of no case where it has raised difficulty. I would be glad to hear of any case where it has, because that would be an important point.
  The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) also raised the question about the standing of the individual. The difficulty is that in many cases a grant could be given reasonably to the successor of the original applicant. If a man goes to a local authority saying that he is thinking of buying a property and he asks what are the chances, quite often the local authority says that it will continue
  the grant. However, that is different from presuming a legal right to it. These points often arise in places where there are population restrictions or where a local authority wants to help people in a village who work on the land, for example.
  The hon. Gentleman asked, why not adopt the principle applied to planning permissions. Planning permission is sometimes personal for that reason. Much as it is sometimes necessary to make a permission personal, if it was cut and dried, it could be administered mechanically. It could be made part of the standard grant, and not discretionary. Once it becomes necessary to bring in the element of discretion, a local authority should be left with the power, if it chooses, not to renew a grant for the successor.
  Mr. Peter Walker: With the permission of the House, I find the Minister's reply—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot speak again if the Minister has sat down.
  Mr. MacColl: I have.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise. The hon. Gentleman's name is to the Amendment.
  Mr. Peter Walker: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I asked the leave of the House—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not the practice of the House to concede that right to an hon. Member except with a special explanation as well as the leave of the House.
  Mr. Peter Walker: In view of the fact that the Minister spoke twice, I wonder—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is well precedented in Erskine May. This right is conceded to the Minister, but not to anyone else.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 184.

  Division No. 269.]

  AYES

  [5.10 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Bankston Ash)

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

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Bell, Ronald

  Astor, John

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Biffen, John

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Heseltine, Michael

  Pardoe, John

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Percival, Ian

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Pike, Mis Mervyn

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Braine, Bernard

  Holland, Philip

  Pounder, Rafton

  Brewis, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hornby, Richard

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hunt, John

  Pym, Francis

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

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Burden, F. A.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

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

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Silvester, Frederick

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Jopling, Michael

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Clark, Henry

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Speed, Keith

  Clegg, Walter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Stainton, Keith

  Cooke, Robert

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Costain, A. P.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Tapsell, Peter

  Crouch, David

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Lubbock, Eric

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Temple, John M.

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  McMaster, Stanley

  Tilney, John

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Maddan, Martin

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maginnis, John E.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Waddington, David

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maude, Angus

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mawby, Ray

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Foster, Sir John

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Goodhart, Philip

  Monro, Hector

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Gower, Raymond

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Grant, Anthony

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Grieve, Percy

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hall-Davis, A. C. F.

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wright, Esmond

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Naharro, Sir Gerald

  Wylie, N. R.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Younger, Hn. George

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nott, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hattersley, Roy

  Onslow, Cranley

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Hawkins, Paul

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Jasper More.

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Anderson, Donald

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Hannan, William

  Archer, Peter

  Delargy, Hugh

  Harper, Joseph

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dell, Edmund

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Dempsey, James

  Hazell, Bert

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Dewar, Donald

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Hooley, Frank

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dickens, James

  Horner, John

  Barnett, Joel

  Dobson, Ray

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Doig, Peter

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Binns, John

  Dunn, James A.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Blackburn, F.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hynd, John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Ellis, John

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

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  English, Michael

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Booth, Albert

  Ensor, David

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Boyden, James

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Bradley, Tom

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Judd, Frank

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

  Ford, Ben

  Kelley, Richard

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

  Forrester, John

  Kenyon, Clifford

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

  Freeson, Reginald

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

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Gardner, Tony

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Cant, R. B.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lawson, George

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Ginsburg, David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Concannon, J. D.

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  516

  517

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  O'Malley, Brian

  Silverman, Julius

  MacColl, James

  Oram, Albert E.

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Slater, Joseph

  McGuire, Michael

  Orme, Stanley

  Small, William

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Oswald, Thomas

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Palmer, Arthur

  Symonds, J. B.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Taverne, Dick

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Park, Trevor

  Tinn, James

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Pentland, Norman

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

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

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Manuel, Archie

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Wallace, George

  Mapp, Charles

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Marquand, David

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Probert, Arthur

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Mendelson, John

  Rankin, John

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Millan, Bruce

  Rees, Merlyn

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Richard, Ivor

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

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

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Woof, Robert

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Ryan, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Neal, Harold

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Mr. John McCann and

  Newens, Stan

  Sheldon, Robert

  Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

  Ogden, Eric

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

New Clause

  ANNUAL REPORT UPON CONTRIBUTIONS
  The Minister shall annually lay before Parliament a Report and Accounts of Contributions made under sections 20 to 25 of this Act; and such Report and Accounts shall show the relationship between the total annual amount of the said contributions and the annual public investment in housing.—[Mr. Graham Page.]
  Brought tip, and read the First time.
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  The Clause proposes the making of an annual report of contributions made to local authorities so that they may carry out the provisions of the Bill. It proposes that the Minister shall annually lay before Parliament a report and accounts of those contributions, and it refers to Clauses 20 to 25. In those Clauses are the provisions about contributions from the Exchequer to local authorities.
  In Clause 20, there is provision for contributions to the local authorities in respect of the grants which they make to private individuals—owner-occupiers and landlords—by way of either improvement grants or standard grants, and a proportion is to be refunded by the Exchequer. In the next two or three Clauses there is provision for contributions to the cost of improvements and conversions carried out by the housing authorities, whether they he improvement grants or standard grants.
  518
  In this case they are called improvement contributions and standard contributions because these are cases in which local authorities carry out work on their own houses. In Clause 25, there is provision for contributions in respect of dwellings provided or improved by housing associations by arrangement with local authorities.
  Therefore, the types of contribution which we are talking about are threefold: contributions towards payments by local authorities to individual owners; contributions from the Exchequer to the local authorities for improvements of their own houses; and contributions to the advances or grants which local authorities make to housing associations. We are discussing fairly substantial sums of money paid each year first by the local authorities and then in respect of the contributions made to them by the Exchequer.
  The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill as first presented to the House stated that all this money was to be set against general public expenditure on housing. Paragraph 4, under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill", reads:
  "It is estimated that public expenditure in consequence of this Bill, after allowing for the expenditure which will be incurred by local authorities in England and Wales in connection with improvement of older houses, and the charges on the Consolidated Fund, as well as the expenditure in paragraph 3 above"—

  519
  which deals with houses which are demolished, and so on—
  "will be approaching £40 million annually by 1972–73".
  As I say, we are dealing with a fairly substantial sum.
  The Memorandum goes on:
  "This expenditure will be continued within a total of public investment in housing at about the level it has now reached, as explained in the White Paper 'Old Houses into New Homes'."
  Taking total public expenditure on new housing as it has been in the past, say, for this financial year or the last, not so much money will be spent in future on new houses because there will be deducted from the total expenditure the sum to be paid under the Bill on the improvement of old houses.
  Since the Memorandum refers to the White Paper "Old Houses into new Homes", Cmnd. 3602, I turn to it to see how the policy is expressed. It is stated in the first paragraph of the introduction to the White Paper in these words:
  "The need for large new housebuilding programmes will remain for many years ahead".
  Mr. Clegg: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Page: My hon. Friend says "Hear, hear. I, too, say "Hear, hear".
  I am sure that new house building programmes must remain large for a long time, despite Government forecasts that we shall have struck a balance or will have 1 million spare houses, or something or other, in 1973—something which we find incredible.
  The paragraph continues:
  "But the balance of need between new housebuilding and improvement is now changing, so there must be a corresponding change in the emphasis of the local authority housing programmes The Government intend that within a total of public investment in housing at about the level it has now reached, a greater share should go to the improvement of older houses".
  We must take the present expenditure and say that in future we shall not spend so much of it on new houses; we shall spend part of it on improving old houses and on the larger grants to be made under the Bill.
  For the purpose of the Clause, it is not my intention to criticise that policy. I accept it as Government policy and the
  520
  Government's intention to carry it out in that way. Provided that the public knows what is happening and realises that the Bill will not increase expenditure on new houses plus improvements, but that they must all come within the same total expenditure, and if that policy must be accepted, Parliament should be kept continually informed.
  This is a controversial policy. For example, the professional body of the architects has criticised it severely. It said that it may be found that instead of improving the stock of housing over the next few years we shall merely be preserving old houses for a short time which do not deserve to be preserved. That is one side of the picture. On the other side, with which, in the main, I agree, we must save our existing assets, and it is right that grants should be made from the local authorities and the Exchequer to try to prevent older property from falling into decay.
  But, as I say, this is a controversial policy which Parliament should keep under review annually. I would hope that if a report were made by the Minister to Parliament the House would wish to debate it annually. That is why in the second part of the new Clause we set out a particular point. Not only should the Minister lay the report and accounts before Parliament annually, but they should
  "show the relationship between the total annual amount of the said contributions and the annual public investment in housing."
  I am not sure how the Minister intends to keep this policy under control and to maintain the balance between new building and the improvement of old buildings. He says that by 1972 £40 million will be spent on improvements. This will be a percentage of the total expenditure on new building plus improvements. How will he keep the percentage stable if that is the policy? I am sure that from year to year any Minister would wish to change the policy in degree if not in its foundations. He will want to keep an eye on the percentage being spent on new houses and improvements. I am quite sure that the House will want to keep an eye on that and see how the policy works out and what changes there may be in it.
  The Clause embodies a simple, short point. I merely ask for a report and indicate what it should include. Although

  521
  the point is a short and simple one, it arises out of a major point of policy in the Bill and one which the House should keep under its eye every year.
  5.30 p.m.
  Sir Douglas Glover: I am surprised that it has been necessary for the Opposition to move the new Clause. I cannot understand why the provisions of the new Clause were not in the Bill when it first came before the House. It is quite clear that this is the sort of thing that Parliament should be aware of, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has just said, there is bound to be controversy about how much money is spent on improvement and how much is spent on new housebuilding.
  I presume that it is the cold, hard fact that because of the incompetent way the Government have run our affairs during the last five years we are today having to rehabilitate old property. In a more prosperous society, with our affairs properly run, old property would have been pulled down and replaced by new buildings. This must be true, because in a society that was rolling in wealth we would be putting people into new houses every five years, but the poorer the society is the more it has to make do and mend and make its old capital assets last longer. Therefore, the fact that the Government have spent a great deal of their time in devising systems of rehabilitating old property is an indictment of them in the failure of their new housing programme, because the one follows the other.
  Clauses 20 to 25 of the Bill deal with contributions to individuals and local authorities and grants to housing associations, three different aspects of the housing problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has said, the weight given to each of those aspects must be controversial—and I do not mean in a bad-tempered way. They must be open to argument. Some people may say that we ought to be doing more through housing associations, others may say that the whole weight should go on to local authorities, while others may say that the amount given to private individuals should be stopped. Therefore, it is all open to argument.
  522
  It seems to me incomprehensible that it has been necessary for the Opposition to ask the Government—I cannot conceive that they will oppose the Clause—to request that as a result of the Bill when it becomes law, the Minister should do what I would regard as his straightforward and bounden duty and lay before Parliament annually the report and accounts showing the contributions made under these five Clauses.
  I would have thought that it was also necessary for Parliament to know how much was spent under these five Clauses and should know what proportion it represents of the total amount spent on the housing problem. If it showed that a greater percentage was being spent on rehabilitation and a smaller amount on new property, that would in some degree be a yardstick of the Government's failure to get the nation's economy on a satisfactory basis to get these two items in balance.
  It would certainly be true for any party in the House of Commons—and we must remember not only the great Liberal Party, but we must remember that there are the independents of nationalist persuasion who, perhaps, want to take all these affairs out of the hands of this Chamber in any event; it is certainly necessary that any individual Member who is interested in this problem should know that there is a duty upon the Government to present annual accounts showing the contributions and the annual public investment in housing.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who is an old Parliamentarian, is putting the case for getting further information from the Government. Would he not get that information by the simple process of asking an Oral or a Written Question?
  Sir D. Glover: I am horrified that the hon. Member, with his long experience of local government, should say that we can get this information by asking an Oral or Written Question. That is not the point. The point is that the Minister should have a responsibility, not to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), who is so assiduous in all his work on behalf of his constituents and

  523
  who, I am sure, would ask a Question, but to the whole House, to those hon. Members who are not as assiduous as the hon. Member but who may equally need this information to see how the Government of the day are dealing with our affairs.
  Before the hon. Member takes umbrage at the new Clause, may I point out to him that it is much more likely that he or his successor will be demanding that a new Clause like this should be written into the legislation, because within a very short time it will be my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and his colleagues who will have to provide what we are asking for in the new Clause.
  It would be incomprehensible to me that any hon. Members on the benches opposite should criticise the new Clause. I am sure that it will be only a matter of form for the Minister to rise in his place and say that he has much pleasure in accepting it and thanking the Opposition for their co-operation and splendid foresight, which obviously shows that they are the potential Government.
  Mr. Maddan: I hesitate to intervene in a debate which seems to be exclusive to representatives of Lancashire constituencies, important part of the country though that may be. I support the new Clause, but I want to dissent from an argument which has been used by my hon. Friends.
  First, however, I should like to make a point which has not been made. Clearly, the Minister will have all the information which, it is suggested in the new Clause, should be laid before Parliament. Therefore, we are not asking him to undertake any long-winded research or compilation of statistics as an additional burden. He must have this information. What we are asking, therefore, is that he should lay it before Parliament so that we all have it.
  The point on which I wish to dissent from my hon. Friends, and particularly, perhaps, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), is that the more money that is spent under the six Clauses—not five Clauses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) suggested; nought counts as one when doing inclusive counting, so it is six Clauses and not five—
  Sir D. Glover: In this Parliament all five principles always finish up as six.
  Mr. Maddan: I am glad to have given my hon. Friend the opportunity to make that observation.
  The point that I am making, in contradistinction to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, is that the more money relative to the total public housing investment which is shown as being necessary under the provisions of these six Clauses the more pleased I shall be. My hon. Friend seemed to think that it would be worse. I know that I cannot go far within the rules of order in developing this point, but I should not like it to be thought that the support of the new Clause rests upon a desire to continue to underpin and augment the amount of public expenditure on council-house building as against other expenditure.
  The Bill emphasises the importance of getting older properties into a decent state. I disagree with the architects who thought that this might be pouring good money after bad and that it would be better to spend the money on building new boxes. Architects over-estimate the durability of their work in comparison with that of their predecessors. The money spent under the Bill will be extremely well spent. I am not asking the Government to lay before Parliament figures which will enable me to chop off their heads. The bigger the figures, the better I shall be pleased, and the more I shall congratulate them.
  Mr. Clegg: My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) was certain that the Minister would accept the new Clause, but, on looking into my crystal ball, I have strong doubts of that. We discussed in Committee a similar proposal, and the reply we received from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who spoke with his usual Gallic fluency—I am sorry that he is not here today—was that we could look at the Quarterly Housing Statistics for Great Britain. It may be that some relevant information would be contained in the Quarterly Housing Statistics for Great Britain, but we are seeking parliamentary participation. We want Parliament by a process of debate to examine the position year by year to see how things are going.
  If at Business Question Time one asked the Leader of the House for time to debate the Quarterly Housing Statistics,

  525
  he would reply, as usual, "Not next week". If it were obligatory for a report to be presented to Parliament, there would be much more chance of getting a debate on the subject. There will be progress, and, to use a trendy and bogus word, this is one way in which Parliament can "participate".
  Mr. Hawkins: I rise to support the new Clause but, having asked Questions on this subject to which I have received no reply because it was said that statistics were not available, I must disagree with the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon). I asked how many council houses were still to be improved, to which I received the answer, "About 500,000". I asked how many were still to be improved in the county of Norfolk, to which I received the answer that it was not known.
  If figures were laid before the House—and presumably numbers could be given as well as the total expenditure—all hon. Members would know how the scheme was going in their constituencies, or at least in their counties.
  Mr Eric Lubbock: In the nature of things, the hon. Member cannot know how many grants remain to be approved until applications are submitted. The total number of grants approved in any one year is contained in the annual report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, where it is stated that in 1965 the total number of grants approved in England was 107,225.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Hawkins: I know how (many houses were improved last year or the year before, but I do not know how many remain to be improved, and that is another figure which could be contained in the report to Parliament. The information should be split between private and council housing, so that we know how much money is spent on each. We should be told how the scheme is going and how much money is available for new houses. I understand that the total sum previously allocated to new houses will now be split between new houses and improvements. I had hoped that the sum previously spent on new houses plus the sum previously spent on improvements would be divided beween new houses and improvements. If this is not so, the total
  526
  sum of money spent on housing will be less than it has been in the past.
  The information which is asked for in the new Clause would be most valuable to all hon. Members, to all local authorities and to the Government, and it would be possible for a debate on this subject to be held with hon. Members in possession of the figures.
  Mr. Rossi: I support the new Clause. We are told in the Financial Memorandum which is printed in the forefront of the Bill what will be the likely financial effects of the Bill. It is stated on page xii of the Memorandum that certain charges of the Consolidated Fund under a number of sub-headings will arise in consequence of the Bill There will be increased contributions to local authorities towards the cost of improvement, standard and special grants which they make to private owners. There will be increased contributions to housing authorities towards the cost of improvements and conversions carried out by or under arrangements with them. There will be contributions to local authorities towards approved expenditure incurred in a general improvement area. There will be an increase of rate support grant resulting from expenditure incurred under the Bill by local authorities, and there will be the payment of additional expenses of Ministers relating to the rent officer service. This will all be additional expenditure falling upon the public purse for housing purposes, purposes which we welcome.
  The Memorandum then states that further public expenditure will arise, in particular in respect of higher payment to be made by local authorities for unfit houses purchased or demolished, and for lending by local authorities to owner-occupiers on mortgage for the repair and improvement of their houses. Again, these are all laudable objectives which we on this side of the House fully support.
  The sum total of these heads of additional expenditure, we are told in paragraph 4 of the Financial Memorandum, will be £40 million annually by 1972–73, but here comes the rub. The concluding sentence is:
  "This expenditure will be contained within a total of public investment in housing at about the level it has now reached …"

  527
  If £40 million is to be taken out of the present budget for these purposes, what in the way of housing will suffer? We have not been told.
  In Committee we discussed on Clause 74 the question of loans to owner-occupiers on mortgage for the repair and improvement of their houses. When we asked where the £40 million was to come from and what segment of the housing programme would suffer, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was very coy and said that he would not be drawn into a Budget debate. For technical reasons he had the protection of the Chair, and we were unable to pursue that line of inquiry. But the new Clause now puts the matter at large, and I should like to take the opportunity again to press the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the matter of expenditure. I hope that he will not dodge the issue, but will give the House a straight and frank answer.
  What disturbs me is that we are to see a cut-back in local authority building of houses and flats. That must be the logical outcome if our budget is to remain the same but £40 million is to be diverted for this purpose.
  Mr. Lubbock: Surely the important question is how many houses will be saved through the improvement grants provided by the Bill which otherwise would have been demolished and have to have been replaced by new houses built by local authorities? The new Clause tabled by the Opposition will not help the Government of the day to answer that question.
  Mr. Rossi: That is a question for the Minister. As I understand it, the practice of the local authorities is only to demolish houses which have less than 15 years of life left. The expenditure in relation to the Bill will be on houses with more than 15 years life in them, otherwise the Bill becomes a nonsense. There is not much to be gained by pursuing that particular line of inquiry.
  I continue to press for an answer as to what part of our housing programme will suffer because this £40 million will be taken out of the current budget. We have had no answer to that question and the country deserves an answer.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: If the hon. Member is putting questions
  528
  to the Government a question might well be put to him. How many Conservative local authorities are answering this question by refusing to build local authority houses?
  Mr. Rossi: The Government because of their economic policy have placed every possible obstacle in the way of local authorities building more. One way to help the local authorities is to make a start by lowering the interest rates. We shall quickly get out of order if we now enter into a general housing debate. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) must not be too provocative or he may get some answers he does not want. I can see that Mr. Deputy Speaker is beginning to get a little restless with this kind of discussion.
  If I may return to the new Clause, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) interjected a moment ago to say that these figures will come out in the annual report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I may be wrong, but I believe that there is no annual report by the Ministry. There was at one time such a document, but the report published quite recently covered the two years 1967 and 1968. When a document covering the year 1969 will appear is anybody's guess.
  We seek to make it quite clear in the new Clause that, if the House is to keep an eye on our housing programme, these figures should be published regularly and annually. This is what we demand, particularly in view of the evasion on this particular issue, particularly in Committee.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: The Opposition have said that this is a laudable Bill. They have commended the provisions relating to local authority building, private building associations, the private owner and other aspects of housing. In one sense I almost feel like asking my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench to concede this new Clause. If the information which the Opposition seek was readily available to the people of this country, the first thing that it would prove is the failure of the previous Administration to do half as much as we are doing to solve this problem.
  The Opposition have supported the major Clauses and have then, as is their right, become churlish about one or two

  529
  of the details. If the new Clause were accepted, I am sure that it would show the benefits which we are giving to various sections of society in every branch of housing, benefits which have not been given previously.
  The Opposition keep on asking for all sorts of information. Such information must be correlated. The Opposition are the same people who, at both national and local level, are always asking for reductions in clerical staff and in the Civil Service. Yet this rather mischievous new Clause would tend to increase the number of people required.
  The new Clause would involve the Government in a time-wasting exercise. It is not an important matter, although I have listened to one after another hon. Member opposite talking as though it were. Surely the most important aspect of the Bill is that everyone admits that it is excellent in every way. In spite of what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the new Clause would add to it nothing at all.
  Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) was kind enough to say that in my disposition I have a certain coyness. This no doubt has led to my remaining in an unmarried state for so long. I have no desire to get drawn into a Budget debate at this stage of the Housing Bill since the House is unanimous in being desperately anxious to get the Bill through quickly.
  I accept what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), that perhaps there would have been a case for accepting a provision of this kind if we had not been very aware of the importance of improving the amount and the quality of the statistics which we lay before the House on the activities of the Ministry.
  I am glad to say that we are restarting, after its having been abandoned, an annual report from the Ministry and hope in future to have an annual volume. We have also very much improved upon the preparation of the statistics. We have abolished the old Appendix C and now have a comprehensive statement of the housing figures.
  That is the background to the problem. If we needed to provide more figures to enable the House and the general public to see what is happening, I am
  530
  certain we would provide them. The Government have not been indifferent to the importance of providing adequate figures, and we have recently produced a Green Paper reviewing the methods for providing information and providing a guide as to how to reach decisions on public expenditure.
  6.0 p.m.
  A White Paper is to be published at the end of each year giving the appropriate information to Parliament. That is the new position.
  The current position is that in the normal working of Parliament, estimates of Government contributions under the detailed headings of private owner and local authority discretionary and standard grants are already presented each year to Parliament and published in Class VI of the Civil Estimates. The expenditure under these heads is later presented and published in the Civil Appropriation Account. This is the general picture. We can supply in the fullest detail the global figures on what is happening.
  Hon. Members from time to time express interest in problems in their own areas or in a more general part of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle said, quite rightly, that if it is necessary to get more intensive information about an area it can be obtained through Parliamentary Questions.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said that he was unable to get the detailed information for which he asked. It may have been that it was of a speculative nature about the condition of property in a rather more general way.
  Mr. Hawkins: The question that I asked, both in 1966 and this year, was: how many council houses still remain to be improved with bathrooms and lavatories? That information apparently is not available. It seemed to me that it was necessary to know the answer to that question.
  Mr. MacColl: The nature of an improvement, if it is a discretionary improvement, is difficult to measure in advance. Information is available about the number of houses without baths and essential amenities, and it is published

  531
  frequently. We do not want to hide anything. We are alive to the problems. We are providing pretty well all the information that could be provided to enable a proper view to be taken of our policy. I do not wish to be provoked into discussing the merits of our policy. Therefore, I will not make any of the obvious debating replies.
  Mr. Peter Walker: I am surprised that the Minister did not take up the plea by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) to provide this information, which would seemingly provide such good evidence of the success of the Government in these spheres. If this was the case, I am sure that the Minister would have done so with speed, alacrity and enthusiasm. After all, there are so few spheres where the Government can make a good case that I should think that the Minister would make every endeavour to publish this information in full.
  Being a shrewd politician, both locally and nationally, there must be a query in the mind of the hon. Member for Bootle whether there is some other reason. The Minister gave no reason for not laying this information before Parliament. He just argued that there were various facts and figures available and annual statistics and White Papers here and there. But he gave no reason for resisting the new Clause. I will suggest the reason. The Government do not want it to be made too clear that any money they spend here will not be additional money to improve housing but will be taken from what would have been spent on new housing.
  This is made clear in paragraph 4 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. This has already been quoted, but I wish to repeat it, because the wording is very significant. It states:
  "It is estimated that public expenditure in consequence of this Bill, after allowing for the expenditure which will be incurred by local authorities in England and Wales in connection with improvement of older houses, and the charges on the Consolidated Fund, as well as the expenditure in paragraph 3 above, will be approaching £40 million annually by 1972–73. This expenditure will be contained within a total of public investment in housing at about the level it has now reached, as explained in the White Paper 'Old Houses into New Homes'."
  The Government are saying that this £40 million will be contained within what
  532
  has already been promised in a previous White Paper and is already the present level of spending on housing. We want it made clear where the reduction is taking place, because there will be a reduction in expenditure by the Government on housing.
  This is why Mr. Des Wilson, speaking on behalf of Shelter only a few days ago, expressed his dismay at the fact that in total the Bill would have the happy effects hoped for because there was to be a reduction in the total expenditure on housing. This Memorandum shows that clearly.
  The information that we are asking for is very limited. We are merely asking for accounts to be laid before Parliament once a year showing the relationship between the various forms of expenditure by the Government on housing. I should think that the Government would be interested in this. Whatever their optimism, there is the possibility of a change of Government. I think that any future Opposition—which I believe the present Government is destined to be in the near future—would like this kind of information clearly laid before Parliament. We, as the present Opposition, obviously want it to be laid before Parliament, because it is useful information to debate.
  There is no bureaucracy involved. Very little work is involved. The statistics must be available. We say that the Government should have an obligation to say to the country once a year, "We will spend less on that sector of housing, but we will spend more on this, or, if things become really hard, we will spend less on all sectors of housing". These figures should be clearly put before the country once a year.
  As part of his defence, the Minister said—
  Mr. Lubbock: Would the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) care to comment on what the Minister said about the Civil Estimates, Class VI, where all these figures are defined:
  "Conversions and improvements of housing accommodation … (a) by local authorities and other bodies … (b) by private persons … (2) Standard improvements of housing accommodation …".
  I will not read it all. But these amounts are itemised and the figure for the previous financial year is given. Does not

  533
  the hon. Gentleman think this information is sufficient for his purpose?
  Mr. Walker: I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who is likely to remain in Opposition for the rest of his Parliamentary life, does not want this information in this form.
  Mr. Lubbock rose—
  Mr. Walker: I am willing to concede that the hon. Gentleman can read. But, as far as—
  Mr. Lubbock: Apparently the hon. Member for Worcester cannot.
  Mr. Walker: All I am saying is that as part of the Bill, where there is specific investing out of the total fund, provision should be made that once a year these figures by themselves, not in the total Civil Estimates, should be published and laid before Parliament so that they can be clearly seen and debated.
  I want to concentrate attention on housing. I do not want this as something which can be delved out of the Civil Estimates once a year when they are
  being discussed in total. I want Governments of any complexion to lay these figures before Parliament. I am surprised at the refusal to do so.
  I am sure that all those passionately interested in housing, such as movements like Shelter, would like this kind of information clearly exposed to Parliamentary debate once a year. They, too, will regret the Government's reluctance to indicate clearly the manner in which they will budget future housing policy. The only conclusion that can be drawn from their decision is that they are hoping that people will consider that they have decided to spend an additional £40 million on housing without recognising that this sum is coming from the existing housing programme.
  Because they are hoping to conceal that, they are reluctant about the new Clause. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friends to divide the House in favour of the new Clause.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second Time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 185.

  Division No. 270.]

  AYES

  [6.10 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Astor, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

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

  Gower, Raymond

  Monro, Hector

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Grant, Anthony

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Grieve, Percy

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Bell, Ronald

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Biffen, John

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Nott, John

  Braine, Bernard

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Onslow, Cranley

  Brewis, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Percival, Ian

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Holland, Philip

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

  Hordern, Peter

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hunt, John

  Pounder, Rafton

  Burden, F. A.

  Hutchison, Michael dark

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pym, Francis

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Clark, Henry

  Jopling, Michael

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Clegg, Walter

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

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

  Cooke, Robert

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Silvester, Frederick

  Corfield, F. V.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Costain, A. P.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Speed, Keith

  Crouch, David

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Stainton, Keith

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  McMaster, Stanley

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

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

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)

  Temple, John M.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Maddan, Martin

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maginnis, John E.

  Tilney, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maude, Angus

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Foster, Sir John

  Mawby, Ray

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Waddington, David

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Younger, Hn. George

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Wright, Esmond

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Wylie, N. R.

  Mr. Reginald Eyre.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Gregory, Arnold

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Anderson, Donald

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Neal, Harold

  Archer, Peter

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Newens, Stan

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Norwood, Christopher

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Hannan, William

  O'Malley, Brian

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Harper, Joseph

  Oram, Albert E.

  Bagier, Gordon, A. T.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Barnett, Joel

  Haseldine, Norman

  Orme, Stanley

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hazell, Bert

  Oswald, Thomas

  Binns, John

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hooley, Frank

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Blackburn, F.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Palmer, Arthur

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Horner, John

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Park, Trevor

  Booth, Albert

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Boyden, James

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Bradley, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pentland, Norman

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hynd, John

  Perry, Georga H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Brooks, Edwin

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

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Jegsr, George (Goole)

  Price, William (Rugby)

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

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Probert, Arthur

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

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

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

  Rankin, John

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Judd, Frank

  Rees, Merlyn

  Concannon, J. D.

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Lawson, George

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Ryan, John

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

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

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Silverman, Julius

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lipton, Marcus

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Dell, Edmund

  Lubbock, Eric

  Slater, Joseph

  Dempsey, James

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dewar, Donald

  Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  MacColl, James

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Dickens, James

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Dobson, Ray

  McGuire, Michael

  Symonds, J. B.

  Doig, Peter

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Taverne, Dick

  Dunn, James A.

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Tinn, James

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Tuck, Raphael

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Ellis, John

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  English, Michael

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Ensor, David

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Wallace, George

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

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Fernyhough, E.

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

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Manuel, Archie

  Wellbeloved, James

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mapp, Charles

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Ford, Ben

  Marquand, David

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Forrester, John

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Woof, Robert

  Gardner, Tony

  Mendelson, John

  Garrett, W. E.

  Millan, Bruce

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ginsburg, David

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry and

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

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

  Dr. M. S. Miller.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

New Clause 12

  RENT OFFICERS ADVISORY DUTIES RELATING TO GRANTS
  Rent officers, holding appointments as such by virtue of Part IV of the Rent Act 1968, shall have the duty of giving advice concerning grants under Part I of this Act to persons
  536
  (upon reasonable request therefor) who are applicants or prospective applicants for grants or who are builders or developers interested in works for which grants may be made; and such Rent Officers shall be responsible for maintaining reasonable liaison between the local authority, on the one hand, and the owners and occupiers of property which is being or is capable of being improved and the

  537
  builders and developers who are or may be interested therein, on the other hand.—[Mr. Clegg.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Clegg: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  On the centre pages of the Evening News yesterday I found a whole page of what I took at first to be a Labour Party manifesto, with a collection of portraits. On further inspection, however, I found that the photographs were of those fine people, the rent officers. The words of the advertisement were very appropriate:
  "Call in for a friendly chat. You do not need an appointment. We will make sure your rent is fair".
  That last statement will probably make a cold shiver run up and down the spine of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun.)
  I have a great respect for rent officers, who have had remarkable success. The system has worked much better than I thought it would. The new Clause continues a line of thought which we expressed in Committee, which arose because the building industry and applicants had difficulty in getting technical guidance and information about their entitlement to grants from certain local authorities. We suggested that an officer should be appointed to administer grants, but we were told that it was not necessary to put that in the Bill, since the Clause only said that they "may" appoint, which would leave the authorities free.
  This new Clause is a different matter. It would lay the duty on someone appointed not by the local authority and who would be outside the authority's scope. Under the Bill, rent officers will have to study its effects and decide on the rents to be charged when the work has been done. They are therefore bound to build up a considerable fund of experience. We feel that they could assist not only the applicants but builders or developers interested in works for which grants may be given. We see their capacity rather as advisory officers who can maintain a liaison between local authorities making and administering the grants and the people on the receiving end.
  This is the sort of duty with which the Government have some sympathy. We have occasionally discussed ways and
  538
  means of bringing to people's notice the way in which they can get grants. One difficulty in the past has been that schemes for grants have not worked as well as they should, because of a lack of knowledge of entitlements. If the rent officers were brought in, that would no longer apply. From the beginning, one could know from him what sort of rent was likely and what sort of help was available under the standard grants and the discretionary grants.
  The new Clause would set a pattern which would make administration of these grants much easier and more satisfactory and would undoubtedly provide a line service for the public.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I have no doubt that this proposal would be a great advantage for property owners. The Bill and the Amendments, particularly those which we are now discussing, are of great value to property owners, but what service will be supplied for the tenants? The tenant will suffer from this—
  Mr. Clegg: Could the hon. Gentleman explain why? Would not the tenant get the benefit of the landlord having advice which would improve his property?
  Mr. Allaun: Not at all. The landlord will ask the rent officer what rent he could charge if he put in a bathroom, and if the rent officer said that he could probably get treble the landlord would go ahead and use his compulsory powers and the tenant would suffer. I hope that the Minister will remember that this Bill is biased against the tenant.
  Sir D. Glover: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) made a powerful case for the new Clause, and I was surprised at the remarks of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). What often surprises me about our procedures is that we go through all the arrangements of making assistance available for various people and then have a genius for keeping it under the carpet, so that no one knows which arrangements are available—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard the beginning of the debate. We have 40 debates before us. Hon. Members should speak about the new Clause at the moment.
  Sir D. Glover: I thought that I was doing so, Mr. Speaker. I was referring to the advisory duties of the rent officers. When certain things are available, someone should be able to give advice. In a very able speech, my hon. Friend suggested that the rent officer should give the advice. In that respect, the new Clause would help.
  What surprises me about the hon. Member for Salford, East is that, even though this may involve an increase in rent, it seems anti-social to condemn someone to live in a property, perhaps at a low rent, which, with an improvement grant for a bathroom, could become a reasonable home in which the hon. Gentleman would like his constituents to live.
  The new Clause is only asking that the rent officers shall have advisory duties relating to grants, which means that many people, perhaps with one or two units and with very little skilled knowledge of these matters, could ask advice about making the accommodation more satisfactory for the tenants—and, admittedly, for themselves, the landlords. I assume that, having made these improvements, they would be able to increase the rents, but the new Clause would be very valuable, particularly to a small landlord and to the tenants whose accommodation would be improved. I hope that the Minister will think this helpful to the working of the various Acts dealing with grants and modernisation, and that it will help this system to work more efficiently.
  Mr. Maddan: I had not intended to speak until the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) gave his reason for opposing the new Clause. It was so contrary to the whole purpose of the Bill that I must make one point which has not been stressed so far. The only validity that his objection could have is if the whole basis of the Bill were false and against the interests of tenants. Since the Minister brought it forward in good faith, he will not accept that argument, at least. In those circumstances, I hope that he will accept the new Clause, or at least the spirit of it, since it is designed to help make the Bill work as well as possible.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Allason: I remind the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun)
  540
  that the object of the Bill is to improve houses. It follows, since houses are lived in by people, that we want to benefit not the houses but the people. People will not suffer if their houses are improved. The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman has a private quarrel with his right hon. Friend about whether a system of fair rents should be introduced. He does not want such a system, but it does not entitle him to argue that tenants will suffer if their houses are improved; and the new Clause is merely designed to see that houses are improved in the right way.
  Hon. Members will be aware of the difficulties that are encountered when owners are trying to be persuaded to improve their property. They are often frightened off because of the complicated procedures that are involved. We gather that the Minister is to produce yet another pamphlet explaining the new incentives and how they will work. The small owner is always at a disadvantage.
  It is for these reasons that we need in the market-place, so to speak, somebody who will be aware of new bright ideas and how to explain them to small owners, who normally do not read the details of the latest developments in the technical journals. We need somebody to do this job who is not just in touch with the latest ideas but knows his locality and the houses that most need improving.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: The new Clause deals primarily with rent officers. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that, in the whole orbit of local and national government, rent officers are the best qualified people to give advice of this kind?
  Mr. Allason: Somebody is needed to do this work. It is an attractive idea to have somebody who is aware of local conditions but who, not being a local official, is neutral. We have ready to hand rent officers, who are the friends of all concerned. They are used to settling rent problems and are, therefore, familiar with the problems of both landlords and tenants. They are experienced in dealing with the matters with which we are concerned.
  Hon. Members voiced a certain amount of suspicion when rent officers were established. By now, however, we know them to be extremely useful, helpful and knowledgeable people. I appreciate that this additional work would mean that their numbers would have to be increased.

  541
  However, we would not need highly qualified people to explain these procedures, so that it should not prove difficult to recruit more rent officers. We need people to do this job because they are interested and passionately devoted to the creation of good housing. The rent officer fills the bill.
  In Committee we discussed the number of rent officers who might be needed, not just for this proposal but as a result of the Bill as a whole. It would, therefore, be ridiculous for the Government to suggest that the new Clause is impracticable because more rent officers would have to be recruited. If Parliament wills that rent officers must do this job, the Executive cannot stand in the way, and more rent officers will have to be found.
  Mr. Hawkins: I take issue with the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) who, I know, is passionately devoted to the provision of better housing. However, on all occasions such as this his remarks seem to indicate that he would rather have tenants living in squalor than have their houses improved. The Bill is concerned with improving houses and getting the whole stock of houses up to a better standard.
  The Labour Party has been at pains to point out that landlords do not improve their houses. As the Bill will, we hope, result in houses being improved, it must be agreed that somebody is needed locally to help to see that the job is done. Owner-occupiers, and particularly the elderly, living in, for example, small terraced houses, need assistance and friendly advice from somebody who specialises in these matters. They need somebody to turn to who will explain the best way for the improvements to be made and how to fill in the necessary forms.
  The answer to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) is that we endeavoured in Committee to secure the appointment of people on local authority staffs to do this work. That proposition was rejected. If the hon. Gentleman has an alternative suggestion, I would be pleased to hear it.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. With the best will in the world, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) cannot make any such suggestion now. It is a question of discussing what the new Clause suggests.
  Mr. Hawkins: I have had a considerable amount to do with grants and improvements of this kind. I have found that even trained professional people are sometimes at a loss because there is not one person in a local authority dealing specifically with matters of this kind. The rent officer has intimate knowledge of his area and could perform this task usefully.
  I rather disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) that a great increase would be required in the number of rent officers. I believe that the existing stock of rent officers could do this work, in addition to their present tasks.
  Mr. Lubbock: Rent officers are capable of performing duties other than those suggested in the new Clause. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of what I have in mind, for it would be improper for me to develop that theme on this occasion.
  Many rent officers are under-loaded at present and would have no difficulty if the duties proposed in the new Clause were assigned to them. I wonder, however, if Conservative hon. Members have thought whether rent officers would be the right people to do this job. I do not believe that they would be, and I say that declaring an interest as a director of a small building company.
  Building firms which specialise in conversions and improvements are the most capable people to advise clients on how this would should be undertaken, not only technically but from the point of view of filling in the necessary forms, putting in applications to local authorities and going through all the administrative procedures that are involved. Building companies do this work as a matter of course. Indeed, it is somewhat of an insult to suggest in the new Clause that among those to be advised on these matters by rent officers are builders and developers. Are Conservative hon. Members suggesting that builders and developers know less than rent officers about how to get in touch with local authorities and of the latest technical improvements about which one can read in the trade journals?
  Mr. Clegg: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that approaches have been made by the building industry to the effect that difficulties have been experienced in

  543
  this matter and that some firms have been discouraged from undertaking this work because of the problems that stand in their way?
  Mr. Lubbock: That only means that there must be a lot of incompetent builders who may soon find themselves out of business, with the result that my firm will have more. [Interruption.] The building industry is varied in the capabilities of the firms which comprise it. One is frequently reading about building firms going bankrupt. I do not underestimate the difficulties that the building industry faces. However, the procedures which we are discussing are not as complicated as some hon. Members may think for firms which specialise in this work and which do not try to cover the whole spectrum of new work for local authorities and private clients and also do conversions and improvements for both types of client.
  Companies which specialise in conversions and improvements frequently employ experts to oversee the work. I do not believe that the difficulties are nearly as serious as the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has made out today or has maintained in correspondence concerning the building industry. Indeed, it is a slur on the industry to suggest that it needs the advice of rent officers, who have no expertise in this sphere and who are concerned with totally different matters following the passage of the 1965 Act.
  To divert the attention of rent officers away from their present activities and into technical questions connected with improving property would be wrong. It would mean their undertaking additional training, their energies would be absorbed in this task and they would be prevented from branching out into new fields in which I hope the Minister will later in the debate be persuaded they should become involved.
  For these reasons the new Clause is bad. I am satisfied that once the building industry has full knowledge of the contents of the Bill it will get down to the job we want it to tackle efficiently with the result that many more houses, and particularly older ones, will be brought up to date.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Costain: Like the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), I must declare my interest in that I, too, am a director of a small building company.
  I disagree with the hon. Gentleman because the building industry, as well as others, needs somebody to advise on these matters. Perhaps the hon. Member for Orpington has not spent as long in the practical side of the industry as I have. The Government are expecting to open a new phase of development and spend £40 million to improve property. It must be agreed that there are not sufficient people in the building industry with the knowledge that rent officers may be able to pass on to those concerned.
  Mr. Lubbock: Why not?
  Mr. Costain: We must have a co-ordinated effort. Far be it from me to recommend the appointment of more civil servants. I am not doing that. The rent officer, because of his present duties, is probably best able to judge what accommodation in his area needs improving. We need somebody to advise property owners and developers because, as usual, the hon. Member for Orpington has got his facts wrong. The majority of houses are owned not by builders but by private individuals.
  Mr. Lubbock: I wish the hon. Gentleman would not be stupid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
  Mr. Costain: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt. I hope that he will do so in the correct Parliamentary manner and not from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are on Report, which is somewhat more formal than when we are in Committee.
  Mr. Costain: I welcome your protection in this matter, Mr. Speaker.
  A number of small owners of rented property are not experienced. When a new grant of this sort is brought out by any Government there is immediately a crop of semi-experts who try to set up in business to advise these somewhat innocent people. These people are attracted because they think that if they take that advice they might get the grant.

  545
  The rent officer knows the type of accommodation which lets and he knows what is lacking in amenities. He is the perfect person to do this job. At present many rent officers are not fully occupied. The Government should adopt this sensible new Clause.
  Mr. MacColl: The trouble about members of the Opposition is that they are in a very aggressive and dictatorial mood at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The general idea that the rent officer should interest himself in improvements and helping people who go to see him is common ground, but why have this pretentious Clause putting a statutory duty on him? It says not that he "may" but that he "shall" have the duty of giving advice.
  Mr. Clegg: The last time I proposed putting the word "may" in the Minister said that there was no need then to have the Clause in the Bill.
  Mr. MacColl: I think that is so, but if the duty is to be put on the rent officer to maintain a reasonable liaison, I wonder whether hon. Members who have some experience with local government have considered how this would work with a local authority—a statutory body responsible for administering the grant system, elected democratically and conscious of its rights—agreeing to have a rent officer, not in a friendly, helpful, co-operative relationship, but with a statutory duty to liaise between the authority and its constituents.
  Is the rent officer, like the Citizens Advice Bureau, to have available information about grants and be able to tell people where to go to get them, giving them the extension number in the town hall where they can get the information? Many conscientious rent officers would do that without thinking they were departing from their normal work. Public health inspectors have a technical knowledge and standing as local authority officers. They could do this kind of work, but I do not think it would be wise to place a statutory duty on them to do it.
  There is a special difficulty about the rent officer. He is appointed by the clerk of the local authority, but he is not the servant of the clerk and is not answerable to him for decisions he makes. Sometimes this gives rise to an unwarrantable
  546
  suspicion that the rent officer is the stooge of the local council. It is very important for a rent officer with any sense and wisdom to be careful to make clear that he is in no way a servant of the local authority but is independent and giving his own decisions which can be challenged only in the traditional way by assessment by a local committee. I am sure that rent officers would like to give information and join in partnership with other bodies in trying to improve property, but they should not have this laid on them as a statutory duty.
  Mr. Graham Page: We cannot be other than dissatisfied with the answer the Parliamentary Secretary has given. On the last point he made I rather doubt whether if a rent officer spends his time advising on these sort of matters he is still within the duties of his appointment. I think it doubtful whether he would be right without some authority given by statute to give that sort of advice. He is appointed to do a particular duty. He is a central Government servant under the town clerk, but not under the local authority.
  I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that we are not in any way in an aggressive or dictatorial mood. If it would please him to have the word "may" instead of "shall" in the new Clause we should be quite happy to make that change. Local authorities should realise that there should be some officer specifically appointed with the power to liaise with all concerned with applying for grants, or wishing to consider whether they can apply or what is to happen to the tenant when the landlord applies. It has been accepted for years that grants have not been taken up as we would wish them to be taken up. This is what the Bill is all about. Anything we can do to encourage people to understand grants and be ready to take them up should be done.
  The criticism made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) of the inclusion in the Clause of builders and developers is not justified. There are many who would welcome liaison between themselves and owners or occupiers of property. Although many building companies understand this job perfectly well and would advise people on it, others need assistance, not in their technical work, but in their relations with those who want to carry out repairs to their properties.

  547
  Individual owners need help in understanding what is meant by the grants and how they can use them. They need to know what their entitlements are and how families in houses where grants are to be made and improvements undertaken have to arrange their own affairs. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his paradise of bachelordom, does not understand what is meant by families re-arranging their lives. I know a little better as I heard during the last debate that I have become a grandfather for the first time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know about the re-arranging of families and the difficulties faced when they have to move from a room because a bathroom is to be put in.
  The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) said that this proposal would not help tenants; but we think it would. If a tenant can go to a rent officer and say, "The landlord wants to put a bathroom in my sitting-room. What can I do about it?", the rent officer can tell him how he can raise objections and get the landlord to give him other accommodation. How would an ordinary tenant know about that unless there were someone to whom he could apply? The rent officer is the right person to do this.
  In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
  "If a rent officer is good at his job, and all London rent officers are outstanding, he becomes a sort of Citizens' Advice Bureau because he becomes a person to whom M.P.'s, landlords, tenants and others go to to get advice about the levels of rent.
  A rent officer who can say, 'I know from my experience that that is too high a rent and you would be much wiser to agree a lower rent' is doing a tremendously valuable job. Such advice does not appear in the figures as a case dealt with, a decision taken, but it is part of his preventive work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 20th March, 1969; col. 381.]
  If that sort of action could be brought to bear on liaison between local authorities and individuals wanting to carry out improvements and between tenants and builders capable of doing the work, it would serve a very good purpose. It will not happen unless we put something definite in the Bill to oblige local authorities to think of this as a positive job and not merely as, "Perhaps we might appoint someone next year to do this". We should make it an obligation on them. Then I think the work will be done.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 183.

  Division No. 271.]

  AYES

  [6.55 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Eiliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fortescue, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Foster, Sir John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McMaster, Stanley

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Bell, Ronald

  Gower, Raymond

  Maddan, Martin

  Biffen, John

  Grant, Anthony

  Maginnis, John E.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

  Maude, Angus

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Grieve, Percy

  Mawby, Ray

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Braine, Bernard

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Brewis, John

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

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

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Burden, F. A.

  Higgins, Terence L,

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Holland, Philip

  Nott, John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hordern, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hornby, Richard

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hunt, John

  Percival, Ian

  Clark, Henry

  Hutch son, Michael Clark

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Clegg, Walter

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Cooke, Robert

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Corfield, F. V.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Costain, A. P.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Crouch, David

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Pym, Francis

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Jopling, Michael

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Wiggin, A. W.

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

  Tilney, John

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Silvester, Frederick

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wright, Esmond

  Speed, Keith

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Wylie, N. R.

  Stainton, Keith

  Waddington, David

  Younger, Hn. George

  Stoddart-scott, Col. Sir M.

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Temple, John M.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mr. Hector Monro.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

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

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Anderson, Donald

  Gregory, Arnold

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Archer, Peter

  Gray, Charles (Durham)

  Neal, Harold

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Ashley, Jack

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Newens, Stan

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Norwood, Christopher

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Hannan, William

  O'Malley, Brian

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Barnett, Joel

  Haseldine, Norman

  Orbach, Maurice

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hazell, Bert

  Orme, Stanley

  Bishop, E. S.

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Oswald, Thomas

  Blackburn, F.

  Hooley, Frank

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Horner, John

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Booth, Albert

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pardoe, John

  Boyden, James

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Park, Trevor

  Bradley, Tom

  Hynd, John

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Brooks, Edwin

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

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

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

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

  Judd, Frank

  Price, William (Rugby)

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

  Kelley, Richard

  Probert, Arthur

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

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Rankin, John

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

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

  Rees, Merlyn

  Concannon, J. D.

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lawson, George

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederik (Newton)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Ryan, John

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Lector, Miss Joan

  Sheldon, Robert

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silverman, Julius

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Slater, Joseph

  Dell, Edmund

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dempsey, James

  MacColl, James

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Dewar, Donald

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Symonds, J. B.

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  McGuire, Michael

  Taverne, Dick

  Dickens, James

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Tinn, James

  Dobson, Ray

  Mackenz e, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Doig, Peter

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Dunn, James A.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Dunnett, Jack

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Ellis, John

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  English, Michael

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Wallace, George

  Ensor, David

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

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

  Wellbeloved, James

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

  Manuel, Archie

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mapp, Charles

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vate)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Woof, Robert

  Ford, Ben

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Forrester, John

  Mendelson, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Freeson, Reginald

  Millan, Bruce

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry and

  Gardner, Tony

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

New Clause 17

  OPTING OUT OF OPTION MORTGAGES
  Any person who effectively elected that a loan to him should be subsidised in accordance with Part II of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967 may by notice in writing to the lender (in such form, at such time and in such manner as the Minister may direct) elect
  that the loan shall, as from the 1st April, 1970 or on any third anniversary of that date, no longer be so subsidised—[Mr. Graham Page.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Question put. That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 177.

  Division No. 272.]

  AYES

  [7.5 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Grieve, Percy

  Nott, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Pardoe, John

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Percival, Ian

  Bell, Ronald

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Biffen, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Pounder, Rafton

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. w.)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Pym, Francis

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Braine, Bernard

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Brewis, John

  Holland, Philip

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hordern, Peter

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hornby, Richard

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

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

  Hunt, John

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Speed, Keith

  Burden, F. A.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Stainton, Keith

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Temple, John M.

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Jopling, Michael

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Clark, Henry

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Tilney, John

  Clegg, Walter

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Cooke, Robert

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Costain, A. P.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Waddington, David

  Crouch, David

  Lubbock, Eric

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  MacArthur, Ian

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

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

  Maddan, Martin

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Maude, Angus

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Mawby, Ray

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wright, Esmond

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Younger, Hn. George

  Foster, Sir John

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Gibston-Watt, David

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Gower, Raymond

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

  Grant, Anthony

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Dewar, Donald

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Anderson, Donald

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

  Dickens, James

  Archer, Peter

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

  Dobson, Ray

  Ashley, Jack

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

  Doig, Peter

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Dunnett, Jack

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Concannon, J. D.

  Ellis, John

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  English, Michael

  Barnett, Joel

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ensor, David

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Blackburn, F.

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Fernyhough, E.

  Blenkinsoa, Arthur

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Booth, Albert

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Boyden, James

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Ford, Ben

  Bradley, Tom

  Delargy, Hugh

  Forrester, John

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Dell, Edmund

  Gardner, Tony

  Brooks, Edwin

  Dempsey, James

  Garrett, W. E.

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Gregory, Arnold

  MacColl, James

  Pentland, Norman

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  McGuire, Michael

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Probert, Arthur

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Rankin, John

  Hannan, William

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Haseldine, Norman

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

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Hazell, Bert

  Manuel, Archie

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Mapp, Charles

  Ryan, John

  Hooley, Frank

  Marks, Kenneth

  Sheldon, Robert

  Horner, John

  Marquand, David

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Silverman, Julius

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mendelson, John

  Slater, Joseph

  Hynd, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

  Taverne, Dick

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

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Tinn, James

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Neal, Harold

  Varley, Eric G.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Newens, Stan

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Judd, Frank

  Norwood, Christopher

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Kelley, Richard

  Ogden, Eric

  Wallace, George

  Kenyon, Clifford

  O'Malley, Brian

  Watkins, David (Consett)

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

  Oram, Albert E.

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Lawson, George

  Orme, Stanley

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Oswald, Thomas

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Woof, Robert

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Palmer, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry and

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Park, Trevor

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

New Clause 18

  GUARANTEE OF ADVANCES IN EXCESS OF NORMAL AMOUNT EXTENDED TO NON-OPTION MORTGAGES
  In section 30 of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967 (Guarantee of advances in excess of normal
  amount) paragraph (a) shall be omitted.—[Mr. Graham Page.]
  Brought up, and read the First Time.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 188.

  Division No. 273.]

  AYES

  [7.12 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Crouch, David

  Holland, Philip

  Awdry, Daniel

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Hordern, Peter

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hornby, Richard

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hunt, John

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bell, Ronald

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Biffen, John

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

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Eye)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Eyre, Reginald

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Foster, Sir John

  Jopling, Michael

  Braine, Bernard

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Brewis, John

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gower, Raymond

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Grant, Anthony

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

  Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

  MacArthur, Ian

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Grieve, Percy

  McMaster, Stanley

  Burden, F. A.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maddan, Martin

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Maude, Angus

  Carisle, Mark

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Mawby, Ray

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Clark, Henry

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Clegg, Walter

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Cooke, Robert

  Heseltine, Michael

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Corfield, F. V.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Munro-Lueas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Nott, John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Williams, Donad (Dudley)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Percival, Ian

  Temple, John M.

  Wright, Esmond

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Wylie, N. R.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Tilney, John

  Younger, Hn. George

  Pounder, Rafton

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Pym, Francis

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Waddington, David

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Millan, Bruce

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Anderson, Donald

  Gregory, Arnold

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Archer, Peter

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

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

  Ashley, Jack

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Neal, Harold

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Newers, Stan

  Bagier, Cordon A. T.

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Norwood, Christopher

  Batsford, Brian

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Ogden, Eric

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hannan, William

  Oram, Albert E.

  Blackburn, F.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Haseldine, Norman

  Orme, Stanley

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hazell, Bert

  Oswald, Thomas

  Booth, Albert

  Herbiscn, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Boyden, James

  Hooley, Frank

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Bradley, Tom

  Horner, John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Brooks, Edwin

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Pardoe, John

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Park, Trevor

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Hynd, John

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

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

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

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

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

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Pentland, Norman

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

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Probert, Arthur

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Judd, Frank

  Rankin, John

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Kelley, Richard

  Rees, Merlyn

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Kenyon, Cliford

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Ryan, John

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Lawson, George

  Sheldon, Robert

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Silverman, Julius

  Davies, Ifor (Cower)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  Slater, Joseph

  Dell, Edmund

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dempsey, James

  Lipton, Marcus

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lubbock, Eric

  Symonds, J. B.

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Taverne, Dick

  Dickens, James

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Tinn, James

  Dobson, Ray

  MacColl, James

  Tuck, Raphael

  Doig, Peter

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Dunn, James A.

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Ellis, John

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Wallace, George

  English, Michael

  Matron, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Ensor, David

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Fernyhough, E.

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

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

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

  Manuel, Archie

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mapp, Charles

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Woof, Robert

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Marquand, David

  Ford, Ben

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Forrester, John

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry and

  Gardner, Tony

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mendelson, John

New Clause 22

  FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR STRENGTHENING OF HIGH TOWER BLOCKS
  The percentage of grant payable by the Minister of Housing and Local Government towards the costs incurred by local authorities in the strengthening of high tower blocks as a result of the Ronan Point disaster shall be increased from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent.—[Mr. Arthur Lewis.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move That the Clause be read a Second time.
  I think it will be convenient if we take with this Amendment No. 164, in the Title, line 18, after 'rent', insert:
  'to increase the percentage of grant payable to local authorities for the strengthening of high tower blocks'.
  May I express my thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of raising the subject, and may I also apologise to hon. Members if I go on for a greater length than has been the case so far, because the Clause and the Amendment affect the whole question of the Ronan Point disaster, which has not been debated during the passage of the Bill. Although the disaster was in May of last year and a special Committee of Inquiry was set up to investigate it, there has never been a debate on any matters dealing with the disaster or the strengthening of tower blocks. The Clause deals with this, but it is of a much more general nature, because it will affect all local authorities which have buildings of this kind.
  It will be recalled that at the time of the Ronan Point disaster when, unfortunately, there were a few casualties but, fortunately, not as many as there might have been, everyone was very sympathetic and made understanding comments and expressed sympathy with those who had lost their loved ones. The Committee of Inquiry was set up under Mr. Hugh Griffiths, Q.C., who did an admirable job, with his colleagues. I pay tribute to them.
  7.30 p.m.
  When the Griffiths Report was published on 6th November, 1968, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made a statement to
  558
  the House. I do not suggest that he said that the Government would meet the cost, but, thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, I was able to put a supplementary question to my right hon. Friend, and I asked him whether the Government would meet the cost. I think that the feeling in the House was that he made a sympathetic reply. Hence, all local authorities affected got on with the job of seeing what could be done to strengthen tower blocks in their areas, waiting for settlement day.
  In the interim, quite rightly, my right hon. Friend issued a directive, arising from the report, which instructed councils to take action to strengthen tower blocks and so prevent similar disasters to the one at Ronan Point. A number of authorities decided to get on with the job, and they did it expecting the day to come when the cost would be worked out and they would be reimbursed.
  On 6th June of this year the Minister told one of the local authority associations that the Government would make an offer of 40 per cent. of the cost, leaving the local authorities saddled with 60 per cent. First, I want to know why the Government made an offer. On what basis have they chosen to contribute 40 per cent., and on what basis have they chosen to saddle the local authorities with 60 per cent.?
  Sixty per cent. is a remarkably popular figure with the Government. The Chairmen of the nationalised industries have been given a 60 per cent. pay rise, and now the poor ratepayers of a number of local authorities, including my own, are faced with having to meet 60 per cent. of these costs. This is unfair in' principle, and it is particularly unjust to the Borough of Newham, comprising the old boroughs of East and West Ham. In the war, they were the worst bombed boroughs. They lost over a third of their accommodation of all types and had tremendous post-war housing problems as a result. In addition, they had an enormous slum clearance problem.
  Knowing the difficulties and the lack of land in the area, they listened to the advice of various Governments and got on with the job of rehousing their people. Obviously, they would have preferred to build detached and semi-detached houses, but that was physically impossible. They had to build upwards, and they decided

  559
  to build tower blocks. They were advised by the Ministry about the safety and other precautions which should be taken, and the blocks were built to Ministry standards.
  Now the Borough of Newham is to be saddled with a debt of 60 per cent. of the cost, and it will have to pay for the fact that it was the worst bombed borough. That is a great liability to the local authority, in spite of the subsidies. It must be remembered that a local authority represents its inhabitants. It is they who find the money. Even if a local authority borrows, it is the local ratepayers eventually who have to pay.
  As a result of the advice of past Governments—and I do not condemn them for it—my council got on with the job. There are tower blocks all over the borough, and a loan debt of £87 million has been incurred. That has to be paid. Interest rates have not gone down, and the council is having to find more money. The result is that the rates go up to pay for it.
  Now the Minister has issued a circular. In other circumstances, my choice of words would be considered unparliamentary. I content myself with saying, "Of all the nerve!" My right hon. Friend says that if any council cannot find the money, the Government will grant it loan sanction. What a thundering cheek! He is saying, "If you cannot find the 60 per cent., you can borrow it", ignoring the fact that the local ratepayers will have to find the money eventually.
  Many of my constituents were bombed out four, five and six times. On each occasion, they shifted their homes. A number of them have waited 20 years to get a house, and some have not got houses even now. From 1939 to the present day, they have paid high rates. Today, their children are grown up, and they, too, are paying high rents and rates. Now, it appears that the children's children will be saddled with higher rates to pay for this imposition of 60 per cent. of the cost which is to be put on the local authority.
  My Clause suggests that, instead of a council having to meet 60 per cent. and the Government 40 per cent., it should be the other way round, with the Government meeting 60 per cent. and the council
  560
  meeting 40 per cent. I do that quite deliberately, although I feel that the Government morally ought to meet 100 per cent. of the cost. There is a method in my madness. I want to know why the Government have hit upon 60 per cent. and 40 per cent. The Minister may suggest that it is fair, but it could be said to be equally fair the other way round. Instead of the Minister dodging his responsibility and meeting only 40 per cent., I suggest that the Government's proportion should be 60 per cent.
  I feel strongly about this. People in my constituency tell me that they have waited 20 years for a house and that they are scared to go into Ronan Point type flats, even after strengthening. A near revolt is going on because residents refuse to move into such flats. In the face of such a situation, it is not only parsimonious on the part of the Minister but shocking and degrading to suggest that a local authority like my own should have to pay for the fact that it has suffered this disaster.
  Having attacked the Minister, I propose now to let him off the hook a little. Frankly, I do not think that this is the work of my right hon. Friend. The old nigger is present in the woodpile. It is the Treasury which is refusing to part up with the extra money. But why does not my right hon. Friend stand up to the Treasury? Iam sure that every hon. Member will agree that he should go to the Treasury and say that it ought to meet 100 per cent. of the costs.
  I do not want to go through the report on the Ronan Point disaster, but in paragraph 47 on page 65 it is said that the Minister of Housing is responsible for the building regulations and that he ought to have kept the regulations up to date. Local authorities, including my own, built these tower blocks according to his specification. The Ronan Point tragedy occurred. I do not apportion blame. I am not concerned with whether it is the builder's, the achitect's or the Ministry's fault. But let us suppose that a local authority accepts the Ministry's advice, strengthens its tower blocks, and there is another disaster. Let us suppose, further, that it is pointed out that the disaster has occurred because the strengthening has not been sufficient. Will the Minister say that, because the authority has accepted his advice, it will

  561
  be landed with having to find another astronomical sum?
  The new Clause and the Amendment give the Government an opportunity to honour the understanding which I think every hon. Member had and tell the ratepayers of the local authorities concerned that they will not be saddled with yet another increase in rates, which, I am told, may be as much as 1s. in the £.
  Mr. Peter Walker: We welcome the Clause proposed so lucidly by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), and we will support him in endeavouring to see that it is carried.
  I am pleased that he has explained that the reason for using 60 per cent. in his case was to ascertain the justification for the Minister's choice of proportions. I agree with him that very nearly all the cost should be met from central funds.
  I want to draw to the attention of hon. Members the real burden that this will be upon a number of local authorities, which tend to be those with the most serious housing problems. It is the housing authority with a great shortage of land and the need for a major redevelopment of property which has been forced, reluctantly, to go in for building tower blocks. Given the choice of semi-detached houses with gardens and high blocks, I know of no local authority which would not choose the former. But certain authorities with particularly bad housing problems and land limitations have been forced to go in for this type of building. They will have to foot an enormous bill.
  I remind the House of the protracted history of this disaster and of what I consider to be the Minister's reluctance to come to important conclusions on it. If at the time of the disaster the Minister had quickly said that on a preliminary examination of responsibility the Government would meet only 40 per cent. of the cost the public outcry would have been such that it would have been impossible for the Government to carry the day. Only after a long delay during which interest in the disaster has rather fallen into the background because, fortunately, there has not been a similar disaster are the Government able to announce their decision, in a letter.
  The disaster took place on 17th May, 1968. On 24th May there was a meeting
  562
  of officers at the Ministry and there was discussion about the possibility of excluding gas from tall blocks. No conclusions were reached. On 6th August Mr. Hugh Griffiths, the chairman of the inquiry, sent an advance warning to the Minister. On 12th August there was a meeting of officers at the Ministry and local authorities were told to make an appraisal of all system-built blocks. Local authorities immediately reacted, saying that the financial implications would be enormous, and they sought the Minister's guidance about how they would be met. The Minister said only one thing. He said on 15th August that no cost should fall on the tenants. By the Minister's present proposals, costs will fall on the tenants, and also on tenants in other local authorities concerned. I do not think that even this Government would contemplate putting the cost on the tenants who suffered as a result of the disaster, but there will be a cost on many local authority tenants.
  Thereafter the local authorities undertook the task of scrutinising what action needed to be taken. In November, the Minister prepared a draft circular on the measures needed for strengthening. At that stage the Government knew what needed to be done. They had the report on the disaster. There was no reason why at that stage they could not give a clear indication about the distribution of cost that they had in mind. The distribution of cost certainly has not been affected by the magnitude of the Bill. Presumably, the higher the cost, the less burden the right hon. Gentleman would put on the ratepayers. The cost is of gigantic proportions.
  On 25th February this year, there was yet another meeting at the Ministry with the local authority officers concerned. They were told that the Ministry still had not come to a decision about who should meet the cost and they were sent back to consider, if they had not already done so, the extent to which contractors and structural engineers were liable. Most of them were able to tell the Minister that there would be no great joy in going down that avenue because they had already explored it. Nothing happened until this month, when the Minister sent a letter to local authorities which he published.
  I wish to argue most strongly against the Minister's reasons why he should

  563
  bear only 40 per cent. of the cost. There were two sides to the local authorities' argument. The first was that the Ministry had pressed local authorities to go in for industrialised building. I hope that the Ministry view today is that industrialised building has a considerable rôle to play in future housing programmes. I hope that the Ronan Point disaster will have no long term adverse effects on industrialised building. Many of the things that the Minister has said on the Ronan Point disaster indicate that he is anxious that that should not happen. Therefore, all the way along, the Government have encouraged local authorities to go in for industrialised building. Secondly, the Government are responsible for the building regulations, and these blocks were built in compliance with them.
  7.45 p.m.
  The Minister argued against both these points, and I want to read the letter which he sent to local authorities in which he did so. First, on the question of encouraging this type of building, the letter says:
  "The Minister does not accept that the whole burden of financial responsibility is properly attributable to the Housing Ministries. High building is necessary in some areas, but it has not been a feature of Government policy to encourage it for its own sake; in fact the Department's publication' Flats and Houses, 1958; Design and Economy', Circular 40/63 … and the encouragement which the Housing Cost Yardstick gives to building at the minimum heights requisite to the density to be achieved, all reflect the general view expressed in the 1963 circular that 'the most economical scheme for a given density will be that which keeps the proportion of high building to a minimum'".
  This is the Minister's first argument, and it is an appallingly bad one. He argues that he does not have much responsibility for high building and that it should be kept to a minimum.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman should emphasise that the Minister admitted that it is necessary in some areas.
  Mr. Walker: I was about to deal with that point. The Minister argued that the Ministry had not encouraged high building and said that it should be kept to a minimum. But, in his letter, the right hon. Gentleman says that it is necessary
  564
  in some areas. In places like Salford and parts of London and Nottingham it is necessary. The Minister's first argument, namely, that the responsibility should not be his because the Ministry has not encouraged high building, falls to the ground as a result of the phrase in his own letter to the effect that it is a necessity in some areas. Those areas in which it has unfortunately been a necessity are now to be financially penalised.
  The Minister's letter goes on to say:
  "As to the use of industrialised building for this purpose, the Minister accepts that the extended use of industrialised building has been a feature of the policy of both the present administration and its predecessor. But industrialised building is not confined to system-built high blocks".
  The right hon. Gentleman goes on to quote circulars which suggest that it should be applied to low and medium rise flats. So what? The fact is that the Minister has been in favour of industrialised building; he has pressed it on local authorities. He agrees that it is necessary for some local authorities to build high rise flats. They have built them in accordance with industrial building techniques which he favours and have kept completely to the building regulations.
  The right hon. Gentleman goes on to argue against the building regulation argument. He says:
  "… the Minister does not expect that on reflection the associations would wish to press seriously the proposition that the existence of a regulating function must oblige the regulating authority to take financial responsibility for every subsequent occurrence".
  I agree with that, as would any local authority, because the authorities have to apply the regulations. But when a new building technique is adopted the building regulations which a Government decide to apply to it should be thought out with considerable care.
  The report discloses that the building regulations for high rise industrialised building of the Ronan Point type were not adequate and sufficient. These regulations were applied to a new technique, and the fact that the Government failed to produce building regulations which were not sufficient to guarantee these buildings against relatively minor explosions puts a very heavy burden on the Government. I do not blame the

  565
  Government for it when mistakes of this nature are probably likely. I would not condemn a Government if a mistake of this nature occurred. I am not technically equipped to say how serious a blunder it was in not putting in the right regulations on these points. There is, however, a strong obligation to see that the building regulations are adequate. Therefore, I do not believe that the Minister in his letter countered the two major points made by the local authorities.
  The Minister went on in his letter, as the hon. Member for West Ham, North has suggested, to point out the financial arrangements in a most remarkable way. I want to question the Minister about this. First, I consider 40 per cent. to be completely inadequate. The Minister states that if the burden is too tough to carry all in one year, he will give a loan. At what rate will the loan be? Will it be at the current rate of the Public Works Loan Board or at the 4 per cent. rate connected with housing projects? This is an enormous factor, because for certain local authorities which are involved in millions of £s, the difference between 4 per cent. and the 9¾ per cent. now charged by the Board is enormous.
  Secondly, how will this be treated by the local authorities in their accounts? Is this a matter to be dealt with in their housing accounts? If so, it will mean that council house tenants bear the burden in higher rents. If it is not to be dealt with in the housing account, how will the Minister lay down that this expenditure is not paid for out of the housing account? This is a vital question If these millions of £s are to be met from the housing account, council tenants alone, and not the ratepayers, will bear the cost. If, however, the burden is to be met outside the housing account—and it concerns primarily housing expenditure—this heavy burden will fall upon ratepayers throughout the country.
  I wish to draw attention to the cost that this will entail. I gather that Salford, for example, if it has to meet the bill, will face an enormous burden. Salford puts the cost at about £1 million, including £600,000 for construction. How can the Minister say to a local authority like Salford, which heaven knows has enough problems as an area, that because
  566
  of the fault in the regulations and because of its misfortune in using a system of building which the Minister encouraged, the council house tenants of Salford now have to find 60 per cent. of £1 million?
  London puts the total cost as probably something like £2½ million. It knows that on the blocks already built the cost will be £1,661,000. On some of the blocks under construction, the cost will be £858,000. There are other blocks on which the cost has not yet been assessed, and there is still the possibility of considerable penalties to be paid as a result of contract delays. The Greater London Council and the London boroughs, therefore, have an enormous burden.
  In Birmingham, an enormous number of flats is involved. For Nottingham City, the total cost is expected to be about £850,000. Glasgow—and all these are bad housing areas where the pressure is greatest—puts the cost at about £1·4 million, and Edinburgh at £600,000.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: What is the Newham figure?
  Mr. Walker: Newham comes within the London figures.
  Mr. James Dempsey: When the hon. Member quotes Glasgow, will he be good enough to say whether the 60/40 arrangement for England and Wales applies equally to Scotland?
  Mr. Walker: Yes, I presume that it does.
  Mr. N. R. Wylie: Yes, it does.
  Mr. Walker: I gather that a letter has gone from the Scottish Office to that effect.
  All these areas, whether in Scotland or in England, we recognise to be the areas of the worst housing problems, where there is a need to build high rise flats of this type.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member has referred to the poor areas. I hoped that he would deal with the Minister's letter, which has the audacity to suggest that if the local authority associations are willing and agree to a fairer redistribution and, in effect, accept a loss of part

  567
  of the money by allocating it to the poorer areas like Newham, my right hon. Friend would agree. Does the hon. Member envisage any local authority saying, "We do not want 40 per cent. We will make do with 5 per cent. if the balance is given over to Newham"?
  Mr. Walker: I agree. I regarded that suggestion at the end of the Minister's letter as an expression of his guilt complex. He was desperately struggling for a way of putting upon somebody else the onus of getting fair treatment.
  In total, therefore, we have the situation that a small number of local authorities-I do not blame the Government; all Governments wish to encourage industrialised building and recognise that certain areas have to build high flats—suddenly have this vast burden put upon them to the tune of 60 per cent. This is a remarkable failure by the Minister.
  The hon. Member for West Ham, North, in trying to find an excuse for the Minister, said that the blame must be that of the Treasury and not the Minister. He almost said that the Minister was a nice chap and could not have done anything like this. But the Minister must bear full responsibility, because he announced and accepted the Treasury decision.
  Even from a Treasury point of view, it is an appallingly bad argument that the expenditure should be met in the way they suggest. I can imagine the Treasury saying, "We do not want money spent on certain things because of the state of the economy". Everybody agrees, however, that this money must be spent. If we are not careful, certain local authorities will do the minimum that is necessary. My real fear from the Ministry's meanness on this issue is that the local authorities which have acted the speediest—and London was very good in this way—and those which have taken the most complete precautions against any further disaster—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Like Newham.
  Mr. Walker: —are those which have to foot a much higher bill. The imposition of such an enormous burden on local authorities will start to make one or two of them, where there is a possibility of doing this or that degree of strengthening,
  568
  say that 60 per cent. of the cost, will probably be all right. That would be a very dangerous position.
  I therefore plead with the Minister to listen to the arguments which, I know, he will hear from both sides of the House, to go back to the local authorities and discuss this with them and to come up with a much fairer and better decision.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Ronan Point was a social disaster, but looked at nationally it was not a financial disaster. It is, however, a calamity for a small number of towns. We are pleading, therefore, that the whole nation should share the burden which will otherwise fall on this limited number of afflicted areas.
  I should like to know from my right hon. Friend the Minister the estimated total national expenditure. I would not like to make a guess, but I would think that it is infinitesimally small compared with some of the other items which appear in the Treasury expenditure list.
  8.0 p.m.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has made out a powerful case. My local authority is in many ways in a similar position, and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) will no doubt try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are on the Salford housing list families who have been waiting for 20 years. Salford, like Newham, was bombed in the war, it has few wealthy people and a legacy from the industrial revolution of shocking housing, much of it a hundred years old.
  It is particularly tie areas of poor housing which will be hit financially. Many areas of poor housing have no alternative but to build multi-storey flats because they are so heavily industrialised and built up that no land is available, and must build up to the sky. These are the weakest areas financially, and it is these areas which will be hardest hit.
  A cost of £1 million for Salford is a much heavier burden than £2·5 million for the whole of London. The cost per member of the population is much higher. The Conservative council of Salford—and I am not speaking politically—has stated that unless greater compensation is given there will have to be a steep increase in council rents or a steep increase in rates, or both.
  Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Gentleman mentioned London, but I think he has misunderstood the position. Alas, in London the burden falls heavily on some boroughs.
  Mr. Allaun: I agree that this is so. I was using the figure to show that a cost of £1 million for the city of Salford is high in proportion to its population.
  In addition to the financial burden, there will be indescribable domestic upheaval. Eleven blocks of flats are affected, and there are about 100 flats in each block. Six blocks are occupied and five are reaching the occupation stage. What is to happen to the 600 families already in occupation? They cannot stay in the flats while they are being made safe. They have to be decanted, to use a horrible phrase, and put somewhere else temporarily. New houses, however, are not available. Because the 500 flats cannot now be used, people involved in slum clearance are sent further back in the queue.
  It has been suggested that if families have to be moved out of flats it would be better if they were allowed to stay in their new accommodation and not move back again after the flats have been repaired, since this would mean two removals. These families are mostly working families on a low income. They have gone to considerable expense in fitting up their new homes with, let us say, fitted carpets and curtains. If those families are moved into other accommodation all those things will be wasted. Tremendous human problems are involved which the Government cannot compensate for, but at least those families should not also have to bear the financial burden.
  These blocks of flats were built on Government advice. I am not blaming only the Labour Government, but the Conservative Government as well, because industrial building started long before 1964. I blame also the National Building Agency which has a heavy responsibility. Much more stringent regulations should have been made. Sufficient account has not been taken either of high wind velocities.
  What contribution will the building firms make—Taylor Woodrow and the other firms, not direct labour firms, but private enterprise? They introduced
  570
  these new systems; surely they should bear part of the financial burden. They have made large profits. I suggest that some contribution should be made by Taylor Woodrow and other firms before extra dividends are paid to their shareholders.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that if the building firms were to contribute, the contributions would be set against profits and the taxpayer would pay in any case. It would make no difference.
  Mr. Allaun: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts that point to the managing director of Taylor Woodrow and hears his reply.
  Of the £1 million for Salford, the compensation will amount to £400,000, leaving £600,000 to be raised. This will be borrowed, as the Minister said. After interest at market rates over 60 years has been paid on that £600,000 the total figure will be over £3 million. This is not chicken feed. The loan should be obtainable at the 4 per cent. subsidised rate which the Labour Government gives on new council house building. That is about the best thing that the Labour Government have done, and it should apply to loans for this purpose.
  Local authorities are now 85 per cent. Conserative controlled and, unless better compensation is forthcoming, many councils—I am not saying all—will use this as an excuse to stop council house building. Even without this excuse, Conservative controlled councils are cutting down council house building. If we give them the excuse that they have to bear this inordinate cost for strengthening tower blocks then council house building in many areas will stop completely.
  The Minister has urged local authorities to "avoid delay in remedial work". He is absolutely right. Thousands of families desperately need new flats, and it would be a tragedy if there were delay in putting these flats into a safe condition. In other words, they should be strengthened structurally and, where necessary, there should be a change from gas to electricity. But there is a threat in certain quarters of Salford Council that unless greater compensation is given it will delay remedial work.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister, in answer to a Question that I put on this point said that he has no power to compel councils to do anything. If the council refuses to take action, he has no saction against them. That surely strengthens the point.
  Mr. Allaun: It certainly strengthens the argument for financial inducement to be given to councils. I conclude by pleading with the Minister to grant what is set out in the new Clause, namely, 60 per cent. rather than 40 per cent. relief to stricken authorities as the least that should be offered in the circumstances.
  Wing Commander Sir Eric Bullus: This is a most important Clause. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is to be congratulated on having put down this new Clause. Not for the first time he has put considerations of justice and equity before what might be considered to be the party line. If we do not get a satisfactory answer, I hope that he will lead us into the Division Lobby.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member has my assurance.
  Sir E. Bullus: I do not want to deploy all the arguments which have already been put forward by the hon. Member for West Ham, North and by my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker). I support all that they have said. This is a most important matter, and I should like to draw attention to the effects of this provision upon my own constituency.
  There has been considerable building development on the Chalkhill Estate in the Wembley area, which is now part of the Brent Borough Council. The Minister, for whom I have great regard, has shown great interest in this area, and there has been what I consider to be considerable Government interference in the project. When the Minister determines what rents should be charged and interferes with the the policy of the local council, then he has a great responsibility for the amount of money which should be paid to local authorities.
  Some five years ago municipal council housing in Wembley was in balance: it had a differential rent scheme. But when Wembley was merged willy-nilly with Willesden it inherited a great housing
  572
  deficit. We are short of housing land and we, like many other boroughs, have had to build upwards. As I have said, considerable development is taking place in the Chalkhill area. In the Chalkhill development £408,000 is required for strengthening work in tower blocks. The council will receive from the Government £160,000, which is not enough.
  In another development, the Adam Count flats in Sudbury, £5,000 is required. My concern is that if we do not get more than £160,000 it will mean an increase in rates and inevitably an increase in rents. When the Minister will not allow us to put on an economic rent, what are we to do? Many councils are affected by this problem.
  I should like the Minister in reply to give us the views of the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which I am a vice president. They feel that 40 per cent. is far too low a figure. What would the global figure be if the contribution from the Government amounted to 100 per cent. for the strengthening of existing flats? Could he also give us the global figure if the contribution were 60 per cent., or if it remains at 40 per cent.?
  I know that the Minister has a great interest in this matter, and perhaps it is the Treasury which is the stumbling block. However, I hope that he will stand up to the Treasury and realise that the proposal is far too small and that, if we are to have the necessary safety provision, there must be a larger contribution from Government funds.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: This is the first time the House has had an opportunity to discuss all the issues flowing from the Ronan Point disaster. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is to be complimented in putting down the Clause. I wish to apologise for not being in my place during his speech, but I was attending an important meeting, and I am sure that he will understand.
  I should like to raise an important moral issue, quite apart from the financial aspect. Following the disaster it was found that these flats were unfortunately below standard. Perhaps these projects were rushed into at too great a pace without enough experimentation having taken place. Experiments are now being conducted on high wind density and

  573
  have yet to be concluded. After the disaster the Minister decided that a measure of strengthening was essential. There was a Ministry circular to authorities to this effect, but it was not made mandatory on authorities to bring buildings up to a proper standard of safety.
  The Minister in various Answers has said that he has no powers of this sort, but I believe that the matter is of such importance that he ought to take such powers. If a figure of only 40 per cent. is to be offered, many local authorities will not proceed to take action. In my area both officials and council members are worried sick about this issue. They are not merely thinking of the financial burden but carry a great moral responsibility for the tenants who reside in these flats. We cannot stand by and hope that another disaster will not occur such as occurred at Ronan Point. These flats should be put right.
  The Minister will know from the correspondence which has passed between us and from the meeting which I and my hon. Friends had with him before he made his decision that we have impressed upon him that we feel there should be some directive. If a directive is issued, then there must be a large measure of financial responsibility. The Clause is really very modest indeed. I was shocked at the low percentage of contribution put forward by the Minister. Surely there could be a payment more in line with normal Government grants for major developments in local authorities. Normally the Government contributes 75 per cent. to local authorities, and the local authority itself must find 25 per cent. which gives it a real financial responsibility, but the main burden is carried by the taxpayer.
  How can a city such as Salford find £600,000 on either short-term or long-term loan? It will be almost an impossibility to find such a sum on top of the already overriding burden which is now carried by the city. It has been said that the whole problem is related to high density areas and urban and city populations in special selected areas throughout the country.
  Mr. Dempsey: Consultant engineers were employed in the construction of these high rise flats, and surely they also have a responsibility. Does my hon.
  574
  Friend not feel that they should make a contribution from the hefty insurance moneys in which they are involved?
  Mr. Orme: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am not saying that responsibility should not be shared round between these consulting engineers, builders and so forth. But in the end they will come back to the argument that their proposals were approved by the Ministry. Therefore, whilst I agree that there is a need to share this responsibility—I was not excluding that—nevertheless, we must return to the central Government as the main factor within this matter.
  In Britain there are areas of terribly bad housing—the legacy of the 19th century. With respect, many hon. Members on both sides are not aware, as are those of us who come from and represent such areas, of some of the outstanding housing problems that need to be solved in those areas.
  We are talking about selected areas, deprived areas, like Salford where these flats are being built. There are 10 blocks in my constituency—five occupied and five unoccupied. The upset and the cost of transporting the people in the five blocks which have been completed to new homes, even temporarily, will be absolutely colossal. The effect in my hon. Friend's constituency, just across the road as it were, where there are hundreds of houses due for clearance in the Odsall area, will be to delay this work by as much as 12 months or even two years, because the housing available for occupation this year, if the transfer is made, cannot be used. It is not just a financial loss; it is a setback in the house-building programme.
  I think that my right hon. Friend ought to take encouragement from the Opposition Front Bench, because it would appear that they have no objection to greater public expenditure on this issue. He has made a special effort concerning deprived areas, for which £25 million has been found. However, he should ask the Treasury for an increased grant for the areas about which I have been speaking. We should tackle this problem quickly. The money should be found, the flats ought to be put right, and we ought not to be debating for the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years whether they are

  575
  safe and whether we shall have any problems with them.
  I do not want to reiterate the very cogent points which have already been made. When my hon. Friend and I discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend I believe that he had a real feeling of social responsibility. I can assure him of our support if he goes for the extra money. I believe that he has a good case. We should not wait until there is a national disaster and everybody wrings his hands and says, "Why was not something done about it?" It might even cost us three times as much if such an occasion arose.
  Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friend to accept the Clause. I believe that it is insufficient, particularly for a city like Salford, but perhaps his Ministry will have another look at the whole issue. This matter is of paramount public importance. I can assure my right hon. Friend that I have discussed this matter with people of all points of view in Salford and that there is a great feeling of unease which I suggest should be removed.
  Mr. Rossi: I do not envy the Minister, because he has clearly reached a point where he is without a friend in the House. Just as we are united in congratulating and thanking the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on bringing forward this new Clause, we are also united in our condemnation of the Minister because he has been so intransigent and will not assist local authorities to a greater extent than he has offered. But more than the mere question of the 40–60 per cent., which of itself causes anxiety and worry among the local authorities, what loses the right hon. Gentleman his friends is the way that he has sought to justify these figures and has sought to shuffle off responsibility and, in shuffling off responsibility, suggesting that he is being extremely generous in making an offer of 40 per cent. of the cost in any case. What is also resented is the indication that appears to have been given that these figures are in no way negotiable.
  I should like to pursue the question of responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has already made reference to the open letter of self-justification and has dealt adequately with the matters contained in
  576
  it. However, I should like to go back a little further in history.
  The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) is right when he says that the desire for industrialised building did not start with the present Administration. In, I think, 1962–63, the then Administration began to press upon local authorities the desire to consider using industrialised building systems and methods that did not require so much skilled labour, of which we were in short supply in the building industry at that time, to speed up the housing programme.
  I recall full well the discussions that took place then between the Minister and the Association of Municipal Corporations. Study groups were organised and sent off to Scandinavia and to France to be shown the wonders of these systems. After these study groups came back, the Minister requested the A.M.C. to organise regional conferences throughout the country, the object of which was to persuade local authorities to join together in consortia because it was felt that in that way the greatest economic use could be made of industrialised building. That is where the impetus came from. The pressure started from the Minister, or one of his predecessors, suggesting that these systems be adopted.
  It is disengenuous to suggest, as has been suggested in the open letter, that in doing this we were not really talking about tall rise buildings, because the real value of industrialised building, the greatest scope for industrialised building, is to be able to build these very tall blocks of flats which cannot be so well and easily built by normal conventional methods. Rightly or wrongly, in the minds of everybody in those days industrialised building and tall block flats went hand in hand. Perhaps it was wrong that it should have been so, but to talk in those days of industrialised building was to talk of high rise blocks of flats. The terms were virtually synonymous. This was the mentality, the thinking that was created.
  It did not rest there with the General Election of 1954. Things did not come to a full stop then. The present Administration enthusiastically adopted the policy of its Department to endeavour to persuade local authorities to go in more and more for this type of building. This

  577
  is made quite plain by the report of Mr. Hugh Griffiths, Q.C.—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourley): Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member, but I do not think that we can embark on a history of traditional building or industrialised building. The Clause suggests an alteration in the percentage increase, and the hon. Member must relate his remarks to that.
  Mr. Rossi: Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I have to stand corrected by you, I shall do so, but I thought that I was directing my remarks to the debate that has taken place about the degree of the Government's responsibility for the state of affairs shown by this report, and therefore the percentage which should be paid by the Government consequent upon their degree of responsibility.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I follow the hon. Member's point but I hope that he will not develop his argument for too long. It is all right to make incidental references to the past, but not to develop his argument for too long on that.
  Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The report on Ronan Point, in paragraph 177 at page 51, makes it clear that
  "the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, to quote their own words 'launched a concentrated drive to increase and improve the use of industrialised building methods in house building for the public sector'."
  In considering this question of responsibility, we have here the evidence of this report that the Ministry launched a concentrated drive to increase the kind of system that we are discussing this evening, and which resulted in the unhappy disaster at Ronan Point.
  The Government launched a concentrated drive at a time when—and I again quote from the report, at paragraph 183—they did not have
  "qualified engineering staff to advise them"
  on this particular system. The information was not available, and the Minister could not advise those whom he was trying to persuade to use these systems on their safety or otherwise because the structural engineering staff did not exist within the Ministry to consider these very relevant matters.
  578
  We had an entirely foreign system of building. It was foreign in every sense of the word. It was foreign because it was strange and novel to us, and foreign because it was being imported, and being so imported at the behest of the Minister without proper tests being carried out in this country by the very Minister who was trying to persuade local authorities to adopt these methods.
  I should have thought that that placed the responsibility full square upon the Minister, and he must live up to it, because, taking the matter one stage further, as the report also says in its recommendations, the Minister is also the person responsible for the building regulations and for seeing that the British standards and codes of practice referred to in the regulations are kept up to date, and that new ones are promulgated as necessary.
  It was quite clear at the time that these regulations, these standards, these codes of practice, did not deal with the problems of progressive collapse, and with the effect of high wind on buildings of this kind. We therefore have a triple responsibility. We have the responsibility that it was the Minister who was pressing the local authorities to introduce these methods. We have the responsibility of the Minister having these methods introduced without the qualified staff to advise him on these novel methods which he was asking should be brought into this country. The third responsibility is that he, as the man who sees that the regulations are kept up to date, did not see that they were kept up to date and covered buildings of this kind.
  How can he, therefore, seek to shuffle off responsibility in this way? How can he suggest that the local authorities, loyally following his request, his lead, and finding themselves in the cart, should now have to bear the greater financial burden because of his mistakes and because they did what he asked them to do? This is not right, it is not just by any criterio and this is why there is resentment. What people detest more than anything else is injustice, particularly when it is used to try to get out of a financial obligation, as is the case here. I urge the Minister to look at this matter again.
  I am principally concerned, of course, like all hon. Members, with my own

  579
  constituency. Within the London borough of Haringey, of which my constituency is part, we have blocks built on the Larsen-Neilsen system and we must meet this expense. I am also concerned, of course, with the Greater London area generally, with all the boroughs with this problem and with the Greater London Council.
  The figures have been given already tonight as to what this will involve for the ratepayers, but what has not been mentioned—although it is well known to the Minister—is that this burden, added to others which he has created in recent months, may lead to a mid-year increase in Greater London Council rates—which is virtually unheard of. I hope that the Minister will not place the G.L.C. in the position of having to increase its rates halfway through its financial year for something which is primarily his responsibility, because the men and women dealing with the housing problems of that great authority over the years have sought to follow the lead given by him, and his predecessors.
  We recognise, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman is, to some extent, tied by what the Treasury says that he can do, but, on a previous occasion in Committee, not connected with this matter, I suggested in humility that if he wants to go down in our history as a great Minister of Housing, as I am sure he does, on principles of this kind he must stand up and fight, fight and fight again for his Department and the people for whom he is responsible.
  Mr. Albert Booth: I totally disagree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that my right hon. Friend is seeking to be unjust to avoid a financial obligation. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend is seeking to be unjust. I recognise the financial pressures upon any Administration in the total housing programme. However, on other grounds, I would urge my right hon. Friend to accept the new Clause.
  No hon. Member who has served on a local authority can be unaware of the degree to which members of local authorities are influenced by the percentage grants for any of their projects. It is no exaggeration to say that when percentage
  580
  grants varied more over the range of local services than they do today almost the first question asked in a council committee before a decision was made or a debate started on a project was what the percentage grant involved was. This will obviously influence local authorities in their decision—the measures they should take and the speed with which they should take them—to bring these blocks of flats up to standard and make them safe.
  The Minister should consider accepting the Clause because of the possible effect on rents and rates, a matter which is inevitably linked to this issue. Local authorities must decide whether to pass the cost of this increase on to the tenants of the tall flats affected, on to the tenants of tall flats generally or to spread it over the local community as a whole. If my right hon. Friend says that it is a cost which should be spread over the community as a whole, then he must consider whether it should be spread over the community nationally as opposed to the community locally.
  It is not the fault of the authorities which chose to go in for building tall blocks of flats that they should be faced with this problem. They decided to build these dwellings in the light of planning considerations affecting the whole country, and particularly in connection with the development of new town centres. It has been vital to good town planning that tall flats should be built in the immediate vicinity of certain town centres, in recognition of the necessity to maintain the population in those areas, and to have these flats occupied quickly. If they are not occupied quickly the whole balance of town planning decisions relating to these town centres will be spoilt, and this is another reason why the Clause should be carefully considered.
  It is necessary to re-establish confidence in the safety of the dwellings which require strengthening. If this is not done, one can envisage the attitude of those who are offered tenancies in these flats. Are they to refuse them and, in many cases, stay in deplorable housing conditions because they consider the flats to be unsafe? Are they to wait until new tall flats are built which comply with the latest standards required by the Ministry? Or is the local authority to

  581
  seek to induce people to occupy them, without the flats being strengthened, by offering lower rents? If the latter course were adopted the result would be deplorable, particularly if it flowed from a decision not to pay higher grants for strengthening these buildings. To ensure that none of these undesirable consequences occurs, I urge the Minister to accept the Clause.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Hawkins: I do not intend to repeat the excellent arguments which have been adduced by hon. Members on both sides in favour of the Clause. I should be ashamed not to support this moderate—an unusual epithet to apply to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), whose many speeches I have listened to with delight—proposal.
  I am sure that my constituents, coming from an area of many broader acres, would be behind me if I suggested that this load should be spread over the whole country. It was a Norfolk firm which supplied much of the concrete stress materials that went into these high buildings. The firm was encouraged to go in for this type of production, and it put a great deal of development into it. I want to see this type of building succeed.
  From the agricultural point of view, high buildings must be the right course for the whole country. In this small island we cannot afford to give more than is vitally necessary for building purposes on good agricultural land. For these practical reasons, apart from the moral issue with which all citizens will agree, the Clause should be accepted.
  Certain parts of the country were encouraged to build high because of their housing problems. I had not known much of London before coming to this place. However, a son of mine was at technical college in London and had "digs" in a peculiar part of London, if I may put it that way. I have seen many of the conditions which people must tolerate in crowded boroughs.
  During the war the people of London and other cities had a tremendous burden put on them because they suffered the weight of much enemy bombing. This is appreciated by those who did not live in the cities. I certainly appreciate it. The city dwellers were singled out for
  582
  that treatment during the war, and now they have been singled out for an experiment which will do the whole country good.
  It is an experiment in the true sense of the word because building high does not necessarily result in particularly cheap rents. As this is an experiment which will be good for the whole country, the whole country should share in its cost. I am sure that I shall lose no votes in offering that my constituents should help to share this burden.
  In some respects I have the greatest admiration for the Minister of Housing and Local Government. He is a sincere man, although I am not sure that I have the greatest sympathy for him today. He is obviously unhappy about this subject. He has reached a point at which he must stand up and be counted, for we are discussing a subject about which that phrase must apply to every hon. Member. We must decide to tell the Government that this load should be spread over the nation as a whole.
  Mr. Wylie: My intervention in this debate will be short, principally for two reasons. First, I think the arguments in favour of this new Clause have been fully canvassed and very ably put forward, no more ably than by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) who moved its Second Reading, and to whose speech I listened with interest. I am sorry that the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who was present a little time ago, was not present when the hon. Member spoke.
  The second reason is that this Bill does not apply to Scotland, but I make no apology for making a short intervention on this subject because an important matter of principle arises. The principle is that if the regulations have in the event proved inadequate, financial responsibility for that inadequacy should rest on the central Government. I do not think anyone could deny that. There is a degree of responsibility which the Minister has recognised because he is prepared to pay 40 per cent. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) said from the Front Bench. If this suggestion had been put forward at the time of the disaster there would have been an almighty row in the country and this

  583
  Chamber would have been much more fully occupied than it is at the moment.
  The whole issue is what the contribution should be. There is a strong case for the Government accepting the whole responsibility, but the hon. Member for West Ham, North has put forward the very modest suggestion of simply inverting the percentages which the local authority and central Government respectively will bear. The other reason, apart from the question of principle, which induces me to intervene is that this problem is not confined to England and Wales. It applies also to Scotland. It certainly applies in Edinburgh. The Minister of State recognised in earlier legislation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. It would not be in order to debate the Scottish position on this new Clause.
  Mr. Wylie: I quite appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely wished to explain why I feel provoked to intervene in a debate on a Bill applying essentially to England and Wales.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? Would it not be in order if the hon. and learned Member pointed out that, with their usual generosity, the Scots would be more than willing to help pay the cost?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would not be in order for the hon. and learned Member to pursue the matter so far as it relates to Scotland at all.
  Mr. Dempsey: Further to that point of order. I do not know whether you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman went to considerable length—and we appreciated it—in giving details of how this matter affected Edinburgh and Glasgow.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have given my Ruling. There are occasions when incidental references can be made, and the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) made such a reference, but to debate the Scottish position would be out of order.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not wish to challenge your Ruling at all, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that would be quite improper
  584
  —but this debate is not directed to a narrow side of the problem. This is the first opportunity, as the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) said, that the House has had to look at this problem as a whole. No doubt the Minister will reply to the debate looking at the problem as it affects the whole of the United Kingdom. I submit to you that it would be in the best interests of the House—and you are protecting the House—if a fairly wide discussion were allowed so that the whole picture could be looked at. I hope my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) will not find himself in too great difficulty with the Chair.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Member that the discussion has, in fact, been rather wide. I have given my Ruling; so far as the matter affects Scotland, the Scottish position is dealt with in Scottish legislation. The new Clause does not affect Scotland and, therefore, it would be entirely out of order to debate the Scottish position now.
  Mr. Wylie: I hope I made clear in my introductory remarks that I did not intend to develop the position in Scotland, because the Bill does not apply to Scotland. I merely wished to point out that this problem covers the whole country. At Sighthill, in my constituency, they are 400 homes short at the moment because of this problem. That is the kind of repercussion which flows from it. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter. Perhaps it will strengthen his hand in negotiations with the Treasury if he knows that he has the Scots behind him as well.
  Mr. Clegg: I had not intended to take part in this debate, which has reached an exceptionally high standard, but there are some points I wish to make.
  The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr Frank Allaun) spoke of the possibility of contributions being made from builders, and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) suggested that contributions might come from consultant engineers. I should have thought that the local authorities would take legal advice, and, if they were advised that they ought to sue, they should do so, but if they were told that there was no case that would

  585
  dispose of the matter completely we should have to fall back on money being provided from the centre.
  The effects on the housing position in some areas of the country will be very severe. I do not think the Minister, who is a Lancashire Member needs to be told of the situation in Salford. He is well aware of the consequences which flow from this problem. I add my voice to those who say that this is a national rather than a regional or localised problem. In the North we are dealing with areas which suffered all the scars of the Industrial Revolution and some of the scars of war damage. It is an area which we are trying rapidly to rehabilitate. The emphasis in the region at the moment is on making city centres better and bringing people back to them to give them new life, as was rightly said by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr Booth).
  I am worried about the consequences if the Government persist in their attitude. When experimental measures are pursued, local authorities must have confidence that they will not suffer unduly. If local authorities are to support Government experiments, they must be confident that the Government are behind them. I believe that the Minister is under pressure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  In any event, this money will come from either central or local funds. It is not as if the Government or the taxpayers will be saved something by the Government's attitude. It is a case of the Government at the centre allocating what they will give and what local authorities will give; it is a question of balance. I think that the balance is wrong. The acceptance of the Clause would not cost the public one penny more. For these reasons, I support the Clause.
  Mr. George Younger: I strongly support the Clause. I hope that the Minister, for whom we all have great respect, realises what a serious position he is in. He is at loggerheads with the whole House on a matter of principle. The Clause deals with the results of a disaster. All of us will agree that it must be the responsibility of the community at large to do what it can to iron out the painful consequences of a national or great disaster.
  586
  Both sides of the House have told the Minister in a reasoned argument that it is not acceptable to the House that the results of this disaster should fall largely on those who have already suffered from it. I widen that area to include all those who live in the area of local authorities which have such flats.
  The Minister's inflexibility is bad from his own point of view and from the point of view of Parliament. What are we to think of Parliament if, on a matter like this where no party politics are involved, and when the House expresses a unanimous view, the Minister's response is an inflexible insistence to remain in the position which he had adopted at the beginning of the debate.
  I beg the Minister, who is a humane and reasonable man, to understand that he must respond to the views which have been expressed on both sides of the House. I hope that he will regard this as being much more than a set piece debate led by people who are directly concerned. The community should share the cost. As the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) so generously said, taxpayers throughout the country, including those in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, would be only too happy to make their small contribution through the tax system to putting this unfortunate problem right. The cost to local authorities of putting these buildings right will have a major effect on future rating, on future housing policy, and on their ability to carry on with the housing drive.
  9.0 p.m.
  As a result there arises the whole question of the confidence of the public in these buildings. There is also the confidence of the public in standards prescribed by the Minister for buildings. There are many occasions when building regulations prescribed by the Ministry are a severe irritant to us all. We have all known lots of cases where some modification has to be made to a building because of Ministry regulations. Very often it has not appeared to be reasonable on the surface, but we have taken the view that if it has been prescribed by the Ministry it must have been carefully thought out and we must make the best of it.

  587
  If we find that on such a vital matter, Ministry regulations have not been adequate and have not produced safe buildings, then it is bad if the Minister shrugs off responsibility for helping, in a major way, local authorities put this right. It is a matter of great importance that he should remember that his reputation for laying down efficient standards is very much at stake.
  The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made the point about the interest rate. If local authorities have to borrow to make up the balance of the cost which will not be met by the Ministry, and this applies whether or not the new Clause is accepted, the interest rate, in all justice, must be subsidised in exactly the same way as the interest rate is subsidised for the building of the houses in the first place. It would be ridiculous if the cost of repairing the houses has to bear the full interest rate when the original building was subsidised, rightly so, by the central Government. The very least I expect the Minister to be able to say is that the subsidised rate will apply here.
  This involves spending a lot of public money, negotiations with the Treasury, and we know how difficult that is. If the Minister takes nothing else on board, everything that has been said must lead him to return to the Treasury and tell it that it is not acceptable to anyone in the House or in the country that the burden of this should fall, as to more than 50 per cent., on the local communities who have to build higher flats. I hope the Minister will take this as being a clear expression of opinion by the House and respond to it in the way I feel he would like to.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I would like to add my few words of sympathy to the Minister for the very difficult position in which he finds himself. What we should try to achieve is not to put the Minister in an entrenched position from which he cannot escape. We do not want to force the issue to the extent that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) carries this to a Division and the Lobby fodder produced by the Government—who have not heard the debate and perhaps not given it much thought, because if they had they would
  588
  think differently—defeats the new Clause and what it involves.
  I have not consulted my Front Bench and do not know what they want to do if there is a Division. I feel so strongly about this being a House of Commons matter that I think that what we have to achieve is the best solution for the country. Politics have nothing to do with it. If we can get an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman that he realises that there is a united view in the House on this matter which is that the Bill is not satisfactory at present and that there is some way to go to meeting the objections of the House, that would be a much happier state of affairs than to have this new Clause defeated by the action of the Government Whips. This is not just another matter for the Government Whips to bring in their hordes and vote us down.
  We are trying to look at this on a national basis. I am fortunate in that I have not had a single worried family come to me in Bristol with fears about high buildings. This is encouraging in a sense, because although it may not be involved as other cities are, there are people in the city living in high buildings perhaps not constructed on the same basis as those which caused us so much distress. Although we have had to draw the Minister's attention to the definite fears of many people, it seems there is not widespread public panic and we must do nothing to bring that about.
  I have one or two specific technical questions for the Minister. Were the building regulations specific in dealing with this method of building; did they give the technical details as to how the jointings of various units should be carried out? Was there any possibility that regulations could be carried out but that there would still be room for inaccuracy, or were they so watertight that if they had been carried out according to instructions the building would be satisfactory within existing knowledge? The Minister might elaborate more about his high building policy. It was said that it was not Ministry policy to encourage high building unless it was necessary in certain areas.
  Following the trouble over this type of high building, I hope that the Minister will not discourage high building in the

  589
  future. Once we have it right, surely we should proceed with that type of construction wherever possible.
  I did not like what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester said when he referred to the need for more and more semi-detached houses with gardens. By all means let us have gardens and open spaces, but the idea of the semi-detached sprawl across the countryside is not one that we should entertain in the future. We want a happy balance between low buildings and high ones, but we also want a better use of land than my hon. Friend's words suggest. However, it may be that my hon. Friend merely used the phrase without following it through in detail. Obviously we do not want this sort of sprawl all over the countryside.
  I come then to the strengthening techniques. Is the Minister certain that every possible technique has been explored—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate has been very wide, but the hon. Gentleman is making it wider still We are discussing a new Clause which proposes to alter the basis of the percentage payment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks more closely to the Clause.
  Mr. Cooke: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had not dwelt upon the proposed percentage because I did not want to detain the House too long. Possibly the percentage is based on an erroneous idea of cost. It occurs to me to ask whether the Ministry has looked into the pros and cons of the different strengthening techniques which might be available, and whether it is sure that those being employed at present are as economical as they might be. After all, our forefathers built three or four times as strong as they need have done. One has only to look at many of our historic buildings to see that. Ronan Point was not built as strong as it should have been. There must be a happy medium, and I wonder whether present strengthening methods are as economical as they might be. Obviously they were thought out in a moment of desperation when matters had to be put right quickly. It is a question of mathematics. It is not one of seeing a thick steel girder running through a building. A very slender one may be equally satisfactory if it is in the right place.
  590
  Still on the subject of strengthening, the Minister must be sure at the end of the day that there will be no similar disaster elsewhere; otherwise local authorities might be encouraged to skimp the job of strengthening. The House needs an assurance on that. If the Minister has not the power to make sure that the strengthening is effective, I am certain that the House will be only too willing to give it to him. The work has to be done properly.
  I hope that the theme of the Minister's reply will be that he realises the strong feeling of hon. Members about this matter. The present position is not satisfactory financially. It is to be hoped that he will be prepared to look at it again, and no doubt that means having another go at the Treasury. We expect him to say that he will allow nothing to prevent the strengthening of the buildings or, when matters are put right, the construction in the future of any buildings such as those which have caused danger in the past.
  Mr. Esmond Wright: In the course of this debate, every argument has been brought forward except one. I share the unanimous concern which is felt, and I hope that that unanimity will be expressed in the Division Lobbies. The note which has been struck is one of morality, responsibility and principle. However, the point which I want to put to the Minister bears on Scotland, though not in the housing context.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) referred to a national disaster. Ronan Point could have hit any part of the Kingdom. Some 18 months ago, a similar disaster hit the central belt of Scotland, its major effects being felt in Glasgow. The Government considered it to be a disaster which could not be met by the local authorities concerned, and a grant of something like £5 million was paid to cope with it.
  When the Minister replies, I hope that he will explain the logic of his decision. If it was effective and sound 18 months ago for the hurricane disaster in Scotland, it must be equally binding for Ronan Point and any other areas affected by such a disaster. But there is the additional word "responsibility". The industrial building specifications came from the central Government, whereas

  591
  the disaster which hit Scotland came from whatever it is which controls the elements.
  Our local authorities are already overburdened. Glasgow for example, has a deficit of more than £300 million. How can the Minister consider it right to expect them to pay these further sums? I believe that he is acting illogically and without the heart and conscience which, deep down, he has in him. I hope that he will tell us in what way the disaster 18 months ago differs from that at Ronan Point.
  9.15 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) set an admirable example in brevity. I shall not be able wholly to emulate him, but I shall do my best to be brief and relevant.
  The House will realise that this debate has not been a happy Parliamentary experience for me, not because I am unhappy about the proportion of the cost which the Government are meeting, but because the story of Ronan Point has been extremely unhappy and tragic. When the statement was made in the House after the report was published, I went out of my way to accept a measure of Governmental responsibility. Perhaps, looking back, it was rather too big a share of responsibilty, but I was anxious at the time to ensure that injustice was not done to individuals, to firms, to professional men or to the officers of the local authorities which had not the opportunity that I had of making the position clear in the House. I wanted to do everything in my power to restore public confidence in tall blocks of flats.
  I begin by echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) said about the Newham Borough Council. I congratulate the council on the responsibility which it has shown throughout this unhappy story, on its refusal to be panicked, and, perhaps above all, on the very great care which it has taken throughout to take the public into its confidence and to explain why things were being done and what their effects would be. It was an admirable example of public participation and good public relations by a local authority.
  592
  We must try to keep a sense of proportion in these matters. There has been a tendency this evening to talk about high blocks of flats being, one might surmise, almost entirely in poor overcrowded areas. But if one looks at the list of areas in which there are tall blocks of flats one finds, or example, Sunbury-on-Thames, Crawley, Weybridge, Elstree and Maidenhead, not one of which is either a poor or overcrowded area. At one time there was a tendency for a good deal of high building to take place which was not strictly necessary in terms of desirable density of the area.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) asked what the total cost of strengthening the Ronan Point type of flats was. His speech contrasted very favourably with that of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). Having known the hon. and gallant Gentleman for a long time, that is what I would expect of him. The total cost is extremely difficult to estimate. One of our difficulties throughout this last year has been that we have not had any firm estimates from the local authorities about how much will be involved. The best estimate that I can give is £25 or £30 million. Therefore, if we gave the 100 per cent. which the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as Vice-President of the Association of Municipal Corporations, understandably asked for, it would be £25 million, but on the 40 per cent. that we are proposing it would be £10 million met by the Government and £15 million met by the local authorities.
  The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) said that I knew Salford and something of the problems there. That is true. I have paid two official visits to Salford. I was sorry that my hon. Friends representing Salford were not able to be with me on those occasions. Salford is an interesting example in this sphere. Its original estimate of the cost was 1¾ million, which was later reduced to about £1 million. With such a variation in estimates, it is difficult to know exactly how much will be finally involved.
  I turn to the question of pushing high-rise buildings. The hon. Member for Hornsey made a great point of this. We put into our letters to the local authority associations a statement of our policy concerning high building because there had been a good deal of misunderstanding

  593
  about it and because when I met the local authority associations at the end of May or the beginning of June they talked about having been pressurised by the Ministry into building high.
  I do not think that that has ever been the policy of either the previous Government or the present Government. Both Administrations have always realised that there were cases where high-rise building was inevitable, but we have said that there must be high-rise building only where it is necessary on density grounds and that generally speaking, for a variety of reasons, both of economy and of sociological reasons, high-rise building was not to be encouraged.
  It is interesting that it was Lord Brooke, I think, at the time he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, who emphasised in the publication to which the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has referred the need for avoiding high-rise building where it was not absolutely necessary. We as a Government have consistently pursued that policy.
  When people talk about an industrialised building drive, they are absolutely right. We have said that we wanted 40 per cent. of the building in the public sector to be done by industrialised building methods, including rationalised traditional methods. Industrialised building, however, does not necessarily involve high-rise building. At the moment we are getting 40 per cent. of the building in the public sector done by industrialised building methods. I do not think that anyone would suggest that 40 per cent. of the public housing which is going up today consists of high-rise flats.
  We have on a number of occasions issued circulars in which we have referred to the fact that industrialised building includes fully rationalised traditional methods and also that it includes work on low-rise building as well. In circular 21/65, for example, we said:
  "The main need now is to create conditions for a rapid development in the use of these methods"—
  that is industrialised building—
  "for both two and three storey houses and low and medium rise flats."
  We have not, therefore, pressurised local authorities into building high, although they have freedom of choice, and in some
  594
  cases it has been necessary for good reasons to build high. That is why we have suggested what, I believe, is a fair share of responsibility for the cost involved.
  We have been criticised tonight for proposing to meet 40 per cent. of the cost, and I have been asked how we arrived at that figure. I think that the figure of 100 per cent. is wholly unrealistic. I do not believe that any of the local authority associations seriously expected that 100 per cent. would be forthcoming. I believe that 40 per cent. is a reasonable proportion. The tribunal said that there was a division of responsibility between central and local Government and the builders and others concerned.
  The figure of 40 per cent. was decided upon because it corresponds to the subsidy which is paid to local authority building. The average subsidy this year is running at about 39 per cent. When the representative rate of interest for 1969 is fixed, which will probably be in July, the proportion paid by the Exchequer will be just over 40 per cent. That means that we are proposing to pay as a contribution to the post-Ronan Point work the same proportion as the State is paying for the original buildings. The proportion of the contribution for Ronan Point under the new rate of subsidy is much higher than the proportion which would have been contributed under the original subsidy.
  Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he has chosen the coincidence of the housing subsidy rate and has not taken into consideration the proportion of the blame and the adverse effects on some local authorities? Is he saying that he just picked the figure of 40 per cent.?
  Mr. Greenwood: It is only fair that, having as a Government and as a country made a contribution to the capital cost of these buildings of a certain percentage, we should pay approximately the same proportion of the cost of rectifying what is wrong with the buildings. That is the decision which the Government took, and I think that it is a fair division.
  We have suggested that, if the local authority associations wish, we would be prepared to discuss with them arrangements for a flat rate for all authorities and an extra rate for some, but we do

  595
  not believe that we should go ahead with that unless it is the general wish of the local authorities.
  There is room for discussion between the associations and ourselves about the items of expenditure which should be eligible for help. We would like to include carpets, the costs of removal and other incidental but essential expenses of that nature.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) asked about building regulations. He was going a little wide of the rather limited new Clause, but it is not without interest that Ronan Point was built under the old bye-laws of the West Ham Borough and not under the building regulations. Since then building regulations have been centralised. We are working on a new set of building regulations which will be published this year. In the meantime, we have given guidance to local authorities on the standard of safety to which they should work. Distinguished structural engineers are always prepared to advise local authorities to make sure that the work they are doing is adequate and, at the same time, the most economic to meet the needs of the building with which they are concerned.
  I cannot concede the point that the 40 per cent. should be increased. I think it is a fair and reasonable proportion of the cost, and I must ask my hon. Friends to vote against the new Clause.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have three interventions at the same time. The right hon. Gentleman will decide who intervenes before he sits down.
  Mr. Peter Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question about the interest rate on loans?
  Mr. Greenwood: Yes. The local authority would pay the normal interest rate that it pays on its loans. That is proper, because otherwise there would be a subsidy in addition to the 40 per cent. contribution.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I do not think that anyone in the House, particularly those who have been here throughout the debate, will be satisfied or convinced by
  596
  the Minister's arguments. He put his arguments quietly, but he did so only because there was not very great strength behind them.
  The outstanding feature of the debate has been the strength of feeling about the special nature of the problem which we are discussing. We are not discussing how to increase the rate of house building, or the rate of house improvement; we are discussing a special problem which is based on a disaster which took place more than a year ago, and we are taking this out of the context of our normal type of housing debate. The way in which the Minister has couched his remarks suggests that he has entirely failed to understand or to realise the special nature of the problem which we are discussing.
  It gives me great pleasure to wind up the discussion on the Clause from this side of the House. I know that I speak with the strength of feeling which has characterised our speeches, not on a political basis, but on the basis of united views which are strongly held on both sides of the House, regardless of party, in strongly deploring the way in which the Government have dealt with this matter.
  9.30 p.m.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has said, how much greater the strength of feeling might have been had we known when the Ronan Point disaster was still fresh in our minds how little the Government would offer to put right structural defects in the buildings. Concern about this matter is felt throughout the whole country, not only in England and Wales, not only in towns with high rise flats, but in Scotland, too.
  I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking this evening since this is the first real opportunity we have had to debate what the Government are offering. I know that I speak for my hon. Friends from Scotland in saying that we are glad to take part in this debate because we are concerned that if the principle of the Clause is rejected local authorities in Scotland will be put in a difficulty in their negotiations with the Government.
  The size of the problem in Scotland and the strength of feeling there will be realised when one remembers that the Minister of State, Scottish Office, in answer to

  597
  a Question last week, said that in Scotland there were 170 blocks of flats, 12,000 units affecting 18 local authorities, with this particular problem. We in Scotland also have a concentration of this problem in particular areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) mentioned that the problem in his area amounted to a figure of £1·4 million, and there the problem is greatest of all.
  In asking that the Government contribution should be increased from 40 to 60 per cent., we are in no way asking that expenditure should be increased beyond what is required. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made a strong point about the job which must be carried out for the safety and security of these block of flats. We are not even asking for additional or extra expenditure, for, if sufficient help is not forthcoming the local authorities perhaps will hold back in carrying this work forward, work which it is vitally necessary should be carried out as quickly as possible.
  The basic question to be faced is who is to bear the cost, and there is then the question of responsibility. I was impressed by the logical argument, although the Minister did not appear to have been impressed by it, of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) as to where lay the real responsibility. Let us remember that the local authorities, the consulting engineers employed by them, and the building firms involved worked to specifications in accordance with building regulations approved by the Government. It is quite clear to us where the responsibility really lies.
  Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in Scotland it is the National Building Agency, rather than the Minister, that lays down the building rules for the construction of these buildings? Surely it has some financial responsibility in the matter.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With respect, at the end of the day it is the Minister who vets these building regulations, it is the local authority which draws up the specifications, and the building firms have to comply with the specifications that they are given. It is clear where the responsibility lies.
  598
  Therefore, we come back to the question about how the actual expense is to be shared. We believe that the responsibility should be shared nationally rather than borne locally. The incidence of high flats, as was said by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), is not necessarily the choice of the local authority concerned. Often it is the chance of its geographical location, the chance of what land is available, and the chance of the history of housing over previous generations which determines whether they are forced to go in for high rise housing. This underlines the fact that this is not just the responsibility of the individual local authority. It may not be the local authority's choice. In many cases local authorities have been forced into doing this. For that reason, the financial responsibility should be borne much wider—and, of course, it should be done through the Government.
  The Minister completely failed to answer the question put to him quite bluntly by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester out of what account is this cost to be borne by the local authority? This is important. Even if we accept that the local authority will have to bear a fairly high proportion of the cost, from where will it come? Will it come from the housing account? If so, as has been said by many hon. Members, the tenants will suffer. Yet this happens at a time when the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland are sending round circulars instructing local authorities to try to reduce the deficit on their housing accounts. Therefore, on the one hand, they put this higher burden on the local authorities, which they cannot avoid in the interests of the safety and security of their tenants, and, on the other hand, they tell them to try to reduce the deficit on their housing accounts. By bearing such a small share of the expenditure of putting right the structural faults in high rise housing, the Minister is being unfair to the tenants and ratepayers of the local authorities concerned.
  I should like to refer to the analogy of my hon. Friend the Member for Pollak. We do not look at this question just within the context of ordinary housing problems. This is an issue of a special nature. When we had the storm damage in Scotland 18 months

  599
  ago the Government treated it as a national disaster. For heaven's sake, let us be thankful in this instance that we have not had a bigger national disaster. Surely, money is much better spent preventing a bigger national disaster happening than waiting to spend the money after it has happened. The Government have entirely failed to understand this point. They met a large proportion of the expenditure that was made necessary by the hurricane damage in Scotland, but in this case they are bearing a very small proportion indeed.
  I do not believe that anyone in this House, and certainly nobody outside in the local authority areas most concerned, will be in any way convinced by the arguments put forward by the Minister this evening.
  Concerning interest rates, for example, the local authorities are blithely told that they will have to borrow at 9¾ per cent. to bear their share. Is this to be borne by the tenants and the ratepayers? This is the burden which the Government are throwing on to the people of this country. The right hon. Gentleman relates this percentage of Government help that is to be given to the level of the housing subsidies. I think that that indicates what little importance he lays on this problem and how little he understands it.
  I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has failed utterly to understatnd the scale of the problem. He says that what he is doing is fair. I am utterly appalled at the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has tried to play down this whole matter and not treat it with the seriousness that it deserves. I give the hon. Member for West Ham, North my support, and I am sure that I pledge the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends for the Clause. We shall carry our support into the Division Lobby to show how unfairly and meanly we think the Minister has behaved.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I feel very sad this evening because of what I regard as a deplorable reply from the Minister. I also feel very bitter indeed. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for having been here and listened to the whole debate, as most of us have. If my right hon. Friend, having listened to the debate, had said that he realised that not one hon. Member on either side had said one word
  600
  on behalf of the Government, or the Treasury, or in support of himself, and therefore he would consider this again, that would have been one thing. I do not know why my right hon. Friend is smiling. Not one hon. Member had one good word to say—
  Mr. Greenwood: I was not smiling at my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Lewis: It is not a smiling matter. We are debating a serious issue. My right hon. Friend is still smiling. I hope that he will not go to my constituency and smile at the poor devils there. This was a tragedy. The Treasury is the nigger in the woodpile.
  The Minister has not said that he will reconsider this. He has said that what he has done is very fair. Is it very fair? How can he think of saddling the poorest of the poor—because in the main these are people from slum areas—with this extra burden? The people who have been rehoused in these tower blocks have suffered tragedy enough by losing their loved ones, and now the Minister comes along and says, "I shall give 40 per cent. towards the cost and they must find 60 per cent." These are the people who will have to find the 60 per cent. I am not concerned whether the money comes out of the housing revenue account or out of the rates or rents, or from a mixture of the two. It is the local inhabitants who will pay.
  In answer to a question which I asked, my right hon. Friend said
  "… it would be quite wrong for undue expense to fall upon individuals affected by this occurrence"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November 1968 Vol. 772, col. 907.]
  Is not this an unfair burden? Is it not falling on the individuals affected by this disaster? My right hon. Friend is wrong to try to lump this in with a 40 per cent. housing subsidy.
  The Minister said this evening that ratepayers or council tenants, or both, will be saddled with a debt of between £15 million and £18 million, and that they can borrow this money. My council already has an outstanding loan charge of £87 million. How can my right hon. Friend suggest that his is a fair approach? The Minister made no mention of the difficult areas. He referred to Sunbury and Teddington, but not to those areas which are really affected. I

  601
  am disgusted with the Minister. This was a national disaster and the Government accepted it as such. Having waited twelve months, they have run away from it. I am not running away from it. I will vote against the Government on this. I will stand proudly anywhere in the country and say that I am disgusted with the answer which we have been given this evening.
  9.45 p.m.
  Sir D. Glover rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the seventh of 43 debates which we will have tonight. I hope that we can come to a decision soon.
  Sir D. Glover: I accept your instructions, Mr. Speaker, that this is the seventh of 43 debates, but it is a debate which the House should carry to its conclusion. This is not just a simple Clause in a Housing Bill. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) should be congratulated on his new Clause. The Minister's reply was one of the most dreadful and unsatisfactory replies which the House has heard in a long time. What astonishes me about the House is how Governments—I include Tory Governments—can be so mean. A disaster of this sort appeals to the sympathy of the whole country, yet the Government suddenly decide something which receives hardly any sympathy in the House.
  I hate attacking the Minister, because I like him as much as any member of the Cabinet, but the real answer is that, although he is a very charming person, he is also a very weak person, and he has not fought this battle in the Cabinet and won. Knowing his humanity, I am sure that he told the Cabinet originally, "We must be generous over this problem". Then the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary probably said, "We do not have the money in this stringent financial situation; you had better settle for this much," upon which, I suppose, the right hon. Gentleman said. "All right, if I keep my job, I will settle for 40 per cent."
  It is appalling that we should deal with this problem in this way. If these buildings have been built contrary to Government advice, I would expect the local authorities to take complete responsibility for any cost, but they were built
  602
  with very little knowledge and because they were a new development, their specifications were pretty well laid down by the Government of the day. Now, fortuitously, and through great tragedy to many families, it has been discovered that there is a fault in the construction. The nation should pray that Ronan Point will be the only tragedy of this kind. We could, months ago, have been debating the collapse of not one building but fifty, because the fault at Ronan Point was basic in these high rise buildings.
  That disaster would have wrung the withers of every person in the country. If that had happened, there would have been no argument. The nation would have said that it had to be put right and would have paid the cost through taxation. But it was only one building and the Government are saying, "We know that these buildings must be put right, but there has been no tragedy in Glasgow or Salford". But the reason that that building collapsed was that the instructions and the specifications were wrong. We did not know it at the time and there is no criticism on the builder, architect, local authority or anybody else. It was, one might say, an act of God.
  As a result of this occurrence the Government said that these high rise buildings must be put right to their specifications. Why, in these circumstances, should we try to link the cost, this mythical figure for subsidy purposes, to some sort of building project? What relationship, in commonsense and humanity, is involved in such an equation? It is nothing but a sort of abracadabra worked out in the Ministry, with somebody finally saying, "This might get through Parliament without too much of a row".
  We had a tragedy and that led to a problem having to be solved. I accept that local authorities must incur expenditure as a result of their activities. If we are to have responsible local government, local authorities must bear responsibilities and be careful with their spending. However, to say that 40 per cent. is the right amount for the Government to pay in this instance is scandalously inadequate. Indeed, it is so inadequate that if the right hon. Gentleman had the courage of his convictions he would not—I say this because I am sure that he was defeated in the Cabinet—be trying to justify himself in this matter but would have

  603
  resigned in disgust at the Cabinet's decision.
  We are dealing with a human problem involving justice following an occurrence which nobody could foretell. The debate has crossed party boundaries. This has nothing to do with party ideologies. I
  hope, therefore, that hon. Members will vote according to their consciences and not according to party labels.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 164.

  Division No. 274.]

  AYES

  [9.59 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Grieve, Percy

  Nott, John

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

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Awdry, Daniel

  Hastings, Stephen

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Barter, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Heseltine, Michael

  Pardoe, John

  Bell, Ronald

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Percival, Ian

  Biffen, John

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Holland, Philip

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Pounder, Rafton

  Braine, Bernard

  Hordern, Peter

  Pym, Francis

  Brewis, John

  Hornby, Richard

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hunt, John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

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

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Burden, F. A.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Speed, Keith

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Stainton, Keith

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jopling, Michael

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Clegg, Walter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Cooke, Robert

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Temple, John M.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Costain, A. P.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Tilney, John

  Crouch, David

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Lubbock, Eric

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Waddington, David

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  McMaster, Stanley

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

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

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Maddan, Martin

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Maude, Angus

  Wiggin, A. W.

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

  Mawby, Bay

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Farr, John

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wright, Esmond

  Fortescue, Tim

  More, Jasper

  Wylie, N. R.

  Foster, Sir John

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Cower, Raymond

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Grant, Anthony

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  English, Michael

  Anderson, Donald

  Cant, R. B.

  Ensor, David

  Archer, Peter

  Concannon, J. D.

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

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

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Fernyhough, E.

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Barnett, Joel

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Ford, Ben

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Forrester, John

  Blackburn, F.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dell, Edmund

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dewar, Donald

  Gregory, Arnold

  Boyden, James

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Bradley, Tom

  Dickens, James

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Doig, Peter

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Dunn, James A.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

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

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hannan, William

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

  Ellis, John

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Haseldine, Norman

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Probert, Arthur

  Hazell, Bert

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Rankin, John

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Hooley, Frank

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Horner, John

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

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E)

  Manuel, Archie

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Mapp, Charles

  Sheldon, Robert

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Marks, Kenneth

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Marquand, David

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

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Slater, Joseph

  Hynd, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Snow, Julian

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Spriggs, Leslie

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

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

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Taverne, Dick

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Neal, Harold

  Tinn, James

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Newens, Stan

  Urwin, T. W.

  Judd, Frank

  Norwood, Christopher

  Varley, Eric G.

  Kelley, Richard

  Ogden, Eric

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  O'Malley, Brian

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lawson, George

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wallace, George

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Oswald, Thomas

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Park, Trevor

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  McCann, John

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  McColl, James

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Woof, Robert

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Pentland, Norman

  McGuire, Michael

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Price, William (Rugby)

  It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Housing Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Greenwood.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 1

  IMPROVEMENT GRANTS, STANDARD GRANTS AND SPECIAL GRANTS
  Mr. Clegg: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 18, at end insert:
  (3) The Minister shall lay before Parliament from time to time the draft of a booklet to be entitled House Improvements Code which shall contain, in summarised form, the statutory provisions and the current Ministerial orders, directions and advice concerning the said grants and the works in respect of which they may be made; and if each House of Parliament shall by resolution approve that draft the Minister shall, through the agency of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, publish the booklet in such quantity as may be requisite for informing all persons who may be interested therein provided that nothing contained in the said booklet which has not otherwise the force of law shall not gain the force of law solely by its inclusion in the said booklet.
  We have just listened to a debate on a matter of great principle. We are now
  606
  coming to the more bread-and-butter parts of the Bill and the details of its working. This Amendment is designed to achieve what we have tried more than once in Committee and this afternoon in the House to achieve. That is to make as clear as possible to all concerned what their rights are under the Bill and what help is available to them. We want them to have the best advice. We have tried many times to get this principle of informing the public enshrined in the Bill and given statutory authority. This is one more attempt.
  We have adopted a similar system to that concerned with road traffic. The Highway Code is well known and here we suggest a house improvements code. It would be more than a pamphlet, an authoritative document which would have the sanction of a Statute behind it. It would be a document required by Statute to be published. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There are too many informal debates at the moment.
  Mr. Clegg: The Amendment lays down the matters which the new house improvements code shall contain. They would be
  "statutory provisions and the current Ministerial orders, directions and advice concerning the said grants and the works in respect of which they may be made".

  607
  Parliament would have the advantage of seeing the code before it went to the general public. In the past Government literature which has not been subject to the scrutiny of the House has sometimes misled. I refer in particular to the option mortgage scheme.
  We want the new code to be in the hands of all those connected with the administration of grants—local authorities; I hope rent officers, because the Government acknowledge that they have a real interest in these problems: builders; and so on. If the Amendment were accepted, Parliament would show that it cares about people being told in the clearest possible way what their rights are.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this is the eighth of 43 Amendments.
  Mr. Maddan: It is, nevertheless, an important Amendment. The first thing to be borne in mind is the enormously complicated nature of the various provisions of grants which are available, the many sources from which details of them can be gleaned, and the many ways in which they are administered. This is a subject which it is difficult for the ordinary citizen to understand and a headache for professional men such as surveyors and solicitors.
  The second thing to be borne in mind is, as the Minister said on Second Reading summarising various surveys that had been made, that the proportion
  "of individual landlords owning one rented dwelling"
  is
  "between 61 per cent. and 78 per cent. of all landlords."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 973.]
  Those who will have to act upon the provisions of the Bill are not, in the main, large property companies with professional staffs to devil and beaver away and familiarise themselves with all the sources and even understand them correctly. The success of the operation will depend on our having to deal with individual landlords.
  It is essential that a simplified code should be prepared, not a hand-out prepared in the Ministry and published by
  608
  the Stationery Office at, say, 2s., but a document which has been scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament. The interpretation of these provisions to a whole range of local authorities leads to a position in which Whitehall does not always know best.
  The reason why we are to have 43 more Amendments on Report is that hon. Members very often know more about circumstances on the ground and have something to say that is more useful and constructive—and I hope that that includes what I am saying now—than the gentlemen in Whitehall, who normally prepare the booklets.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I have no wish unduly to prolong the discussion, but there is a very important thought behind the Amendment. The House is entitled to what time it needs for this important matter. I have pursued the same thoughts as my hon. Friend on a number of occasions with a number of Ministers. I am as anxious as he that the best possible use should be made of our older buildings, not just through the conservation of museums, but for housing people. The Amendment is directed to that very problem—so that people seeking to make improvements, on the whole to older buildings, should have available in a readily accessible form all the help and information that they can possibly need.
  What was said about Whitehall not always knowing best was surely to the point. There is a wealth of knowledge in this House which can be brought to bear on this matter if the Amendment is accepted. I remember on one occasion tangling with a Minister in this Government on the subject of building regulations to do with historic buildings. I got out of that Minister, now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, that the local authorities have the power on any occasion they wish to waive building regulations as they apply to a listed building if they see fit because the regulations could not be so applied without severely damaging the building. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) has had experience of this. He was asked to do something impossible about a listed building which he got round only after much tribulation. If this Amendment was accepted and a booklet was produced every local authority could benefit.

  609
  There is so much work done in the name of improvement to our older buildings which is bad, sometimes dangerous and often irreparably damaging to their structure which would not happen if those concerned had a little more information. They could get this if the Amendment was accepted.
  A house improvement code could easily cover the sources of finance available. There is money available under the Housing Acts, there is the Historic Buildings Council for rather grand buildings, and there are loans which can be obtained. Local authorities are empowered to help, and I hope that this will be covered by the booklet.
  I hope that no one disagrees about this. If they do it is obviously a matter for debate, and it is right that my hon. Friend should have introduced this particular Amendment. I hope that as a result of exploring this matter we shall get from the Government a firm assurance that they will do everything they can to make available to those seeking to improve older property every kind of information to help them with the structural work, where they can get advice, perhaps even where they can obtain suitable materials, because these are not always easy to get. I trust that it will also cover finance, which is a central feature of these improvements.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Allason: The House will agree that the Bill does not meet the high standard of obscurity which the Government have set with many previous Bills. It is nevertheless a difficult Bill which has to be understood by more than a million people. Many constituents will come to us for explanations about its intentions. Although we have laboured for a long time in Committee to improve it, and although improvements will be made tonight, it is still difficult to understand.
  It is therefore essential that there should be a pamphlet which puts into simple, non-legal language the intentions of the Bill. I draw attention to the last three lines of the Amendment, which read:
  "… provided that nothing contained in the said booklet which has not otherwise the force of law shall not gain the force of law solely by its inclusion in the said booklet".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) says that we
  610
  do not want the booklet to create further law, but we do hope that the booklet will explain the present law.
  There was a signal failure to do this over the Rent Act. A booklet was produced called "The Rent Act and You". I had to draw to the Ministry's attention the fact that it was highly misleading and that people were led, by reading what was said in it with a certain amount of solemnity, into thinking something was the law when that was not the case.
  It is important not only that should there not be statements tending to make fresh law but also that there should be a clear explanation of the present law.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Would my hon. Friend agree that the booklet should contain in every relevant place cases where the local authority, or whoever enforces the regulations, has discretion to waive regulations in favour of the public?
  Mr. Allason: That makes a very important additional point. We know that the booklet is to be published. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he can meet our requirement that it should be presented to Parliament first so that we can study it.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ifor Davies): I am attracted by some of the persuasive arguments which have been advanced, but that does not mean that I am convinced by them. There is no difference of opinion about the extreme importance of getting across the information about the grants enumerated in the Clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who said earlier that the whole basis of this Bill is to get it across and sell it.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred earlier to his increased responsibility, and I am sure that we all congratulate him and that he will carry it out with the same distinction as he does his duties on the benches opposite.
  This is a matter not of what information should be given but of how far it should go. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) talked about statutory authority being enshrined in the Bill, and the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) referred to the difficulties of ordinary people in ascertaining the facts. I hope

  611
  that I can prove that what the Government propose meets these requirements.
  It is important for hon. Members to have clear in their minds what the Amendment asks. It asks the Minister to publish a booklet summarising the statutory provisions, orders, directions and advice about improvement, standard and special grants. A draft of the booklet would first have been approved by Parliament.
  The Amendment is misconceived. Parliament has placed the day-to-day administration of the grants scheme upon the local authorities. Administrative guidance in this respect is necessarily of a general nature, and it must be left to the local authorities to apply the grants system to individual cases in their areas. An applicant who went to his town hall armed with an official house improvement code would soon find that he had only part of the story.
  It would be pointless for Parliament once having given discretion to the Minister to make directions and specify standards by circular, to seek to approve or disapprove them together with any administrative guidance given by the Minister when the draft of the official code was submitted for approval. Similarly, it would be wrong for Parliament to attempt to influence by this means the way in which the local authorities exercised their statutory discretion. Time after time we pay tribute to the way in which the local authorities carry out their duties. We must also have a certain amount of confidence in them.
  What has happened in the past and what is intended for the future is that the Ministry publishes a booklet setting out the main features of the grants scheme and directing prospective grant applicants to their local council offices for more detailed information. The most effective way of conveying advice to ordinary people is by personal consultation at local council offices. A growing number of local authorities supplement the Ministry booklet by their own publications showing how the scheme is administered locally. But, in the final event, the applicant can find out the local authority's likely attitude to his own scheme only by discussing it with the appropriate local authority officer.
  612
  The Minister is already accountable to Parliament for his actions in a number of ways, as respects both general policy and administration and in respect of particular decisions. There is no question of his trying to evade his duties and responsibilities.
  I hope that I have satisfied hon. Members that the Amendment would produce an unnecessary and rigid duty which is less preferable than the present system.
  Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his kind personal words and for agreeing with us about the general principle of the objective that we seek in the Amendment.
  I do not think that the Government can complain that in any of the debates on the Bill there has been obstruction of Government policy. We have tried to help all that we can and suggest ways in which Government policy can be put over to the public. We recognise that there has been a failure in this in the past.
  In this case, where it has failed is that there was first a rather inadequate booklet to the public, a sort of "Kiddies' Guide to 'Granty-Panties'", which was not of much value to those seeking solid information about how to get grants and carry out the work. Then there was a handbook which went out of date. One could not obtain it in order to understand the basis on which the local authorities were working. The real meat seems to have gone into Ministry circulars.
  I am one of those who are wholly opposed to government by circulars. What the Under-Secretary of State said about fettering the discretion of local authorities applies to Ministry circulars which fetter their discretion in administering discretionary grants. An applicant finds his application is rejected for some reason which is stated with all the force of law. If he has the courage to question it he is solemnly referred to circular something or other stroke something or other which the local authority takes as law. It is merely a direction from the Minister to the local authority of which members of the public know nothing until they have the courage to inquire.
  I should like to see all this done above board and these directives not only made known to the public but vetted by the House first. If local authorities are given

  613
  directions by the Minister about how they should exercise a discretion which they should exercise for the benefit of the public, the House should know about it. What would be better than to adopt the Highway Code idea, which has gone down very well in another context? Why not lay an authoritative document before the House? The fact that the House debates it gives it publicity, but, more than that, one gathers from a debate of that sort a great deal of practical knowledge from right hon. and hon. Members who have had to deal with local government matters in their constituencies.
  This idea may be a little strange in this connection, but we want something dynamic to encourage grants, to get people to know what they are and how to take them up. Only by a gimmick of this sort shall we do it. We shall not do it through the sort of gimmick in the advertisement in the newspapers yesterday with a score of pictures of rent officers. That was the wrong way to put over a serious matter. We should deal with it seriously through an authoritative document approved by Parliament.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I feel that too often what we do in the House is not properly
  understood, when it becomes law, by the people for whom we are legislating. Surely a booklet such as has been suggested would be an opportunity to turn a very important Bill into something which anybody could understand.
  I follow what the Minister says about the discretionary powers of local authorities, but if we dodge the issue by not setting down clearly what the House has decided and what has become law we do not assist the people for whom we are legislating. Too often it seems that the House does not know enough about public relations. Too often our work is clothed in dry legalistic phraseology which means very little to those for whom we are legislating.
  I therefore hope that the Government will consider very carefully producing a booklet written in a way which ordinary people can understand, and that, having produced it, they will not leave it at that but will ensure that it is widely available and is known to be widely available.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:
  The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 170.

  Division No. 275.]

  AYES

  [10.28 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gower, Raymond

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempetead)

  Grant, Anthony

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

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

  Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Awary, Daniel

  Grieve, Percy

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Nott, John

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Hastings, Stephen

  Onslow, Granley

  Bell, Ronald

  Hawkins, Paul

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Biffen, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Percival, Ian

  Braine, Bernard

  Holland, Philip

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Brewis, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Pounder, Rafton

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hornby, Richard

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hunt, John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pym, Francis

  Burden, F. A.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Jopling, Michael

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Clegg, Walter

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

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

  Cooke, Robert

  Kaberry, 8ir Donald

  Silvester, Frederick

  Corfield, F. V.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, s.)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Costain, A. P.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Speed, Keith

  Crouch, David

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stainton, Keith

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stodart, Anthony

  Currie, G. B. H.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  MoNair-Wilson, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

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

  Maddan, Martin

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Maude, Angus

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Maxwell, Hyslop, R. J.

  Tilney, John

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Farr, John

  Monro, Hector

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Fortescue, Tim

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Waddington, David

  Foster, Sir John

  More, Jasper

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Wright, Esmond

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Younger, Hn. Ceorge

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morgan, Etystan (Cardiganshire)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Anderson, Donald

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Neal, Harold

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Hannan, William

  Newens, Stan

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Norwood, Christopher

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Ogden, Eric

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Haseldine, Norman

  O'Malley, Brian

  Barnett, Joel

  Hazell, Bert

  Oram, Albert E.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Orbach, Maurice

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hooley, Frank

  Orme, Stanley

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Oswald, Thomas

  Booth, Albert

  Horner, John

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Boyden, James

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Bradley, Tom

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Brooks, Edwin

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pardoe, John

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Park, Trevor

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

  Hynd, John

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

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

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

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pentland, Norman

  Cant, R. B.

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

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Judd, Frank

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Probert, Arthur

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

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

  Rees, Merlyn

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Richard, Ivor

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Lawson, George

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Dell, Edmund

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Dempsey, James

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silverman, Julius

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Loughlin, Charles

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Dickens, James

  Lubbock, Eric

  Slater, Joseph

  Doig, Peter

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dunn, James A.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Dunnett, Jack

  McCann, John

  Taverne, Dick

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

  MacColl, James

  Tinn, James

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ellis, John

  McGuire, Michael

  Varley, Eric G.

  English, Michael

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Enser, David

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Wallace, George

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Ford, Ben

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

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Forrester, John

  Manuel, Archie

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Gardner, Tony

  Mapp, Charles

  Woof, Robert

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Marquand, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Dr. M. S. Miller and

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Millan, Bruce

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Clause 2

  IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
  Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 10, leave out from first 'a' to second 'of' in line 11 and insert term of years absolute'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it would be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 21, 25 and 115.
  Mr. Skeffington: The effect of the Amendments is to extend the qualifying interest for all the types of grant included in the Bill to some of those who might under the original terms of the Bill have been excluded.
  I gave an undertaking to consider this as a result of observations by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) to the effect that a number of 21-year leases had been granted after the 1965 Rent Act and before the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 at rack rents, where the landlord would hardly be likely to want to undertake improvements but the tenant might want to do so.
  As the Bill was originally drafted, the benefit was secured only by those who had a freehold interest or who had a tenancy at a low rent within the meaning of the Rent Act 1968. I undertook to look at the evidence, and it is clear that, particularly since 1965, a number of tenancies may have been granted at a whole range of rents from slightly above ground rents right up to a full rent. It is right to take the opportunity to make the basis for grant the substantial interest of the person applying for the grant in the property, rather than the very much narrower point as to whether or not he is paying a ground rent or rack rent.
  I feel that the Amendment will meet many of the cases which the hon. Member for Crosby had in mind. It does not go so far as to include the mortgagee in possession, but it will go so far as to include the mortgagee by demise. He will be within the terms of the Amendment, having a term of years absolute, and that brings him in, but it does not bring in the mortgagee in possession. The Amendment is a welcome extension, and I hope the House will accept it.
  Mr. Graham Page: I am obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for introducing the Amendment. In one respect it goes even further than I had hoped. It does not restrict those who can apply for a grant to the owner of a freehold or to the owner of a ground lease. As a result of the Amendment, an ordinary tenant who pays rack rent, or whatever it may be, will be able to apply for a grant if he can show that he is left with five years of his lease.
  I was a little worried when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that a mortgagee by demise would also come under the Amendment and would be able to apply for a grant. If that is the case, it will complicate matters a little. When a mortgage is going through quite smoothly, a mortgagee could step in and apply for a grant over the heads of a person occupying or owning a house. It would make an extraordinary distinction between a mortgagee by demise and a legal charge. It is a matter of the form of the mortgage; some are governed by legal charge, others by demise.
  If the Amendment includes a mortgagee by demise, whether or not the mortgagee is in possession, I am not sure that we ought not to restrict the Amendment and not include him, otherwise there will be all sorts of complications. But if the Amendment merely means that a tenant with five years of his lease to run can apply for a grant, I welcome it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Clegg: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in line 13, at end add:
  'or he is a mortgagee in possession'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, it will be convenient to take Amendments No. 22, in Clause 8, page 6, line 5, at end add:
  'or he is a mortgagee in possession'.
  and No. 26, in Clause 17, page 11, line 10, at end add:
  'or he is a mortgagee in possession'.
  Mr. Clegg: The reason why we put down this interesting Amendment is that during discussion in Committee the Joint Parliamentary Secretary promised to look again at this matter. I am not entirely clear how far this Amendment has been affected by the explanation that we have

  619
  just received from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about the definition of "term of years absolute". But I think perhaps that it will take us some way towards it.
  The object of the original Amendment was clear. The Clause, as drawn, gives the right to a person to apply for a grant if he is the owner in fee simple, the freeholder or the leaseholder under a term of years absolute. We sought to include a further category, as specified in the Amendment; namely, a mortgagee in possession. We felt that a mortgagee in possession could have the need to apply for a grant, first, to preserve the property, and, second, to get the grant perhaps and to sell in order to cover the amount of money that he had lent on mortgage.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, after I had moved the original Amendment, disagreed with this, because he felt that it would be unnecessarily complicated and there would be risks in it for the mortgagee in going into possession. He further said that there were times when there was a gap between the mortgage going into default and the mortgagee going into possession.
  Then the hon. Gentleman promised to look at it, after being convinced by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), with his vast experience of building societies, that it would be a very useful fillip for building societies if, as mortgagees in possession, they had power to apply for a grant to put the property in good condition and resell it. My hon. Friend pointed out that the building societies sometimes had a flair for seeing what could be made out of a property which the original owner could not see.
  My hon. Friend went on to say—and this is probably the most important reason why the Amendment should be accepted—that building societies were somewhat reluctant to advance money on older properties, but that if they had this power to make application if they had to go into possession, because the mortgage was in arrears, it would encourage them to lend money on older properties. This is probably the main justification for adding to the Clause the words
  "or he is a mortgagee in possession."
  There is a close analogy, although the hon. Gentleman did not go with me all
  620
  the way on this in Committee, between a mortgagee in possession and the owner of a freehold or the owner of a leasehold, because, if they all have the basic power to manage and dispose of the property, a mortgagee in possession can enter into possession of the building and can use it in such a way almost to the extent that somebody in either of the other two capacities can.
  Mr. Skeffington: As the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has said, the first of the Amendments which the House has accepted goes some way to meeting the points that were made in Committee. As I said in my previous remarks, the words "term of years absolute" would include a mortgagee by demise. However, the point raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will not arise. In the case that he had in mind, the mortgagee by demise would not be able to get into the house if the mortgagor was in possession; so no conflict would arise. But in the other case the extension goes further than the hon. Gentleman originally thought, and provides for the mortgagee by demise.
  Why can we not accept the proposals which have been moved and which we discussed in Committee to deal with the mortgagee in possession? I do not want to go over the arguments which I rehearsed in Committee, because they are somewhat lengthy and involved, but the fact is that it is not always easy to establish when a legal mortgagee by a charge by way of a mortgage is in the position to take possession. Indeed, he may, by either an express or an implied provision in a document, be expressly prohibited from so doing. In these cases it would have to be established—and time would be taken by this—that the mortgagee was or was not in that position. He may have the status of being a mortgagee in possession, but not be able to take possession. Those who deal with these matters know that that occurs.
  There is the other point, which I also mentioned in Committee, that on the whole, even since the great series of Acts of 1925, the mortgagee in possession has usually been very reluctant to take possession because he is under the strictest regulation to account precisely

  621
  for moneys received or for any action that he might take which would have the effect of damaging the interests by preventing the moneys being paid, and this liability extends long after he may have parted with the property. From inquiries which I have made from some building societies since our debate I am told, and I accept this because it accords with my experience, that it is rare for the mortgagee in possession, even if he is in a position to do so, to exercise this right.
  The hon. Member for Crosby in Committee, and the hon. Member for North Fylde tonight, referred to other parallels. In dealing with the case of a building society which might in certain circumstances want to take possession and apply for a grant, the hon. Member for Crosby referred to Section 34 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, and said that there was a parallel. I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that there is not a parallel in the ordinary meaning of the term "mortgagee in possession", because subsection (2)(a) of that section makes the very point which I have been making. It distinguishes the mortgagee in possession in a normal case, because there one is entitled to act under the like provisions in the 1968 Act because the subsection clearly says that he must be entitled as a mortgagee by virtue of a power which has become exercisable. He has to get over that hurdle first, and he may not have the power, or, if he has it, it may not be exercisable because of time, or because of some other agreement with the parties concerned.
  The mortgagee has to have this power which is exercisable to sell an interest in the hereditament or unit, giving immediate vacant possession. This is not what is normally meant by "mortgagee in possession", and consequently, as I said then, and as we feel now, this extension would be a very wide one, and I question very much whether the provision would generally be welcome.
  Most building societies with a property left on their hands because a mortgagor has vanished and his payments have become overdue usually want to get rid of the assets as soon as possible. If they had this power, and there was no prohibition, I should not have thought that they would want to spend the time going to the local authority for a grant
  622
  —that is bound to take some time, perhaps five or six months—and then doing the repair work. The legal consequences of a provision of this kind are bound to be uncertain, for the reasons which I have given.
  Although I find this subject fascinating, I do not want to go on at great length. If the hon. Gentleman will study the summing up of Lord Justice Russell in the case of the Birmingham Citizens Permanent Building Society v. Caunt, he will see the enormous complications which can arise in dealing with a very simple point. I hope that since the mortgagee by demise is included in our definition, he will not press the Amendments.
  Mr. Graham Page: The Parliamentary Secretary has got us into a pretty kettle of fish. We are talking about the borrower, the owner of the property, who has defaulted, perhaps deserting the property after a matrimonial row. The building society, or mortgagee, has the property on its hands. Since the acceptance of the last Amendment, if that mortgagee happened to be a mortgagee by demise—that is to say, if his mortgage says that, by way of security for the money advanced, the property is let to him for 3,000 years, if that is the form which has been used—he can say to the local authority, "I have a term of years absolute, of which there is more than five years to run, and I want an improvement grant." If his solicitor happens to have drawn the mortgage in the far more ordinary form of a legal charge, which merely says that the property is charged by way of security for the loan, not demise and not let to the mortgagee, he will not have a chance of asking for an improvement grant.
  This will cause enormous problems; I know one building society which has its mortgages in the form of demises. Another has them merely by charge. So some mortgagees will be able to take advantage of improvement grants and some will not.
  This is our first problem due to the Parliamentary Secretary's generosity over the last Amendment. His hon. Friend will tell him the trouble he gets into at times by being generous to me over Amendments but not doing the whole thing. When one tries to do it halfway one is bound to get into trouble. What we want is the whole way. We should

  623
  give a mortgagee, left with a property on his hands, the right to sell a decent house and not a rotten house, whether he is a mortgagee by demise or by legal charge. In law it is the same thing, and there is no distinction between their rights. It is just a different form of mortgage.
  It always had to be done by demise, by devising this fictitious term of 3,000 years, before the reform of the property law in 1925. It has stuck since then in many cases, but the right way to do it now is by legal charge.
  11.0 p.m.
  What we want to do is to enable the mortgagee, whatever the form of his mortgage, if he has a rotten house, not to put it up for sale without first improving it and making it a decent house. I have declared before in the House that I have an interest in that I am a director of a building society, and I can tell the House also that we would not like the stigma of putting up for sale a house which is badly out of repair and has no amenities in it. If it is known that a building society is selling that sort of thing, that is not good publicity for the building society. When a house of that sort comes on to our hands we would rather make improvements. If there are grants, why should we not have the opportunity of taking those grants? If the house is then sold, the grants go back to the local authority. If, on the other hand, it is better for the house to be held and let, there is no reason why that should not be so. Why should the mortgagee not let the house and use the grant?
  When we talk about a mortgagee in possession it is anomalous, perhaps, to say that that does not necessarily mean that he is in possession in the sense of being in occupation. He may have taken over a house which is let, or let, perhaps, in flats. He may want to improve the amenities of the flats—put in extra bathrooms, put in extra lavatories, and so on. If we are giving one type of mortgagee that right merely because the mortgage is in the form of a demise, then do let us put the whole thing right and give that right to all mortgagees whatever form of mortgage they have. I am sure that when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary thinks it over a bit more he will find that he has gone only
  624
  half way in his previous Amendment and that if he accepts our Amendment now he will provide for all occasions, and occasions which warrant the use of grants to keep houses standing.
  Mr. Maddan: I am not a lawyer—
  Mr. F. A. Burden: A liar?
  Mr. Maddan: Let us not have too fine distinctions at this time of night. It seems to me that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary must have taken his stand on either some obscure legal difficulty or some principle. He did not read out that book. If he had read it out that might have become clearer to me, or it might have become less clear—I am not sure—but certainly I could not deduce from what he said any clear principle on which he drew the line where he did or any legal difficulty intelligible to me as the reason why he did that.
  Perhaps the reason why the hon. Gentleman did it is that it is one of these restrictions on the operation of the Bill deliberately espoused by the Government so as to limit the occasions on which these grants can be made. I hope it is not that, but since it is not the former, or did not seem to me to be the former, I can only fear that it is the latter. If it is the latter, then it is rather discreditable. Therefore, I hope that we shall later on, and by leave of the House, have the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's further explanations and, perhaps, second thoughts.
  Then there is the further point that the hon. Gentleman really ought to comment on. If he draws the line where he has drawn it we have this absurd position that when certain mortgages are drawn up in a certain form they will be eligible and when they are not they will not. Presumably in cases where they will not, there will be great pressure on the legal departments of building societies to negotiate with mortgagors to revise the terms of their mortgages to take into account this part of the Bill. That must be an undesirable waste of legal talent and confusing to mortgagors.
  I hope that the Government are not deliberately limiting, for some obscure reason, the occasions when these grants can be brought into operation. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is merely hesitating before accepting the

  625
  Amendment and will, after several more of my hon. Friends have pressed the point on him, accept our suggestion.
  Mr. John Wells: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan), I am not a lawyer. So far those who have spoken to the Amendment, other than my hon. Friend, have had the advantage of training which enables them to say that when one is in possession one is not in possession. I have not had that advantage.
  After declaring his interest as a director of a building society, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) made some accurate and thoughtful observations, on which I will comment. At present we see investments of all kinds sliding. The Stock Exchange has gone down rapidly. We read in a Sunday newspaper that the great boom in antique silver appears to be on the slide. I hear my hon. Friends who are experienced in agricultural matters gossiping tonight that the price of farms is not what it was. This is clearly an indication that investments generally are falling back into the hands of mortgagees, right across the board.
  The investment experts tend to say that property is still safe and that people are still investing in property because they have confidence in bricks and mortar, even if they do not have confidence in the Prime Minister. However, even bricks and mortar are tending to fall back into the hands of mortgagees because of the difficulties and heedless default of mortgagors.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby mentioned the difficulty of the family in which there has been a breakup and where the house has fallen back into the hands of the mortgagees. He spoke of the reasonable situation in which no reputable building society would want to sell a run-down house when it had an opportunity to improve and repair it and make it a good article which would bear a good image for the society in question.
  This must apply even more to private mortgagees in the case of a person who has taken out a mortgage, perhaps as an act of kindness, for a neighbour, friend or relation. He may have provided the cash for a mortgage to help a friend in difficulty, but perhaps a default occurs
  626
  and the mortgagee is left with the house on his hands. A responsible private citizen would want to sell the house in good order.
  The seven words which my hon. Friends seek to add are perfectly reasonable. The Parliamentary Secretary absolutely baffled us with legal jargon. I am afraid that this is the way in which things are carried on, but we should avoid that. He said that the matter was fraught with difficulty and much more complicated than it looked, but is it so fraught with difficulty? Lawyers always make a difficulty. They are paid 7s. 6d. a time for creating difficulties, [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, 13s. 4d.—the price is always going up. I forget what it is now. Here is a simple opportunity for the Parliamentary Secretary to accept seven simple little words offered in good faith by my hon. Friends. That would help the reputable building society, the private mortgagee who has sought to do a friend a good turn and come unstuck, or the charitable trust.
  We know about the expropriation Act which enables tenants to be beastly to their landlords—the Leasehold Enfranchisement Act. Time after time this Government bring forward Measures which are most unreasonable towards property owners and landlords who are trying to get their properties in decent order. The Parliamentary Secretary and his joint colleague are men of good will who would like to see the stock of the nation's houses in good trim. Here is an opportunity which would cost the Government nothing in doing that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby pointed out, if the house is subsequently sold the money would come back to the Government. At a very modest temporary cost to the Government we could improve the nation's housing, maintain the image of the building societies and the spirit of good will of private mortgagees, charitable trusts and other bodies of that sort.
  I deprecate the tendency of Ministers to try to baffle us with jargon. I am a simple man. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) shares with me difficulty in understanding these complicated measures, but people like us represent far more of the 52 million inhabitants of these islands than some other

  627
  hon. Members here. The ordinary citizen cannot understand the jargon. Here is an opportunity to help people of good will, to maintain the image of the building societies and generally to assist the nation's stock of houses. A mortgagee with a house that needed a bathroom or more adequate sanitary arrangements would be enabled to improve it. Let us have more common sense and less jargon.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Allason: I very much support the plea for simplicity urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells). It is so awfully hard for a layman to comprehend the subtleties in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary. He talks of the enormous complications which arise if one gives to the mortgagee in possession the sanction which one gives to the freeholder. If the freeholder is there with an empty house, maybe the local authority will say they do not think that the freeholder ought to have an improvement grant because he is going promptly to sell the house. I think that was the argument used against the mortgagee in possession. But equally, let us consider the position of the freeholder with a tenancy in the house. The Government want him to improve the house. The whole Bill is about encouraging the freeholder to improve the house in the interests of the tenancy. Why, if it is not the freeholder, but merely someone who calls homself a mortgagee in possession but who is in a very similar position to a freeholder, should he be debarred?
  The whole purpose of this Bill is to try to improve the housing stock at the least cost. Where there is a good case for a house with a tenant in it which needs improvement, what can be the objection? What is the point of saying that because technically he is not a mortgagee by demise but he is a mortgagee by legal charge therefore he cannot get it?
  The Parliamentary Secretary has a wonderfully subtle brain, and he sees all sorts of difficulties, but I suggest that he throws these subtleties out of the window and accepts the Amendment.
  Mr. Skeffington: If I may reply briefly to the points hon. Members have made, I think that so far as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is concerned,
  628
  we have not only gone half-way. The Amendments I moved went further than he had anticipated, and it does mean to say that anybody now with a leasehold interest of five years is in a position to apply for grant. So really we have gone one and a half times, and it is because I cannot go the other half and make it twice what he asked for that we are getting into trouble.
  How very much I wish with the hon. Members for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) and Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) that this was a simple matter. Indeed the trouble is that in nearly all these matters of land tenure, although there was a tremendous simplification and crystallisation in the 1925 Acts, we still have a very large number of partial interests in land which are often complex, and none are more complex than the term "mortgagee in possession." I know it sounds absurd to say that someone is mortgagee in possession but he cannot have possession because he has agreed not to take possession himself because of a document which he is party to, or because he feels inhibited so to do by the position he is placed in of having to account for all the monies he has received, or because action he has taken could reflect adversely on the estate.
  When the hon. Member for Crosby and others referred to the parallel in the 1968 Act, I had to point out that the mortgagee in possession there is defined in a very precise way.
  The trouble with this series of Amendments is that the term is so wide that if we put this into the Act we would be giving rights to a category of interests which would be incapable of definition when it came to practical implementation, and we should be helping no one at all by doing that.
  As the hon. Member for Crosby describes the proposition, if there had been an Amendment down which restricted to some extent the term "mortgagee in possession" as it is in the 1968 Act, I think that might have been a starter, and I would like to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it may be possible to find a definition which would take this category of interest a little further than we have done. The mortgagee in possession does not in the normal way have a definite term of years. This is

  629
  one of the imprecisions, in addition to others I have mentioned. If we put these simple words in, as a few hon. Gentlemen want, we would make a whole whale of trouble for many people, including many building societies. With the greatest of good will—there is no shortage of good will here—we should be doing something which would be utterly irresponsible. We have gone a long way. In view of my offer to see

  Division No. 276.]

  AYES

  [11.20 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Grant, Anthony

  Percival, Ian

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Awdry, Daniel

  Grieve, Percy

  Pounder, Rafton

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Hastings, Stephen

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Bell, Ronald

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pym, Francis

  Biffen, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Braine, Bernard

  Holland, Philip

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Brewis, John

  Hordern, Peter

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

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hornby, Richard

  Silvester, Frederick

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hunt, John

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

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

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Speed, Keith

  Burden, F. A,

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Stainton, Keith

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Jopling, Michael

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Clark, Henry

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  C"egg, Walter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Tilney, John

  Cooke, Robert

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Costain, A. P.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Vaugnan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Crouch, David

  MacArthur, Ian

  Waddington, David

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Maddan, Martin

  Weatherill, Bernard

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Maude, Angus

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

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

  Maxweil-Hyslop, R. J.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Monro, Hector

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

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

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Eyre, Reginald

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Wright, Esmond

  Farr, John

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wylie, N. R.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Younger, Hn. George

  Foster, Sir John

  Nott, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Onslow, Cranley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Goodhart, Philip

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

  Gower, Raymond

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Anderson, Donald

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Archer, Peter

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Foley, Maurice

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Ford, Ben

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Forrester, John

  Barrett, Joel

  Dell, Edmund

  Gardner, Tony

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dempsey, James

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dewar, Donald

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Gregory, Arnold

  Booth, Albert

  Dickens, James

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Boyden, James

  Dobson, Ray

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Doig, Peter

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Dunn, James A.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Dunnett, Jack

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

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

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

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hannan, William

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

  Ellis, John

  Harper, Joseph

  Cant, R. B.

  English, Michael

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Haseldine, Norman

  Concannon, J. D.

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

  Hazell, Bert

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Fernyhough, E.

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  whether we can carry this further in the rather specific case the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which is much narrower than the normal term "mortgagee in possession", I hope that the Opposition will not press the Amendment.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Noes 162.

  Hooley, Frank

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham S.)

  Horner, John

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Price, William, (Rugby)

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Probert, Arthur

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Huckfied, Leslie

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Richard, Ivor

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

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

  Robertson John (Paisley)

  Hynd, John

  Manuel, Archie

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

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

  Marks, Kenneth

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Marquand, David

  Sheldon, Robert

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

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Silverman, Julius

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Mendelson, John

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Millan, Bruce

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Judd, Frank

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Kenyon, Clifford

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

  Taverne, Dick

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

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Tinn, James

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lawson, George

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Neal, Harold

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Newens, Stan

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lester, Miss Joan

  Ogden, Eric

  Wallace, George

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Orme, Stanley

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Loughlin, Charles

  Oswald Thomas

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Palmer, Arthur

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  McCann, John

  Pannell, Rt. Hn, Charles

  Woof, Robert

  MacColl, James

  Pardoe, John

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Park, Trevor

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McGuire, Michael

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Pentland, Norman

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

Clause 4

  APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR IMPROVEMENT GRANT
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'be so determined as to'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss with it Amendment No. 10 and Amendment No. 127.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): If the House agrees, so be it.
  Mr. MacColl: In Committee, we discussed the problem of additional expenditure arising during work having to be approved where it was due to unforeseen work arising. We were asked to make it clear that this could be done even if the work had been started before the authority had been notified.
  Amendment No. 9 removes any doubt about the application of this provision, which deals with the proportion for the cost of works of repair and replacement, in the case of unforeseen additional works.
  The Amendment to subsection (3) enables the substitution of the higher amount as the amount of the approved expense to be made in the case of improvement
  632
  grants, notwithstanding that the unforeseen works have already been started. The Amendment to Schedule 1 deals with a similar situation in respect of standard grants.
  All these points represent a valuable improvement to the Bill which hon. Gentlemen opposite asked for in Committee.
  Mr. Graham Page: I rise only to thank the hon. Gentleman for adding to the Bill something which we urged in committee should be done.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No.10, in line 38 leave out 'could not be' and insert 'cannot be or could not have been'.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Clause 5

  AMOUNT OF IMPROVEMENT GRANT
  Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 13, leave out from '£1,000' to end of line.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 13, in line 17, leave out from '£1,200' to end of line, and Amendment No. 16, in line 19, at end insert:
  'or such other amounts as the Minister may by order prescribe, either generally or by

  633
  reference to a locality and the amounts so prescribed may differ as between one locality and another'.
  Mr. Hawkins: The result that we wish to achieve with these Amendments will give more latitude financially and geographically to the Minister. It was admitted by the Minister in Committee that the cost of improvements in London, for instance, might be 50 per cent. more than in some rural areas. Latitude is also required because building costs are increasing rapidly and will continue to rise.
  For many years, I tried to get my right hon. and hon. Friends to put up the grants—indeed, I raised the subject in my very first Adjournment debate—and I am pleased to see that this Bill proposes to improve them.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) pointed out in Committee on 25th February, 1969, the limit of £1,000 in rural areas might be sufficient for some length of time, but in London £2,000 on improvements does not go far in bringing the older Victorian houses up to modern standards. I particularly asked the Minister to give an assurance that he has in mind a review of the improvement grant figures and not just that somebody will think about them every so often. There must be a directive given in the Ministry that information will be collected. I emphasised some time ago that this information should be available and that there should be a review of the figures.
  We should give the Minister the latitude which these Amendments propose so that we shall not go for such a long time again as we did before when the grants were not sufficient to tempt people to undertake improvements. Improvements were not carried out as they should have been in big enough numbers and we fell behind, with many older houses falling into disrepair.
  Mr. Ifor Davies: The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) has emphasised that he wants to give more latitude to the Minister. This latitude is provided for in subsection (3).
  The Amendments would alter the terms under which the Minister may prescribe by order changes in the maximum amount of improvement grants. He could prescribe different limits for different
  634
  localities as well as one for general application. As the Clause stands, the Minister's power by way of prescribing maximum amounts can be used only to change the general limits. It may be claimed that the Amendment provides a far more flexible system, but subsection (3) already gives the Minister power to approve a higher limit either in individual cases or with respect to a class of case which could be related to a locality.
  Although the Amendments do not affect the Minister's discretion in subsection (3), the existence of the subsection renders the Amendments unnecessary. They would permit a range of limits from below to above the theoretical figure, which could lose all significance. This would be more confusing than helpful.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 4, line 18, at the end to insert 'or other building'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps it would be convenient to take at the same time Amendment No. 17.
  Mr. Skeffington: The Amendment honours an undertaking I gave in reply to an argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) to the effect that there might be doubt about whether grants could apply when a building was being converted into more than a certain number of storeys. The Government were satisfied about it, but we wish to make it clear beyond peradventure that the Clause applies to buildings as well as the house.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: No. 17, page 4, line 29, leave out 'house' and insert 'building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 8

  STANDARD GRANTS
  Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 5, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert '2nd October 1961'.
  The Bill as drafted provided that houses and dwellings built after 1944

  635
  are not eligible for standard grant unless there was a conversion before 3rd October, 1961. This was discussed in Committee. The Amendment substitutes for that date the day before 3rd October, 1961. The significance of this date is that it was from then onwards that there has been power under Section 33 of the Public Health Act, 1961, for local authorities to reject plans for new houses which did not provide for the installation of bathrooms with hot water supplies. My right hon. Friend thinks it necessary to draw a line, and this seems to be the most appropriate one.
  Mr. Graham Page: I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for moving the Amendment. It meets the difficulties, which we raised in Committee, of the complications in the Clause. All that is necessary is to date it back to 2nd October, 1961. This was what we urged in Committee, and I am glad that the Government have taken our advice.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Harper.]
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered Tomorrow.

  NIGERIA (MEDICAL SERVICES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
  11.42 p.m.
  Mr. John Tilney: We in this House have little right to discuss Nigeria except about what we can control. That limits us to arms, aid and trade. We do, however, feel deeply for old friends, of every race or tribe, and a stirring of conscience about a country for which we were responsible for so long.
  I have just come back from Nigeria. I was privileged to have an hour and a half discussion with the Head of State and I saw many of his senior advisers. I met the business community in many places. Although I went much by air. I travelled 800 miles by road. I met many people with every kind of interest and experience.
  It is not up to me to blame anyone for what has gone by. I do not know
  636
  how many people were killed in 1966—I suspect many fewer than propaganda makes out, although I believe that here and there there was a local wish for genocide. I am certain that in responsible quarters there is no such wish today. Indeed, I saw several Western Ibos who had returned to their property in Kano, and I was much impressed by what had been done to hand back or safeguard Ibo houses in Benin. One feels that it is odd, however, that hardly anyone has been punished for what happened in those dreadful days in 1966, days from which, as I think the Minister will agree, springs the intransigent obstinacy of the Ibo leadership today.
  When I was in Warri, I heard at night the constant drone of aircraft carrying arms to Uli airstrip. No doubt, there were a few relief aircraft mixed up among them. Why Red Cross and other relief aircraft cannot go by day after having been properly cleared is hard to understand, although, as communication has not been of the highest order, the clearance notice may not get to all the places it should.
  I am sure that the Federal Government realise that if Nigeria is to be one they must have the Ibos as their friends. They are, therefore, trying to be as humane as possible, but are fighting under considerable difficulty. That difficulty might be eased if there were not so much feeling in many parts of the Federation that the war is a long way away and business and pleasure should go on as usual.
  I am aware that no European should ever predict what may happen in Africa, but I suspect that there is a danger that the war may go on for much longer than many people think possible.
  Iboland has several hearts. The terrain is such that the frontier or no-man's-land can be up to 100 miles deep, and a whole platoon can disappear by taking a few paces off the road. Despite the wish of most villagers—as in our Wars of the Roses—to get back to the soil and to their crops, even if all the roads and towns were taken, a core of banditry masquerading as freedom fighters could terrorise thousands of square miles for years to come.
  My plea to Her Majesty's Government tonight is for medical help to be offered,

  637
  if need be—to show that we are thinking of the future rather than the present—to both sides. I have seen some of the large number of hospital casualties on the Federal side from Kano and Kaduna to Lagos and Benin. I am told that they are the lucky ones. Most soldiers who have more than superficial wounds die in the bush.
  I was told that there was no anaesthetist in Benin, that a brigade might be lucky to have one doctor and that that brigade might be spread over hundreds of miles. It was told that by the end of the war one in four of all Federal troops would probably be casualties. The lack of medical help is appalling, and even in the hospitals in recovered territory such as Enugu some of the equipment needs servicing by competent technicians to make it work.
  Some people might say that once Her Majesty's Government had decided to support the Federal Government help should be given wholeheartedly rather than halfheartedly, and that a few ground to air missiles would stop the airlift and finish off the war and its attendant horrors within a few weeks. But Nigeria years ago turned down the projected defence agreement with us, and few of wisdom would wish to escalate the already ghastly conflict.
  I do not know how many medical units we could spare. It would certainly be good training for them. I believe that all three Services in this country should be ordered to provide field hospitals and advance dressing stations capable of immediate surgery. They should provide a medical chain of evacuation comparable to our in the last war. The personnel should be in uniform with distinctive armbands, and should probably be unarmed, although self-defence against bandits should be considered. Civilians should not be relied upon for administration. The general near chaos in the freight terminal sheds at Apapa or Ikeja airport is a warning against that.
  By immediate accounting this suggestion would appear to be expensive, but in the long term it might well save vast sums of money, for the stakes are high. Nigeria and Britain in partnership have already achieved much, but the potential is much greater. What is more important is that such a gesture would enable thousands of Nigerians who die today to survive.
  638
  It should be understood that those who by such action are made fit again will not be called back to their regiments, though one hopes that once the war is over they would be available for work of reconstruction.
  I happen to believe that sooner or later there will have to be a political settlement and that it is better to accept less than total victory if the alternative is absence of control and anarchy. People seem to think that the solution has got to be African-inspired. I do not understand this. I believe it is a major Nigerian and Western world interest to work for a compromise. I am told that the day for an international force, to which the Ibos who still believe their own genocide propaganda could surrender, is past. Yet without it they are likely to fight on. Cannot the rebels in their turn accept that a Swiss canton has its own independent laws, though no seat at the United Nations?
  Whatever the future, a humanitarian gesture—even if not accepted by both or perhaps either side—should, I believe, he made by Her Majesty's Government. And what better one than a recovery operation enabling a future generation of Nigerians to survive.
  11.52 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): Hon. Members on both sides of the House, whatever their views on the Nigerian war, will be grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney) for giving us the opportunity to devote a short period of time this evening to the question of the medical help which we have given from our resources in this country to the casualties of the Nigerian conflict.
  This is a matter on which we are all united in strong feelings of compassion for those who are human victims of a terrible war and in our anxiety to give all possible help to those victims. On these matters, and in our earnest desire for peace and an end to the fighting, I have no doubt we are all at one.
  At the same time I should emphasise that it is the possibilities of British help that we are debating tonight, not the internal affairs of Nigeria. As my colleagues and I have often had to remark in the House, it is not for us to debate

  639
  the internal affairs of a sovereign independent State, be that a State of the Commonwealth or not. Still less is it our business to contemplate active intervention in what is Nigeria's domestic problem.
  We have already been helping in two particular ways in which I am sure the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree would approve. I refer to the provision of the British surgical team for maxillary facial work at Kaduna in Northern Nigeria and the children's medical care unit at Enugu, the capital of the old eastern region. A team of doctors, nurses and technicians provided by the Royal Air Force and a civilian consultant from the Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead, went to Kaduna in January of this year. They not only did excellent work in helping to deal with casualties suffering from gunshot wounds in the face, but also in training Nigerians in this work. The team has now been replaced by two doctors from East Grinstead under Ministry of Overseas Development technical assistance arrangements.
  It seems likely that this kind of arrangement will continue as long as the need exists. The British doctors and the matron serving at the orthopaedic hospital at Dalla, under O.D.M. auspices help to deal with casualties not only in that hospital but also in the Kano city hospital nearby. As the House is aware, we set up in Enugu a child medical care unit. This unit started to operate early this year in the local hospital where they work in close co-operation with the Nigerian staff.
  There are 15 doctors, nurses and technicians in the unit, which not only deals with children but also treats emergency adult cases, some of whom are suffering from gunshot wounds. During our recent visit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I visited this unit, and we were able to see the good work that it is doing which, in its turn, is financed by Ministry of Overseas Development Aid funds. In all these cases, the presence of British doctors and medical assistance means that this is a real help to the Nigerians on the spot.
  In addition to this aid, which I have just mentioned, the O.D.M. has received requests for four artificial limb technicians to go to Nigeria to make and fit
  640
  limbs and to train local craftsmen in this rather specialised sphere. The Ministry is now beginning to recruit suitably qualified experts, but it is rather difficult because it is a specialised sphere.
  Also, under the auspices of the British Council, a consultant from the Moor-fields Eye Hospital recently visited Nigeria and helped with a number of operations in one of the military hospitals over a period of several weeks.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree has spoken eloquently and movingly of the terrible circumstances which he witnessed—and which I have seen—in Nigeria surrounding the needs of the casualties of the war and the desperate shortage of medical resources to cope with these casualties. These are the inevitable consequences of a civil war. They are horrifying to anyone who has been close to them and can see vividly what this means and what one's response should be. We are talking about the war wounded, both military and civilian. The problem of war refugees, displaced persons and starvation is something quite separate—and the House knows something of what we are doing in this respect.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have recently been in Nigeria with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I know from our visits to the war areas, what we saw, and what was described to us that the needs are indeed great. Moreover, reports from our representatives in Nigeria confirm the kind of evidence which has been given by the hon. Gentleman this evening.
  When, therefore, in March of this year, we received an inquiry about possible British medical assistance through a senior officer in one of the armed services in Nigeria, we at once, without waiting for any formal request, initiated urgent inquiries here as to how we could respond, assuming that such a request was made and endorsed by the Nigerian Government. The immediate need at that time, which was described to us, was for two orthopaedic surgeons, one anaesthetist and two theatre sisters.
  However, in the meantime, while alerting our own staff and looking around for the right kind of people and awaiting a formal request from the Federal

  641
  Government the British High Commission in Lagos was informed by the Federal Government that the staff provisionally inquired about were in fact not required.
  This is how the position rests at the moment. If we were to receive a formal request from the Federal Government, then we would certainly look with urgency, because I have seen, as the hon. Gentleman has seen, the need on the spot. But the hon. Gentleman will be aware, as I am, that, realities being what they are and recruitment in this country being rather difficult, the Federal Government may well have looked elsewhere for support and assistance in this particular sphere.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not suggest that we ought to recruit British doctors to go, as it were, into the firing line, because this would present a great deal of difficulty for us. Nevertheless, if we received a formal request from the Federal Government along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman we would respond as favourably as we could. We know that the Federal Government have looked elsewhere. They have looked to Canada, to Algeria, and to the Philippines, and they have doctors from each of these areas.
  I hope it will not be suspected by the hon. Gentleman, or by anyone else, that the efforts which I have described, and the help which we have given, implies a willingness on our part to give humanitarian aid to only one side, whatever the political grounds may be. As hon. Members know, the head of the secessionist party, Colonel Ojukwu, has repeatedly made it clear that he is not prepared to accept any form of British Government assistance, even in the field of humanitarian relief, and this has effectively ruled out any form of aid by Her Majesty's Government in the form of medical personnel for work in the seccessionist area.
  Some months ago we received an informal inquiry via the British Red Cross about the possibility of providing hospital beds and treatment for so-called Biafran war casualties who would be brought to this country by the International Red Cross for the purpose. We immediately initiated inquiries about the possibilities of giving this help, and the
  642
  Department of Health and Social Security was able to inform us that it would be possible in principle to provide facilities within civilian hospitals in this country for a number of casualties from the secessionist side. We had in mind that the cost of this treatment might be shared between the British Red Cross and the Government, subject to the approval of Parliament.
  We informed the British Red Cross who, in turn, informed the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, of our willingness in principle to accept a number of these casualties from the Biafran area. Unfortunately, however, when the International Red Cross made inquiries about this it became clear that the secessionist authorities would not permit any of their wounded to come to the United Kingdom for medical treatment. We were therefore precluded, through no fault of our own, from taking part in the scheme organised by the International Red Cross for bringing Biafran casualties to Europe for hospital treatment.
  I think that that account will make it clear to the House that in our approach to this strictly humanitarian problem there has been no question of partisanship or political motivation on our part.
  It would be wrong to conclude my reply without any reference to the enormously valuable medical work which has been done on both sides by relief workers from this country, and from many other countries, too, mainly under the auspices of the International Red Cross, but also through the various Church organisations collectively described as Joint Church Aid. Much of the British Government's past contribution of just under £1 million to the I.C.R.C. for relief work in Nigeria has been devoted to medical care and resources, and the same is true of the more than £1 million which had been contributed by the end of last month through the British organisations. Oxfam, War on Want, Save the Children Fund, Christian Aid, and the British Red Cross.
  In April of this year three British Save the Children Fund teams in Nigeria alone were giving medical care to about 12,000 people. According to the latest International Red Cross bulletins, about 36,000 people each week are receiving medical assistance in Federal territory, and a further 10,000 in the rebel-held

  643
  areas. The I.C.R.C. expatriate staff alone now engaged on medical work totals about 157. Between September, 1968, and February, 1969, the International Red Cross spent about £820,000 for the purchase of medical supplies for use by both sides. Over two million people were vaccinated against measles and smallpox.
  While this type of relief work for civilians is rather different from the type of problem described by the hon. Gentleman
  644
  tonight, it is directly relevant, particularly in that this vast international effort has freed other medical resources for dealing with the immediate casualties of the war. I hope that hon. Members, whatever their views about the political issues of the war, can take some satisfaction from the knowledge of our substantial share in that great international effort.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Twelve o'clock.

  Second Reading Committee
  Wednesday, 18th June, 1969
  [MR. ARTHUR PROBERT in the Chair]

  The Committee consisted of the following Members:

  Mr. Arthur Probert (in the Chair)

  Armstrong, Mr. Ernest (Durham, North-West)

  Macmillan, Mr. Maurice (Farnham)

  Millan, Mr. Bruce (Under-Secretary of State for Scotland)

  Beamish, Colonel Sir Tufton (Lewes)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport and Fareham)

  Rhodes, Mr. Geoffrey (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)

  Dean, Mr. Paul (Somerset, North)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon (Kensington, South)

  Evans, Mr. Fred (Caerphilly)

  Finch, Mr. Harold (Bedwellty)

  Royle, Mr. Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Fletcher, Mr. Ted (Darlington)

  Ryan, Mr. John (Uxbridge)

  Grieve, Mr. Percy (Solihull)

  Snow, Mr. Julian (Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security)

  Hornby, Mr. Richard (Tonbridge)

  Kelley, Mr. Richard (Don Valley)

  Kerr, Dr. David (Wandsworth, Central)

  Summerskill, Dr. Shirley (Halifax)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

  Mr. J. R. Rose, Committee Clerk.

  MEDICAL BILL [Lords]
  10.30 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Julian Snow): I beg to move,
  That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Medical Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
  This Bill can be briefly described as a modification of the financial and disciplinary powers of the General Medical Council. Before embarking on a brief description of the main provisions of the Bill, I should like to explain why the Bill does not include any provision for vocational registration and why it contains nothing in a very definite form about testing for command of English.
  646
  I shall be making observations about this aspect later on.
  Vocational registration, whereby a doctor, on satisfactory completion of specified period of training in a specialty, could become a registered practitioner in that specialty, was a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Medical Education. The Royal Commission saw this as complementary to its recommendations for postgraduate professional training and envisaged that the General Medical Council would act as the registration body for vocational registration.
  Legislation will be required to allow the General Medical Council to implement the Royal Commission's recommendations on vocational registration, and this raises a number of complex

  647
  issues which necessarily take time to explore. Moreover, it cannot properly be considered apart from the other recommendations of the Royal Commission relating to postgraduate medical education which the Government are still examining. I know that some Members are anxious for a further Government statement on these important issues and I hope that it will not be necessary to delay such a statement too long. In the meantime the provisions of this Bill are urgently needed, and I can assure hon. Members that they will in no way prejudice any future action on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, including the question of vocational registration.
  I should like to make an observation on a slightly broader issue which, strictly speaking, does not come into the Bill, but is a useful background note to show the Committee that we are very conscious of a problem which is in the minds of many people. I refer to the training and promotion prospects of junior hospital doctors, which have been sources of discontent in the profession for some time, and were recognised as direct causes of emigration in the Report of the Working Party on the Responsibilities of the Consultant Grade.
  The Report of the Working Party, which was established by the then Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland in July last year, has recently been distributed to all National Health Service hospital doctors and dentists in and above the grade of registrar. The Working Party drew attention to the fact that junior hospital doctors are spending far longer than should be necessary in the hospital training grades with very varying degrees of supervision. The Working Party suggested that such a situation is conducive to frustration and some disillusionment in the profession and is an important factor in the migration of skilled doctors.
  Discussions between the Health Departments and the profession have already begun on the basis of this Report, and also the Report of the Joint Consultants Committee's sub-committee on the hospital staffing structure. Neither the Health Departments nor the profession are yet committed to any of the recommendations in these Reports, but we are
  648
  hopeful that these discussions will lead to agreement upon an improved career structure for hospital doctors which will make the prospect of practice in this country more attractive.
  I turn now to the criticisms that have been made that National Health Service authorities are employing doctors from overseas who may not be able to speak English well enough to communicate effectively with their patients.
  Whilst I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the very good service provided by the great majority of doctors from overseas, the Government are nevertheless concerned that there should be no continuing justification for such criticism. It may be helpful if I say why provision for language testing has not been introduced into this Bill and why command of English is not made a condition of registration.
  The Government have carefully considered this course, and the conclusion has been reached that the objections to it would outweigh the advantages. It is certainly the case that the institution of an examination system would give rise to difficult practical problems for the General Medical Council, but an even more substantial objection is that such an isolated test of linguistic competence does not, in our view, meet the requirements. What is wanted is a means of assessing the general capacity of an overseas doctor to practise in a clinical situation. A doctor may be able to get away with doing his weekend shopping and communicating with his friends, but his English may not be adequate for his practice as a doctor.
  The present voluntary attachment scheme provides overseas doctors with an introduction to clinical practice in this country and at the same time enables their clinical competence and knowledge of the English language to be tested, under supervision. The Government have decided that the extension and strengthening of this scheme is the preferable course, and consultations with the interests concerned, including Commonwealth countries, have already begun with this end in view. It is not possible to say when these consultations will be completed, but we are pushing ahead with them so that any changes decided upon can be introduced quickly.

  649
  I should not like the Committee to be left in any doubt that we are seized of the importance of this matter and are taking steps to deal with it. But we have a Commonwealth part to play in the matter, which must not be ignored when considering the major responsibility to our patients in this country.
  Turning now to the Bill itself, its main purpose is to enable the General Medical Council to require an annual fee to be paid by a doctor for the retention of his name on the Medical Register. Unlike most professional bodies, the Council cannot at present charge an annual retention fee, and so far its income has been derived from the fees paid by doctors on initial registration. The initial registration fees are at present £9 for provisional registration and a further £12 for full registration, which are considerable sums for a young doctor in his first 12 or 18 months of practice to pay and we do not want to increase them. Even so, they have not provided the Council with a sufficient or dependable income. The Council's expenditure has trebled since 1960 and will continue to rise. Its annual deficit is now considerable and it badly needs a means of increasing its income and placing itself on some more flexible basis.
  Clause 5 is an attempt to remedy this situation by empowering the Council to charge an annual fee for the retention of a doctor's name on the Register, in addition to an initial fee for registration. Its scheme would require the approval of the Privy Council. Although introduction of annual fees is intended to provide the Council with an assured income, it will, incidentally, enable it to reduce the initial fees payable on provisional and full registration. Anyone who failed to pay the annual retention fee could, subject to certain safeguards, be removed from the Register under the new powers.
  The main purpose of the remainder of Clauses 1 to 10 is to simplify the registration procedure and make consequential changes in the administration of the General Council. Levying of an annual fee makes it desirable for the control of medical registration to be centralised, and Clause 1 therefore provides for the local registers kept by the three Branch Councils, that is to say, the Councils for England and Wales, for Scotland and for
  650
  the whole of Ireland, to be abolished, and for registration to be effected by a single Register maintained by the Council, to be called the Register of Medical Practitioners.
  I was not proposing going into the detail of these Clauses, but I should perhaps mention Clause 3, which provides for the Register to contain the names of all fully and provisionally registered practitioners but not those of temporarily registered practitioners. It will consist of two lists, the Principal List and the Overseas List, the latter containing the names of practitioners residing overseas who choose to appear on that list. A separate register will be kept of practitioners who are temporarily registered.
  Clause 9 provides for some changes in the arrangements for publishing The Medical Register". In Clauses 11 and 18 there are some sensible amendments of the Council's power to recognise qualifications for registration.
  After satisfactory completion of the requisite period of hospital experience, the provisionally registered doctor becomes eligible for full registration.
  Temporary registration, as the Medical Act, 1956, now stands, is granted to overseas doctors who are in the United Kingdom temporarily and whose qualifications, although recognised by the General Council, were not obtained in countries covered by reciprocal arrangements.
  I should like to draw attention at this paint to the provisions of Clause 12 which substitutes a new Section 25 for the existing Section of the Medical Act, 1956. As I have indicated, at present a person can obtain temporary registration only, amongst other conditions, if
  "he is or intends to be in the United Kingdom temporarily".
  This provision has aroused some criticism, particularly in those few cases where it has prevented a doctor already practising in this country from continuing to practise if he or she can no longer be said to be "temporarily resident in the United Kingdom". The limitation in the 1956 Act serves no useful purpose, and prevents a few doctors who wish to do so, and are otherwise qualified to do so, from practising in this country.
  Clause 12, therefore, removes the present limitation on temporary registration

  651
  being granted only to persons who are temporarily resident in this country.
  Before going any further I should perhaps define a few terms to which I have already referred and to which I shall be referring again. These are the terms "provisional", "full" and "temporary" registration.
  Provisional registration enables a newly-qualified doctor to gain the requisite experience for full registration through employment in approved hospitals. It is available to overseas doctors who have obtained recognised qualifications in countries with which there are reciprocal arrangements for the registration of qualifications. As, no doubt, we shall be coming back to that aspect later on, I would draw particular attention to those reciprocal arrangements.
  At this point I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) who, on behalf of his constituent Mr. Christopher Terrell, highlighted the defect in Section 25 of the 1956 Act. Hon. Members may recall that this was raised on the Adjournment on 15th May last year, when the hon. Member for Wimbledon drew attention to the way in which tying temporary registration to temporary residence had prevented Mr. Terrell's wife from practising medicine in this country when, on her marriage, she became a permanent resident. In parenthesis, I should tell the Committee that Mr. and Mrs. Terrell are personal friends of mine, which did not make my reply in that Adjournment debate particularly easy. On her marriage, Mrs. Terrell was no longer able to have temporary registration.
  In the Adjournment debate last May I said that the proposals by the Royal Commission on Medical Education for revising medical education and granting qualifications in this country were being considered and that the recognition of qualifications granted abroad would no doubt form part of the study. I said then that there were some amendments of the Medical Act which could be made independently of and without prejudicing consideration of the long-term solution.
  These amendments appear as Clause 12 of the Bill and we have thus taken the first suitable legislative opportunity which
  652
  presented itself to rectify the anomaly to which the hon. Member for Wimbledon drew attention. I think I should point out, however, that although it will be possible to continue temporary registration for successive periods it will still be limited to employment in hospitals approved for the purpose by the General Medical Council; and the Council may give a direction that approval to temporary registration is limited not only to specified hospitals but also to a grade or post, or both, within a hospital.
  The General Medical Council has a duty to safeguard the public and it considers that this restriction on the type of employment undertaken on temporary registration ensures that a doctor can be employed only on work suitable to his training and experience. It is not always easy to get hold of the necessary information about training or experience. The Council can satisfy itself as to the basic medical qualifications granted by the countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements, but no such detailed and consistently reliable sources of information are available to the Council with regard to the standards of qualifications and experience of many of the applicants for temporary registration, coming as they do from about 60 different countries.
  Some people have argued that temporary registration is unnecessarily restrictive, in particular because the temporarily registered doctor who qualified in a country with which the United Kingdom has no reciprocal arrangements must secure a British qualification through examination before he can obtain full registration. However, I understand that although the General Medical Council is not unsympathetic to the possibility of a temporarily registered doctor being able to move eventually to full registration the ways and means of doing so will require considerable discussion with the professional bodies concerned. All I can say at present is that the Government are prepared to discuss this with the General Medical Council when we are ready. The G.M.C. is fully conversant with the problem.
  Before leaving temporary registration, I should mention that since this form of registration will, under Clause 12, be able to run for an indeterminate period, Clause 16 makes certain extensions to the powers of the Disciplinary Committee in

  653
  relation to temporarily registered practitioners.
  I turn now to Clauses 13 to 16 which amend the General Medical Council's disciplinary powers. At present, when a doctor has been convicted of a criminal offence or has been guilty of "serious professional misconduct"—which is the from the Bill proposes should replace the existing and somewhat archaic expression "infamous conduct in any professional respect"—the only power open to the Disciplinary Committee of the Council is to erase or strike his name off the Medical Register. In some cases judgment is postponed for up to 12 months, but this has not been found to be an entirely satisfactory alternative.
  The most important change introduced by Clause 13 is the addition of suspension from the Register, subject to the same safeguards by way of appeal, as an alternative to erasure. The effect of suspension is that though the doctor's name remains on the Register, the suspension will be recorded there while it lasts, and he will be treated as though unregistered for the period of suspension. The Disciplinary Committee will be able to watch the progress of a suspended practitioner and, where appropriate, remove his suspension without delay. Alternatively, it can extend suspension or strike him off.
  This brings me to the provision in the Bill for closing the loophole in existing legislation revealed in the notorious case of Dr. Petro. Where the Disciplinary Committee decides to erase or suspend a doctor from the Register, Clause 15 will enable it to suspend a doctor's registration with immediate effect rather than from the end of the appeal period or, if an appeal is lodged, from the date of its dismissal. The intention of this new power is to enable the Disciplinary Committee, when the public interests demands, to prevent a doctor from practising during the appeal period and while an appeal is being determined. This, as the Petro case showed, can be quite a protracted process. The General Medical Council directed that Dr. Petro's name be erased from the Register on 31st May, 1968, but, mainly because Dr. Petro appealed, erasure could not be put into effect until 30th October, five months later. This power of immediate suspension, together with the amendment in Clause 14(1) to the requirement for
  654
  giving notice to a doctor of the Disciplinary Committee's decision, will, we believe, effectively close this loophole.
  I hope that I have now put a little flesh on the bones of the Explanatory Memorandum by developing the main provisions of the Bill. Hon. Members will see that its object is to provide some very necessary powers for stabilising the finances of the General Medical Council, and that it introduces some useful improvements in the Council's disciplinary and registration procedures. The General Medical Council itself agrees with the proposals in the Bill and the medical profession broadly accepts them. I hope that the Bill will receive a wholly general welcome and as speedy a passage through the House as possible. If I have in certain cases been unable to give a specific timetable for certain reforms it is because my Department must act in concert with those who are vested by law with professional responsibilities, such as the G.M.C.
  10.53 a.m.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Yesterday it was nurses, today doctors—both Bills which have been described as relatively minor in the sense that they are narrow in their coverage, but, as the hon. Gentleman's speech made clear, important in the range of their activity, rather as might be said of the elastic in a pair of pants—narrow in relation to the whole but necessary for them to function properly. No one has yet said that this is an innocuous Bill, perhaps because no one has criticised it at all, or else only in a very limited way, in another place. I do not have any criticisms. I have one or two points to make, giving notice to the Under-Secretary of the line we think we will take in Committee, doing what is the job of the Opposition, to point out the facts and to put some ideas forward, especially in such a case as this where the main provisions have been drawn between the Government and the professions concerned, where Parliament has an especial duty as a watchdog in the public interest, which has to be considered as much as the interests of the profession concerned.
  I am very grateful for some of the background points which the Minister has given. I had thought that I should be able to say that his speech reminded me

  655
  of Sherlock Holmes's dog. The Committee will recall that what was significant about that animal was what it did in the night—and it did not do anything. I had thought that I would have been able to say that what was significant about the Minister's speech was its omissions, but he has not made the omissions I thought he would. We would have liked a little more on the wider issue.
  The reasons for the retention fee being introduced are that the costs of the G.M.C. have risen threefold since 1960. I reckon that to be a rise of 25 per cent. a year, and they are still rising. This is not taxpayers' money, but in view of the importance of its work perhaps we could at some stage develop some ideas of the range and future work of the G.M.C. Lord Cohen of Birkenhead referred in another place to the level of the proposed fee of £2 or £3. As he said, this is a matter for the G.M.C. with the approval of the Privy Council. Perhaps at some stage the Government will give us some idea of the balance between the initial fee and the retention fee, and the sort of level at which the retention fee is likely to be.
  Although there is no public money directly involved, the G.M.C. is a matter of considerable public interest. If I may so without impertinence, I thought that Lady Serota, in another place, made a slight mistake when she said that this was no direct concern, except in one instance, of the general public. The instance to which she referred was the new protection of immediate suspension. This puts the G.M.C. in the same class as the Jockey Club, exercising strong disciplinary powers upon members of the profession. There is considerable public interest in this, and particularly in the career structure.
  I was not altogether convinced, either by reading the arguments in another place, or by listening to the Under-Secretary this morning, of the reasons why vocational registration cannot be included in this Bill. I cannot understand why it cannot be considered apart from the other Royal Commission recommendations. I accept that we need to wait for the method of training, the numbers of people to be trained, and the details of the postgraduate training, but I do not
  656
  see that this implies that we have no coherent idea of the nature of the qualifications, the range of their coverage, and the sorts of methods employed for training and career structure for the future.
  I was very grateful, as I am sure the Committee was, for what the Minister said about career structures, and the problems of junior doctors in particular. There are one or two points that I should like to make now, and perhaps the Minister will consider them for some later stage. It seems that there is a growing concern to get the work of the general practitioner more closely integrated with the hospital service to prevent the growing division between general practice and hospital doctoring. This question of the vocational register and postgraduate training is, therefore, of the utmost importance both to the staffing structure and to the pursuing of this end.
  There is also the point, which we might hear about in this context, of the need, and the difficulties which that need imposes, for some junior hospital doctors to move around to get the qualifications they require. If a junior hospital doctor remains too long in one post he may find, when he applies for promotion, that others who have moved around more than he have acquired more qualifications. When we consider the question of the vocational register perhaps that aspect will be kept in mind.
  This is a two-part problem. There is the whole question of the structure of the hospital service itself, and the status and rôle of the doctors in it. We have to consider the difficulty that there would be in promoting more registrars to consultants if that implied that they were also to have the full team which all existing consultants have, and the probability, therefore, that some consultants would be consultants in status and qualifications but would have to accept that they would be acting on their own and not necessarily with the full apparatus which every one now has. Again, there is the whole question of the rôle of a general practitioner in a hospital.
  Apart from the question of the doctor—and this is where I regret that the Bill does not go further—there is closely linked the whole question of training, and this question, as the Minister has admitted, is closely linked with the question

  657
  of a vocational register. I think that we shall return to this in more detail in Committee.
  I turn, now, to the second of the points which I feared the Minister would not raise—I am grateful to him for doing so—namely, the registration of foreign doctors. I am not wholly convinced by the Minister's arguments. I agree that they were reasonably truncated for this Second Reading debate, and no doubt we shall be able to go into the whole question in a great deal more detail in Committee. This is a very big and difficult problem. There is not only the question of language, but that of the medical training and experience of some foreign and Commonwealth doctors. It is so varied from what they meet in United Kingdom practice that it is difficult for them to overcome the problem.
  This is not a question of colour, although, regrettably, it may in some cases be treated as such. Not least of the difficulties arises with non-English speaking doctors from southern Europe, who have come to this country in increasing numbers during the last five years. It is a big problem, because large numbers of these doctors arrive here every year. I think I am right in saying that more than half the junior staff are immigrant doctors, and that, whether we like it or not, for the next ten years we shall have to rely to a great extent on doctors coming to this country from abroad.
  As we have got on to that aspect at this stage I think I ought to emphasise how necessary it is to improve the arrangements, to be fair to the immigrant doctors themselves. So often when something goes wrong the blame is spread among other immigrant doctors whose qualifications and mastery of the English language are complete and adequate. That spread is, regrettably, that much easier when immigrant doctors can be identified by colour, than in other cases.
  One must emphasise that this is a limited problem, but it is an important one. To say that a doctor may have difficulty in this country does not necessarily imply that he is a bad doctor. Sometimes his medical experience is different from the rôle that he is asked to fulfil. Very often it is, perhaps, a mistake on the part of the employer in appointing a particular person to a particular
  658
  post, rather than a fault on the part of the employee.
  The Under-Secretary of State referred to the voluntary attachment scheme, and to the discussions which are continuing with the Commonwealth. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make the mistake which Governments sometimes make of thinking that in a matter of this kind it is sufficient to get agreement between the interested parties, the G.M.C., the B.M.A., and the Commonwealth countries, to bring in regulations. Parliament is concerned, and people are concerned. The great problem which we have to face is that these regulations cannot be amended. I am anxious, therefore, to get as much as possible into the terms of the Bill, and to leave as little as possible, and only that which is properly left, to subsequent negotiation and settlement. I think that the same considerations apply to temporary registration.
  Turning to the detail of the Bill, I hope that on Clause 3 the Government will let the House know as soon as possible about the discussions they are having with the profession on the employment of overseas doctors. The wider range of qualifications which can now be included in the Register under Clause 11 will be very welcome to all concerned, and I should like to go on record as thanking the Minister for, and congratulating the Government on, correcting that tiresome anomaly in the way that they have done in Clause 12.
  We shall have a great deal more to say, and rightly so, on Clause 13 and the provision for suspension in lieu of striking off the Register. I must mention in passing a slight feeling of nostalgia that the splendidly archaic language has been modernised, but, of course, it is right that that should be so. I hope that the position of single-handed doctors in general practice, the whole question of suspension, of seniority payments, and so on, will be carefully considered.
  If suspension is intended to have a much less severe effect on a doctor's life than erasure, we must be careful to limit the consequences of suspension and not let the consequential effects make the penalty more severe than is intended. That applies particularly in the case of immediate suspension. If the Council is to have these powers—and I do not

  659
  doubt that it should—it is very important that any appeal should be dealt with as speedily as possible, otherwise it may be that a sentence, as it were, intended to be a suspension for 12 months will extend beyond that period because of delays, and if the appeal is successful the doctor will be penalised unnecessarily, and even if it fails he will be penalised to a greater extent than was originally intended.
  I was a little worried about Clause 19 and the provision for getting for the G.M.C. statistical information from doctors. If it is intended to allow the Council to request information from doctors for statistical purposes, I do not see what this is doing in the Bill at all. It seems to me that a body of this nature does not need the authorisation of a Statute to request information from those who are registered with it. If, on the other hand, the intention is to empower, directly or indirectly, the Council to demand information about patients from doctors, I do not think that this should happen at all. I do not believe that to be the intention, but perhaps we can come to that in due course.
  I hope that I, too, may digress a little into the background, as the Minister did, and say that the changes wrought in this Bill, and the intentions of the Government and the Council with regard to training, postgraduate training, and a vocational register, make it extremely important that the composition of the Council should be as broadly based as possible, and I hope that the majority will, therefore, be elected from the profession. I hope, too, that the Ministry, as what one might call the supervising employer, in the sense that all hospital doctors are indirectly employed by the State, will do what it can to see that junior hospital doctors are given enough time to play a rôle in this organisation.
  In another place Lord Newton said that this is the
  "latest but, I imagine, not the last of a long list of Statutes"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 6th May, 1969; Vol. 301, c. 1166.]
  on this subject, and Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, in his admirable speech, said this
  "is, as it were, the first of a series of Bills"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 6th May, 1969; Vol. 301, c. 1174.]
  660
  to be presented to another place. I hope, therefore, that in Committee we can ensure that, as the latest, but not the last, or as the first of a new series, the Bill does everything it can to improve the arrangements for the registration of doctors and to aid the work of the General Medical Council.
  11. 12 a.m.
  Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: I think that this is a useful Bill, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) said, it received a warm welcome in another place. The debate on it there was very interesting.
  I recognise that there is a need to modify the financial and disciplinary powers of the Council, which is broadly what the Bill sets out to do, but it affects the livelihood and careers of every doctor in the country, and anyone who is to practice in future, and, for that matter, every patient and every potential patient: in short, everybody. Therefore, while it may seem superficially to be of a fairly routine character, I think that we are obliged to look at it very carefully indeed. I recognise that, on the whole, the Bill is not controversial, but my hon. Friend raised a number of important points, and I should like to underline one or two of them.
  I propose to deal, first, with the question of command of the English language. I confess that I am worried about this. I was not at all convinced by what the Minister said. He told us that command of the English language for normal purposes is not by any means the same as it is for clinical purposes, but this is why I am worried. I do not think that to hold that view leads one to the conclusion that nothing should be done about it. I take the view that something should be done, and quickly. From a clinical or medical point of view command of the English language is very important. There is a lot of public anxiety about this, and we would be wrong not to recognise it. I hope that in Committee we shall consider this again and get some further assurance from the Government. I am sure it would be wrong to imagine that the public is not interested in the ability of doctors in the Health Service to speak English adequately to carry out their professional duties. There has been much

  661
  in the Press about this. We have to take careful note of it. I hope that we shall do so and that we shall have some reassurance.
  The General Medical Council is in some financial difficulties, and there is an obvious need to make it solvent, while at the same time seeing that it maintains its independence from the Government. This independence is very important as a part of professional status. The provisions of Clause 5 will mean that the medical profession must provide the wherewithal for the General Medical Council to do its job while maintaining its independence. The Clause is non-controversial, but it is important.
  I have been in touch with the British Medical Association with reference to Clause 13. There have been second thoughts on the part of the B.M.A. In the past it was very doubtful about these powers of suspension in the form proposed. Now, I understand, it has changed its views and is willing to accept a Clause of this character.
  Mr. Snow: This is a very important point. There are consultations going on at present, and I hope to be able to be a little more explicit about this in Committee.
  Sir T. Beamish: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary and I appreciate that intervention. As he knows, the B.M.A. has serious doubts about the practical effects of this new power. This is a matter we shall have to consider very carefully in Committee.
  As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham, there is a direct relationship between the length of practice in the National Health Service and seniority and superannuation payments. A suspension could have as severe an effect as erasure from the Register. As suspension is entirely different from erasure, the Committee will want to make sure that a clear distinction is made between the effect it can have on a doctor's superannuation and on his seniority rights. I understand the B.M.A. is not happy about the side effects of the Clause. One suggestion has been put forward for suspension for a lesser period than a year, with a view to making clear the difference. I am sure the Under-
  662
  Secretary will agree that this is important.
  Also arising from the Clause, the B.M.A. has serious doubts, I understand, about the appeal machinery, and it has good grounds for them. The Privy Council, which is the appellate body, is very slow moving, and long delays can take place in the hearing of appeals. Would it be possible to ensure that appeals are heard more quickly, or is there the alternative idea that the High Court should be the appellate body? The Under-Secretary will know more about these ideas of the B.M.A., and I hope that we may have more information about them.
  I have strong feelings about Clause 19 which empowers the Council to obtain information from registered practitioners for statistical purposes. That it needs a certain amount of information in well-defined fields goes without saying, but I would need much convincing that it requires information outside those fields. I should like to know for what purpose it is needed other than the purpose of registration by the General Medical Council. This is something we have to look at very carefully, because inevitably there is a view, of which we must take account, that the seeking from doctors of information outside limited fields for specific purposes by the General Medical Council could easily interfere with the confidential character, which is so important, of the doctor-patient relationship.
  None of the things I have mentioned is of a party political character. It is nice to get away from party controversy for a time. All members of the Committee will share my view that a great many people are asking questions of a great many other people in these days. We want the minimum interference with our private lives. I should want some convincing that this is the right Bill to introduce these powers, and that they are really needed now. I realise, of course, that the answering of any questions would, presumably, be voluntary. I may not have studied the matter with sufficient care, but I do not think there would be any compulsion on doctors to reply to questions which they thought went beyond what was necessary. Even so, asking unnecessary questions, although there is no compulsion to reply, is something which should be avoided if possible. This aspect of

  663
  the Clause must be looked at extremely carefully.
  We look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill.
  11.22 a.m.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: When I started to endeavour to brief myself about this Bill I thought it rather strange that apparently a law had to be passed in Parliament before the General Medical Council could alter the fees for people applying for registration. However, I learn that the General Medical Council expects that, if no change is made, the cumulative deficit by the end of 1971 will be about £200,000. That is an extremely large sum, bearing in mind the amounts of money which the G.M.C. has to find for various purposes. I very much support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) and by the Under-Secretary. I am anxious that, by reason of what we are doing in this Bill, no hardship should be caused to those called upon to meet the extra fees.
  I recognise that we do not know what the extra fee will be. In another place it was suggested that it would be merely £2 or £3 per annum. That may seem a small sum. Nevertheless, I wonder if anything could be done for junior hospital doctors who, I believe, have to pay out of their salaries for such things as stethoscopes, white coats, and so on. If they apply for another post in a hospital the actual application for the job can be extremely costly under present procedural rules. I want to be assured that this provision will not mean more pinpricks for the junior hospital doctor.
  I join my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) in expressing concern about knowledge of the English language. I listened carefully to what the Under-Secretary said. He said, "We are taking steps in this matter." It is important that the public should be able to expect that those steps will not be faltering ones, because there is great concern about this matter. I should have thought it a simple basic qualification for practising medicine that a doctor should be able to understand clearly not only the precise words used by his patients but their nuances. Often, these are, for strangers to our country,
  664
  difficult to understand. I therefore hope that the steps which are taken will be swift and will deal with the problem properly.
  Sir. T. Beamish: I think my figures are correct and that more than half the doctors below consultant level in the National Health Service hospitals are foreigners. That is a remarkable number and shows the importance of this question. I do not think many people realise how many foreign doctors are practising here, and how dependent we are on them.
  Mrs. Knight: That adds weight to what has been said. I am sure the Under-Secretary is apprised of the problem. I do not for a moment suggest that lie does not agree about its seriousness.
  I was interested in the change to be made in the wording which the Disciplinary Committee has to use: "infamous" has become "serious". It is a comment on our times that what used to be "infamous" conduct is now "serious" conduct. I merely make that comment. I do not oppose the change. But it is an interesting one.
  On Clause 13, I agree with what the Under-Secretary said about Dr. Petro and prescribing of drugs. It is most important that the appeal mechanism should be good. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, there is an appreciable delay when a doctor appeals. Power is provided in the Bill for immediate suspension. There is need not only to be able to suspend at once but to appeal quickly. This is most important. Under the Bill a doctor, having appealed against an extension of suspension, might serve the whole additional period of suspension before the appeal is dealt with by the Privy Council.
  As the Clause stands it allows the General Medical Council to act on an offence which a doctor committed before he was even on the register. It does not seem quite right that offences committed prior to registration should be brought to the notice of the Disciplinary Committee in cases where doctors train and qualify in Britain.
  On Clause 17 I ask whether the election procedure of the G.M.C. is to differ substantially from the present procedure, and, if so, in what way.

  665
  I, too, am somewhat anxious about Clause 19. This question of requesting information from doctors for statistical purposes is a delicate one. I have in mind another Measure in respect of which the giving of information to a doctor, knowing that it might be handed over, has had a salutary effect on the patient. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham that the provisions of the Clause should be contained in a subsequent Bill dealing with vocational registration. There is opposition from the B.M.A. to this provision, and the Association wrote to me saying:
  "The Council does not see any place in the Bill for powers which in any case are voluntary to obtain statistical information other than for purposes of compiling the register."
  I support the Bill, and I am glad that our discussion today has been on a nonparty basis.
  11.32 a.m.
  Mr. Snow: With permission, I will address the Committee a second time.
  The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) raised a number of useful points, and I think he will agree that they could be more usefully discussed at a later stage.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and others were concerned about the information which will be required by the G.M.C. It may be more helpful if this point, too, is discussed at length at a later date, in Committee. The intention is to provide the G.M.C. with information which it would like to have to make better informed decisions. Although this is not a compulsory power to demand information, we can discuss the matter later. I feel that it is a reasonable request and should be incorporated in the Bill. I assure hon. Members that there is no question of compulsion.
  I assure the Committee that we regard the language problem as an important and urgent matter. There are many problems which do not immediately appear to be involved in this issue; for example, even where we have reciprocal arrangements with countries in which the studies in the medical schools are conducted in the English language we frequently find that the people who qualify from such schools still really do not understand colloquial or idiomatic English. We are
  666
  seized of the urgency of the matter and I hope, at a later date, to give the Committee more information.
  The question of the appeals structure was raised and the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston made a good point when she said that we should, as I will do later on, clarify the appeals structure in relation to immediate suspension. I agree that the matter needs to be discussed.
  I was relieved to learn that the hon. Member for Farnham had done his homework on the question of vocational registration, since I had studied the matter and had wondered whether my efforts had been necessary. It is not possible to incorporate this item in the Bill because it cannot be done in isolation from the findings of the Royal Commission on Medical Education. The consultations at all levels in the profession are of such a technical nature that it is not possible to have this ready in time. I am somewhat perturbed that the document, "The Responsibilities of the Consultant Grade", may not be available to all hon. Members of the Committee. I will try to have more copies available.
  I have taken note of what has been said about the timing of the appeal procedures and about delays which may ensue on appeal to the Privy Council. I will elaborate on this and other matters when we discuss the Measure in Committee. Hon. Members may ask why this issue has not been decided previously. Negotiations between the Government and the professions are always somewhat slow, and we must keep in mind the person who really matters in all this, and that is the patient. I therefore ask hon. Members to bear with me for the time being; and I hope to give more detailed information as we proceed.
  There does not appear to have been very much controversy over the Bill and I therefore hope that hon. Members will give it a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Medical Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
  Committee rose at twenty-three minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:

  Probert, Mr. (Chairman)

  Macmillan, Mr. Maurice

  Armstrong, Mr.

  Millan, Mr.

  Beamish, Sir T.

  Rhys Williams, Sir B.

  Evans, Mr. Fred

  Royle, Mr. A.

  Fletcher, Mr. Ted

  Ryan, Mr.

  Knight, Mrs.

  Snow, Mr.

BOARD OF TRADE
  Trade Figures
  Trade Figures
  Assay Offices (Joint Committee Memorandum)
  Assay Offices (Joint Committee Memorandum)
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Industrial Development (Liverpool, West Derby)
  Industrial Development (Liverpool, West Derby)
  Paper Mills
  Paper Mills
  Check Trading and Personal Credit Schemes
  Check Trading and Personal Credit Schemes
  Greek Tobacco
  Greek Tobacco
  Export Promotion
  Export Promotion
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Banks Committee
  Banks Committee
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Agricultural Export Council
  Agricultural Export Council
  European Export Council
  European Export Council
  Wool Industry Machinery (Investment Grants)
  Wool Industry Machinery (Investment Grants)
  Industrial Development Certificates (West Midlands)
  Industrial Development Certificates (West Midlands)
  Trade Statistics (Government Transactions and Invisible Earnings)
  Trade Statistics (Government Transactions and Invisible Earnings)
  Inertia Selling
  Inertia Selling
  Advance Factory, Sunderland
  Advance Factory, Sunderland
  Packaged Foodstuffs and Commodities (Standardisation)
  Packaged Foodstuffs and Commodities (Standardisation)
  Wines, Spirits and Beer (Off-Licence Sales)
  Wines, Spirits and Beer (Off-Licence Sales)
  Aerosol Bronchodilators
  Aerosol Bronchodilators
  Boneless Meat
  Boneless Meat
  Retail Sales (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Retail Sales (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Industrial Training (Overseas Nationals)
  Industrial Training (Overseas Nationals)
  Private and Public Companies (Liquidations)
  Private and Public Companies (Liquidations)
  U.S.S.R. (Minister's Visit)
  U.S.S.R. (Minister's Visit)
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Greece (Nuclear Reactor and Tobacco Sales)
  Greece (Nuclear Reactor and Tobacco Sales)
SHIPPING
  Icelandic Trawlers (Grimsby Labour)
  Icelandic Trawlers (Grimsby Labour)
  Fishing Industry (Holland-Martin Report)
  Fishing Industry (Holland-Martin Report)
  Shipping Industry (Report)
  Shipping Industry (Report)
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Vessel "Irene" (Loss)
  Vessel "Irene" (Loss)
AVIATION
  British Airlines (Import Freights)
  British Airlines (Import Freights)
  Heathrow (Aircraft Noise and Night Flights)
  Heathrow (Aircraft Noise and Night Flights)
  Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council (Representations)
  Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council (Representations)
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Turnhouse and Overseas Airports (Facilities)
  Turnhouse and Overseas Airports (Facilities)
  Teesside Airport
  Teesside Airport
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Ammunition (Standards)
  Ammunition (Standards)
  Biological and Chemical Warfare
  Biological and Chemical Warfare
  Territorial Decoration (T & AVR)
  Territorial Decoration (T & AVR)
  Nassau Agreement
  Nassau Agreement
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Price Increases (Complaints)
  Price Increases (Complaints)
  Farmers, Lincolnshire (Assistance)
  Farmers, Lincolnshire (Assistance)
  Agricultural Workers (Below Minimum Wages)
  Agricultural Workers (Below Minimum Wages)
  Meat (Prices)
  Meat (Prices)
SCOTLAND
  May Burgh Elections
  May Burgh Elections
  Crime
  Crime
  Shoplifting (Penalties)
  Shoplifting (Penalties)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Import Substitutions
  Import Substitutions
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Oceanographic Research
  Oceanographic Research
  WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL
  WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  European Economic Community (Trade Union Officers)
  European Economic Community (Trade Union Officers)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Biafra (Nurse Goatcher)
  Biafra (Nurse Goatcher)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Wandsworth Prison
  Wandsworth Prison
  Remand Centres
  Remand Centres
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  E.E.C. Countries (Exchange Programmes)
  E.E.C. Countries (Exchange Programmes)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members (Services and Facilities)
  Members (Services and Facilities)
TECHNOLOGY
  Alaskan Arctic Oil Development (Hovercraft)
  Alaskan Arctic Oil Development (Hovercraft)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Gaming Machine Licence Duty
  Gaming Machine Licence Duty
  Tithes
  Tithes
  National Savings
  National Savings
  Local Authorities (Outstanding Loan Charges)
  Local Authorities (Outstanding Loan Charges)
  Sovereigns
  Sovereigns
  Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise (Staff)
  Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise (Staff)
  Invisibles
  Invisibles
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Building Costs (Scotland)
  Building Costs (Scotland)
TRANSPORT
  E.E.C. Countries (Exchange Programmes)
  E.E.C. Countries (Exchange Programmes)
ROADS
  A45 (Coventry-Birmingham)
  A45 (Coventry-Birmingham)
  M62 (Worsley-Lofthouse-Gilberdyke)
  M62 (Worsley-Lofthouse-Gilberdyke)
RAILWAYS
  Suspended Services (Damaged Track)
  Suspended Services (Damaged Track)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Sinha—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

IMMIGRANTS AND COMMONWEALTH ADVISORY CENTRES
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what reply has been given to the requests by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the United Kingdom Citizenship Committee for financial help in setting up advisory centres in Commonwealth countries to assist immigrants' dependants in applying for entry certificates and in lodging appeals.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has these requests under consideration, but I regret that I am not yet able to announce a decision.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, have not these new arrangements now been in operation for a month; and while the situation at Heathrow and places affected in this country is much easier, is not the position in the Commonwealth places of departure much worse, with crowds waiting for immigrant permits? In view of that fact, is it not very desirable that financial assistance should be given, as the Home Office have said it would be, to the organisations prepared to give advice and help?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, on the question of the desirability of giving financial assistance, I made a Statement on behalf of the Government on May 13
1020
on that point and that remains the position. The details of the applications which have been put forward are being considered and I hope that a decision will be reached in the next week or so.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords, but this has been going on for months. Are not the conditions now prevailing at Karachi and other Commonwealth ports of departure just appalling? And is it not very necessary that when the Government make these new regulations they should make arrangements under which they can be carried out humanely?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, according to my information, the Pakistan authorities say that so far there has been no difference arising from the new regulations. The Indian authorities say that the numbers coming over are fewer because people are arriving at the departure ports without papers, or without valid papers, and therefore there is this delay. That was inevitable initially, but I repeat that the J.C.W.I. have asked for the provision of advisory services covering Indian, Pakistan, the West Indies and Guyana, with offices also in London, Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester. The Committee for United Kingdom Citizenship have submitted estimates for the provision of advisory services with offices in London, Nairobi, Kampala and Bombay. There are many matters for considered decision. We are aware of the sense of urgency the welfare authorities feel, but I do not think that even the space of four weeks is an inordinate time to go into the details and settle them.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, was not it unwise to initiate this scheme before arrangements had been made by which Commonwealth immigrants could have this advice; and does not the situation in India illustrate that when they are many miles away from the High Commissioner's Office it is impossible for them to make the arrangements by which they can in any human way obtain these permits?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think my noble friend ought to agree with me that it would have been even more disastrous had we announced this change and not implemented it at once. Our experience in East Africa must surely have convinced us of that. I am aware

1021
also of what my noble friend said about the conditions which existed prior to the new arrangements. We have looked into that situation and found that there are a number of reasons for it which relate to the particular circumstances and the particular views of the people there. They are not really a matter for Her Majesty's Government.

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ECONOMIC PLANNING
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: 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 invite the Regional Economic Planning Councils, whether separately or in some cases jointly, to convene a symposium on regional natural resources and their potential development to assist the economy, on the lines of the Elgood symposium convened by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).]
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. The Regional Economic Planning Councils in England are free to adopt any particular methods, such as symposia, in order to enlarge their knowledge of natural resources in their regions, without invitation from the Government. The Government are fully aware of the part which the increased utilisation of our natural resources could play in improving our balance-of-payments position. So far as research into natural resources is concerned the Natural Environment Research Council, which the Government set up under the Science and Technology Act, 1965, is responsible for co-ordinating this work.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him, first of all, whether he would not agree that the Elgood symposium was of great value and that some of its suggestions have been taken note of subsequently and acted on by the N.E.R.C. and other organisations to which the noble Lord
1022
referred? Would he not agree that regional research into natural resources must be a critical component in the working out of regional or provincial economic strategy, foreseen in the Redcliffe-Maud Report whose recommendations the Government are now committed to implementing?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that the Elgood Committee did a very useful job when it was set up in 1959, but since that date the recommendations which it put forward and which were acted upon have in a similar way been already acted upon in England and Wales. If the noble Earl is fully conversant with the work which is being done by the Institute of Geological Sciences and the Mineral Resources Consultative Committee, he will see that we are by no means behind Scotland in this work.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while appreciating the noble Lord's answer, may I ask him not to take it amiss if I remind him that I have not received the list he promised a week ago of the various organisations engaged on this operation? Will he further consider this point: that central examination of such things as natural resources may be of too specialised a sort to suit the problem in hand, in so far as the central organisations to which he has referred are narrow specialist bodies and that what one needs is something certainly with multi- if not maxi-disciplinary activities rather than the reverse?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl set forward his ideas in some detail in a debate we had some time ago, and I can assure him that they were given very careful thought. I say to him again, as I said last week, that while I appreciate his interest in this matter and while I am sure we cannot stimulate too much interest in the development of our natural resources, I believe he will find, if he looks at it again, that the means and methods he is suggesting are not the best in the circumstances.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider that these somewhat informal bodies are the right persons to undertake work of this nature?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to the Regional Councils when he talks of informal bodies, I agree with him.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, as a supporter of regional development, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the regional approach to geology is probably just the wrong way to tackle it?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is quite right: some things, apart from the geological sciences, hydrology, oceanography, nature conservancy, work with research vessels and similar work, cannot be done on a regional basis.

PAY OF THE HIGHER CIVIL SERVICE
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are considering a recommendation from the advisory committee headed by Lord Plowden whereby thirty Permanent Secretaries in the Civil Service would get increases in salaries from the present £8,600–£9,200 range to match the Prime Minister's £14,000 a year within two years.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the Standing Advisory Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Plowden have made recommendations on the pay of the Higher Civil Service and they are being considered by the Government.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for that Answer, may I ask him whether he can tell your Lordships what sort of sum of money will be involved?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot at this stage disclose the nature of the Committee's recommendations.
LORD VIVIAN: I thank the noble Lord.

RHODESIA: SECOND SAFEGUARD PROPOSALS
2.41 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals for a purely internal second safeguard has been made from the British side during or since the "Fearless" negotiations.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place on October 22 last that:
"We would have been prepared to dispense with a judicial-type review if, as part of a settlement, an undertaking were given that there would be no amendment of the entrenched clauses for a given period ahead—say, the 15 years mentioned in the White Paper ".
He later said:
"Such a proposal could be embodied in a treaty between the two Governments …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 22/10/68, col. 1224.]
But another suggestion, which had been discussed during the "Fearless" talks was that it could be embodied in the Rhodesian Constitution itself. This would have been a purely internal second safeguard; but Mr. Smith and his colleagues were not interested in it.
The alternative second safeguard put forward by my right honourable friend the Minister without Portfolio during the Salisbury talks was also essentially an internal safeguard. Under this proposal the final decision would have rested with the Rhodesian electorate. The proposal provided for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to have a "sieving role"; but the Judicial Committee could have taken no action on their own initiative and their function would simply have been to eliminate frivolous demands for the safeguard to be put into effect. In any case my right honourable friend the Minister without Portfolio made it repeatedly clear that we were ready to discuss the details of this proposal. At the Salisbury talks Mr. Smith took no special exception to the limited role envisaged for the Privy Council, but maintained that

1025
the whole idea of a referendum was totally unacceptable.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I first apologise to the noble Lord for the fact that the grammar in my Question, with I think the connivance of the Table, seems to have fallen even below my habitual gamma standard. I should like to study what the noble Lord has said, and I would thank him for his full and considered reply to my Question.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord on his grammar, and congratulate him on the rapidity with which he got his Question down. I think he will note that there is a little extra information in my Answer which has not been published.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, do we understand—I hope we do—from the Answer given to-day and from the most helpful reply of the noble Lord yesterday, that the proposal for a treaty is still wide open, and will be kept wide open?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I dealt with the noble Earl's point about a treaty yesterday. On another occasion I should be most happy to expand on the disadvantages of a treaty, especially the drawback that Mr. Smith himself was not interested in having a treaty registered at the United Nations. Indeed, I should have thought that between the two proposals—embodiment of the entrenched provisions in a treaty and embodiment in the Rhodesian Constitution, the latter would have been preferable to Mr. Smith.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I appreciate that. I was not able to remain in the House last night, but I have read with great interest and care what the noble Lord said. But in respect of whether the treaty would have to be deposited with the United Nations, is it not a great advantage of a treaty that, if there were a breach, it would be subject to the jurisdiction of the International Court?
LORD SHACKLETON: No, my Lords, this would not necessarily follow. I am speaking now without advice, but my recollection—it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, may be able to help me—is that both parties have to be
1026
willing to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the International Court unless there is provision by some special arrangements, I presume arising out of registration with the United Nations or otherwise.

HUMAN RIGHTS: THE STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL
2.45 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper:
"To call attention to the need for protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms,"—
and here I use the words from the European Convention—
"to the increasing power of the State in relation to the individual, to the throat to personal privacy resulting from technological advance; and to possible measures, including the enactment of a Bill of Rights."
I had originally tabled a shorter Motion, simply drawing attention to the need for a Bill of Rights, but on reflection I thought it might be more helpful if I were to give some indication as to the ground which I wished to cover in this debate.
I find some difficulty in drafting a Motion for a Wednesday debate in your Lordships' House. One has to try to ensure that the Motion is not too limited in scope, on the one hand, and not too all-embracing, on the other. I hope I have not erred too much in the latter direction. I am most grateful to all those noble Lords who have resisted the greater attraction of Ascot in order to be here this afternoon, and I should like to express my thanks to those noble Lords who intend to take part in the debate. I shall certainly look forward to their contributions with great interest.
I cannot claim to have any originality in raising the subject of the liberties of the individual. The late Lord Samuel, who for many years was the Leader of my Party in this House, on a number of occasions introduced the Liberties of the Subject Bill, and I think it is fitting that his son, the present noble Viscount, should be present here to-day and should be taking part in this debate. There have of course been other, more recent, Bills on specific aspects of this subject. There

1027
was the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on the invasion of privacy, and there have been several Private Members' Bills introduced in the House of Commons.
Although this is not new, the whole subject of the protection of human life and personal liberty is, I think, becoming increasingly important, for a number of reasons, and I would suggest five in number. First, there is the concentration of power, coupled with the fact that almost every aspect of man's life is now affected by the exercise of that power. Secondly, in my own view there is the speed with which important rights are taken away, sometimes almost overnight. I am not thinking only of what takes place in authoritarian States. Even in our own democratic system in this country it can happen. So far as legislative action is concerned, if the Government and the official Opposition are in agreement, things can happen rapidly. Whatever one's views may be about the Commonwealth Immigrants Act—I am not going to enter into the pros and cons of that measure—I think there are many people who feel uneasy about the almost unseemly haste with which that Bill was pushed through Parliament.
Thirdly, there is the steady growth in the number of administrative acts and the number of administrative tribunals. Very often the decisions of the tribunals cannot be challenged, and sometimes no reasons are given. I am, of course, aware that by Section 12 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958 reasons must be given if requested, but the parties involved do not always realise their rights in that respect. As to the recent increase in administrative acts I welcome the recent Report of the Law Commission raising, as it does, the question whether citizens should have an enforceable remedy in regard to the legality of administrative actions.
Fourthly, we have growing evidence of the infringement of personal privacy. This has become more serious owing to the nature of modern inventions and the extension of the means of communication. For example, dealing with the subject of the Press and television, I do not think it is fair to blame Press reporters and television cameramen as a generality—there may he exceptions—because after all the public is greatly
1028
interested in the private lives of other people; but as a result of modern inventions the opportunities of delving into the private lives of other people and conveying that information to a very wide public have greatly increased.
I have been reading the Report of the Second Reading debate on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and I think the case which he put forward is still valid. Many points made in that debate are still relevant. I notice that in that debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, speaking about the prevention of the infringement of privacy said:
"All I would say is that if the law does not give the right of privacy, the sooner this Bill gives it the better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13/3/61, col. 640.]
The fifth ground for concern is the misuse that could be made to-day of personal information obtained about individuals and collated and fed into a computer. This problem has acquired more importance as a consequence of technological advance. I believe that the data bank will be typical of the society of the future. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, if he will allow me to quote him, said in an address to the Human Rights Assembly in Montreal in March of last year, when referring to the future of computerised data:
"In a fully integrated system everything would be known about you, from your birth certificate to your present overdraft."
From my own experience I find that there is a great increase in the number of questionnaires. I do not always reply to them, and it may be that the information I do insert is of no great consequence. But if all the information that was obtained and can now be obtained from individuals were centralised, and perhaps made available to some unauthorised person, an entirely new situation would arise. Circumstances have altered as a result of the development of modern technology, and lawyers must take note of this.
Mr. B. J. A. Hargreaves, the Director of Public Affairs at I.B.M., speaking at the Liberal Summer School last year, put this problem more concisely than I could myself. This is what he said:
"To-day, modern technology has produced unimagined refinements of the inquisitorial methods used formerly to curtail man's movements and penetrate his mind. What is known as surveillance technology has many subtleties. The bugged olive in the Martini, substances applied secretly to a person's skin or embedded on his person or in his belongings to allow him

1029
to be followed, radio pills that convert someone into a human transmitter, closed circuit television, miniature microphones hidden in a button to record conversations, listening devices that can measure sound waves generated by human speech on walls and windows, infrared devices to read the contents of sealed envelopes, zoom cameras to read documents at a distance and the tapping of communications lines and computer records no longer belong to science fiction. They are available on the market, even through mail order firms, and they have all been used."
He continued:
"The intrusion of the mind is equally refined. Truth drugs, subliminal advertising, polygraphs and personality testing are to-day's stock in trade. The possibility of altering individual characters and intervention in thought processes by direct contact with areas of the brain are two of the developments of tomorrow."
I think that raises an alarming prospect for the future, and those are some of the reasons for raising this subject to-day.
I note that last Thursday a journalist, writing about the proceedings of this House, stated that your Lordships—presumably including myself—suffer from the delusion that our proceedings influence people. Well, I am quite content to leave that to others to decide, but I certainly think that this is a subject which it is appropriate for this House to be considering. In doing so, however, we must consider what new legislative action, if any, ought to be taken, and in particular whether, as a number of people now think, a Bill of Rights would provide the right answer. Ten years ago I should probably have been rather sceptical. I should probably have been one of those who said that it was all very well for other countries but not here; and I admit that there are arguments on both sides on this subject of a Bill of Rights.
I find it is a disadvantage to be able to see both sides—perhaps not always. There is the occasion when one is invited to speak at a debating society in support of a motion, and on arrival one finds that, owing to some misunderstanding or last minute change of plans, one has been put down to speak against it instead of for it. Then mental agility has its value. However, this is not a debating society and serious issues are involved, and one is whether there should be enacted a Bill containing statements of legal principles enforceable in the courts. That is the essence of the proposed Bill of Rights.
1030
No doubt there is growing support for this idea. Mr. Quintin Hogg has stated that he has changed his mind and has now come down in favour of the enactment of a Bill of Rights. Mr. Anthony Lester, in a Fabian publication, Democracy and Individual Rights, says:
"A Bill of Rights could make an important contribution to the protection of individual rights in Britain (including Northern Ireland) against abuse by the Legislature, the Executive and Local Government. It would direct attention more insistently and systematically than at present to issues of principle involving the individual and the State."
And more recently a booklet has been published written by a Liberal, Mr. John Macdonald, setting out the arguments for a Bill of Rights and containing a draft Bill for consideration.
Mr. Macdonald, assisted by a panel of distinguished Liberal lawyers, goes rather further than Mr. Anthony Lester, whose approach is rather more cautious. In his introduction, Mr. Macdonald says:
"If such a document is to have any practical value it must be more than a declaration of good intentions. … A Bill of Rights should confer rights which can be readily enforced in the ordinary Courts."
Of course, there will have to be very careful consideration of the definition of these rights. But there are some suggestions that I have met—certainy not put forward by Mr. Macdonald—which I would not take too seriously. For example, according to a report in a journal known as the Alliance News of May this year, a proposal for the enactment of a Bill of Rights was put forward at a conference at Eastbourne of the Greater London Young Conservatives. The proposed fundamental freedoms were to include:
"Freedom for any adult to partake of any addictive substance, and freedom of sexual expression",
whatever that may mean. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the proposal was defeated.
There are some who seriously object in principle to the concept of a Bill of Rights, and I am well aware of this. There are those who say that we should rely on the development of the common law by the case by case method; by the interpretation of the law by judges following precedents. But I am bound to say that an increasing body of legal opinion has doubts as to whether this

1031
alone is adequate, in view of the new kind of threats and the complexity of modern society. Moreover, on the whole the courts have been rather more successful in the field of preservation of rights of property, and such obvious essential rights as protection from illegal arrest, than in the less easily definable rights of privacy and the right to be protected from intrusion into one's private life. It may be said that we should rely on new legislation to deal with each new problem as it arises, but all too often there is long delay in new legislation. Very often it is left to private Members to introduce a Bill, and I think most of us know that that is a rather hazardous business. Again, there are those who say that it should suffice that Britain has ratified the European Convention and adopted the two optional clauses.
If I may, I should like to turn aside for a moment, because I realise that many of the basic human rights spelled out in the European Convention are derived from principles laid down in the British courts. In a way, that European Convention was a triumph for English law, and it was very fitting that my noble friend Lord McNair, whom I am pleased to see here to-day, was the first President of the European Court. I regret the delay on the part of the British Government in ratifying the Convention but, having said that, I feel I ought to pay tribute to the fact that it was ratified so soon after the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack became Lord Chancellor. Let us pay credit where credit is due.
But when all has been said that can be said on this subject of the European Convention, I think it is still true that most people in this country would rather have a clear right, which can be heard and dealt with in a British court, and that does not automatically follow from the ratification of a Convention. I know that we are under certain obligations, but the terms of the Convention are not actually incorporated into our law. I should like to make it clear that I am not advocating a written Constitution. If we had a Federal Constitution that would be a different matter, and it might be necessary to have certain entrenched clauses, but that does not arise at the moment.
In March I was in Israel, and I had a long and interesting talk in Jerusalem
1032
with three of the judges of the Supreme Court. Among other things, we discussed the subject of a Bill of Rights, and one of the judges pointed out to me that they had not yet felt in a position to pronounce on whether Parliament was acting constitutionally. I think that that really arises only where there is a written Constitution with entrenched clauses. I am not advocating that, or suggesting in this proposal anything which would affect the sovereignty of Parliament. But there are two points which I think require clarification: one is enforceability and the other is amendment.
So far as enforceability is concerned, I think it would be of value—in fact, it is essential—that a Bill of Rights should create rights enforceable in the courts. It might be helpful if I gave one example of what I have in mind. Clause 2 of the Bill drafted by Mr. Macdonald is headed No Discrimination and subsection (1) says:
"Every person is entitled to the equal protection of the law."
Subsection (2) says:
"Obligations shall not be imposed and rights shall not be withheld or denied on the basis of race religion sex national or social origin or condition, or adherence or non-adherence to any set of beliefs or principles."
Consider, my Lords, the question of discrimination on grounds of sex. I hesitate to say anything about this in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who knows so much more about it than I do, but let us assume that there is some sex discrimination. Presumably, all one can do at present is to campaign against it. But if this Bill of Rights were adopted and it were felt that there was a breach of one of its provisions, then, as I understand it, those adversely affected could appeal to the High Court. They would have to prove their case, but if they were successful they might get an injunction. Of course, if Parliament thought that there ought to be this sex discrimination, it would be for Parliament to pass the necessary measure. But the burden would be upon Parliament to make the exception, and this might make a major difference to the cause of women's rights.
On the subject of amendment of the Bill, I think that the Liberal lawyers' panel was right in coming out against any such provision as a two-thirds

1033
majority to alter the provisions of the Bill. After all, what one Parliament decides to do another Parliament can alter, and I do not think we can bind future Parliaments. But it is important that the public should be aware of what takes place, and there should be some check on hasty legislation. Therefore I suggest that future legislation should be deemed to be subject to the overriding authority of the Bill of Rights, unless new legislation contains a specific statement to the contrary. If it did contain such a statement, then at some stage of the proceedings in Parliament it might be submitted to a Select Committee, so that that Committee could report to the House on the extent of the conflict before the matter proceeded further. I believe that Mr. Quintin Hogg has a somewhat similar proposal. That might check hasty legislation.
I have just one postscript on administrative law. As I said, I welcome the Report of the Law Commission. Perhaps I hedge my bets on this, because if we accepted a Bill of Rights it might not be necessary to do anything more. As an alternative, however, I support the proposal for an inquiry—it is a very complex subject—including the question of whether there should be an administrative court. I hope that that recommendation will be taken seriously. There is much more that I have left unsaid, and I hope that this will be regarded not so much as a sign of ignorance on my part as an act of courtesy to those who are to follow. It is a fascinating subject for constitutional lawyers, but it is also much more than that. I believe that we are discussing a subject which affects everyone, directly or indirectly, and therefore there is all the more need for us to be ever vigilant. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.10 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think we ought to be particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for initiating this debate; and I say that for this reason. There have been periods throughout our history, epochs in our history, when it has appeared that the Government of the day—I am not now referring to the present Government, but to a series of Governments of the day—were perhaps taking too much power unto themselves and, in any case, were taking away too frequently
1034
freedoms and liberties of the ordinary citizen which had had to be fought for over the centuries. I shall suggest to your Lordships during my remarks that such an epoch is now with us. Therefore this subject which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has raised is a matter which we ought all to think about very seriously.
Since the last war we have all suffered from many restrictions which were not thought of before the last war and which would have been quite inconceivable before the 1914 war. I am not saying that these restrictions on our freedoms and liberties are necessarily wrong, or necessarily all wrong, but they exist. May I just give your Lordships one cm two examples? The noble Lord, Lord Wade, mentioned the legislation dealing with immigrants. I think that much more appropriate to this debate is the legislation dealing with race relations. I am not saying that these laws are not doing good. They may even be necessary—though I must say I have long doubted whether legislation was the right way: to deal with the problem. But whether these laws are good or not, the fact re rains that they have taken away a large number of the rights and freedoms of the native born British citizen. Perhaps it cannot be helped; on balance, it may be right to do that. But the fact remains fiat a great many of our rights have been taken away.
Take education, my Lords. Again, I am not saying that the way education is moving is wrong, but we have signed a good many international conventions of various kinds laying down that the parents' choice of the type of education for their children is the important thing. What we are doing may be right or it may be wrong, but day by day we are in fact whittling away the parents' choice. All your Lordships know (and in this case it is probably right) that there are an enormous number of officials who now have the right of entry into private premises without a warrant or without a "by your leave"—such people as factory inspectors or health inspectors. That may be entirely right, but I was somewhat shocked to discover the number of officials who now have this right. There are over 10,000 of them. This is a matter which should he looked at, particularly when considering all future legislation.

1035
We are always hearing nowadays (perhaps it points the moral) about the Executive having too much power. When I question people who say this, to find out exactly what they mean by "the Executive", I find that they sometimes mean the Government, they sometimes mean civil servants, and they sometimes mean local government officers. The people are not liking it. Again, it may be that this power is necessary in most cases. But I query whether it is necessary in all cases, or whether enough attention is being given to it.
I do not wish to make a Party political speech—and I am not doing so. But of course, the position has got worse under the present Government—quite naturally, because, my Lords, decent Socialism, if it is anything, is paternalistic. But when we grow up many of us do not think that our parents know best. We do not always think that the judgment of our parents is right; and the time may well be coming when the people of this country should say to all Governments, "On many matters our judgment is better than yours"—and that, too, is what we are discussing this afternoon. Then there is the great freedom which my noble friend Lord Sandford talked about in your Lordships' House a week ago to-day—the most important, I think, of all freedoms, and it is perhaps being whittled away quicker than any other freedom. I mean the freedom of choice. It is what people want, and increasingly they are being denied it, by successive Governments.
As I said at the beginning, there have been epochs when we have had to fight for our freedoms because they were being whittled away. Traditionally, the two great protectors of the ordinary citizen have been Parliament, principally the House of Commons, and the Law Courts. That is so traditionally. Historically, I would suggest, it is not so at all. Let us go back to what I think in this connection is probably modern government, though it is going a long way back. Let us go back to the Tudors.
Parliament at that time was not really interested in the ordinary citizen. It was interested almost entirely, in so far as it was effective, in withholding or providing finance. It was not very interested at that time in much else, and certainly not in individual freedom. The courts at
1036
that time were under tremendous Royal pressure; in fact, certain of the courts were there almost to give decisions for the Monarch. At that time the principal supporter of the ordinary citizen, strange to say, was the Monarch himself. He needed the support of the people in general against those of his subjects who were already too powerful; and so it was the Monarch who during that period gave what freedoms there were to the ordinary man; and he did it largely through his assize courts. So it could not truthfully be said that at that period Parliament and the courts were the real protectors of the ordinary people.
Then came the Stuarts. Parliament's conscience began to wake up at about this time. At the time of the early Stuarts they were not interested only in finance. Then Parliament was working under considerable difficulties, of course, because it was not allowed to sit very often, and it could not function to protect the ordinary person unless it was sitting. The courts themselves were under tremendous Royal pressure at that period, and, with the notable exception of one or two very great judges, the courts were apt to find in favour of the King. That was at the time of the early Stuarts.
Then we had Cromwell. He had no use for Parliament at all; and the courts, of course, had to carry out the orders of the Government, because he made the orders; he passed the legislation, virtually. So the courts could not be blamed if the ordinary citizen did not get much protection, because Cromwell and his colonels were not greatly interested in freedom; they were interested in getting their orders obeyed. So at that period Parliament was not really helping very much. But after the Restoration things slowly and gradually began to improve—slowly at first, and then steadily on through the eighteenth century. In the nineteenth century the House of Commons and the courts became the real protectors of the individual, particularly after the Reform Bill. My Lords, things went on improving, so that by the end of last century and the beginning of this one Parliament was concerned, seriously concerned, and individual Members were seriously concerned, about freedom and liberties. The courts, of course, by that time were completely independent; so all should have been well to-day. But, my Lords, is it? We have had two great

1037
wars, and during those wars, quite naturally, the ordinary freedoms and liberties had to go by the board. There was no other answer if the nation was to be rescued. That was the start of the great growth in bureaucracy.
What is happening now? Who is looking after the liberties and freedoms of the individual? Is it the House of Commons? I would suggest that there are two reasons why the House of Commons is not doing its duty in this respect. First, the Party system has become so strong and the Whips so powerful that it is difficult for the individual Members to go the whole hog against their own Executive. Secondly, the weakening of the House of Commons in this respect and the growth of the power of the Executive have come about through the payment of Members. Of course, I approve of this; I am all for Members being paid; but that is one of the things that has affected the matter very seriously. During the twenty years that I have been in this House I have noticed the very great number of occasions on which, when the freedom of citizens was concerned, this House has been more interested than has the other place. Perhaps that is because these things go in cycles. I would suggest that at the present time the House of Commons is almost unable to do its job in this respect owing to the system that has grown up. If there were no others, that would be a reason for our discussing this subject to-day.
I should like to say a few words about the courts. Of course, the courts are now completely independent. They protect us—but only so far as they are allowed to do so: because if Parliament passes laws which take away freedoms the courts can do nothing about it they have to see that the law is carried out. At all events, we have nowadays courts that do their utmost within the law to protect the private citizen.
We come now to the question of the Bill of Rights. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, was very half-hearted on that subject. I think that like me he must have been reading the Liberal Bill of Rights as propounded by Mr. Macdonald—
LORD WADE: May I say, " fair-minded ", rather than " half-hearted "?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I still think" half-hearted ", for reasons that I will give in a moment. The noble Lord has evidently been reading Mr. Macdonald's draft Bill of Rights. Having read it, and being in favour of a Bill of Rights, I then came down rather against it because I do not think that such a Bill of Rights would work. But the people who are opposed to a new Bill of Rights base their opposition on two grounds—and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, touched on this. They say, first, that it is virtually impossible to draft one that would work; and, secondly, that it would take away the powers of one Parliament to alter the legislation passed by a previous one. Both these arguments, if I may say so with respect to all who have put them forward, are in my view a nonsense.
May we take some examples of Bills of Rights?—though they are not always so called, for circumstances differ. But let us take the United States. They have a written Constitution; we all know that. Any citizen can go to the courts and say that some act of the Executive is against the Constitution. If his view is upheld by the courts the action of the Executive is null and void. The Constitution can be altered. It is a cumbersome job; but it can be altered and has been altered. So it is no use saying that it is impossible to draft a Bill of Rights that will be effective. Canada has just done it. Indeed, we ourselves have done it—that is, we have done it with entrenched clauses in new Constitutions for newly independent counties at their request. They are perfectly easy to draft.
When it comes to the point about taking away the power of one Parliament to alter the legislation of its predecessor, that, too, I think is nonsense. Let me suggest without going into detail, how a Bill of Rights should be drafted. It would have to be drafted in general terms, on general principles, with entrenched clauses and so on. I am not going into details, but one general principle might be in connection with, say, computers—a subject which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. I am thinking of the dangers of computers. The general principle in such a Bill of Rights might be that every Government would see that any information collected

1039
for a particular purpose was used for that purpose and for no other. That is the sort of thing that would appear. If Parliament, without realising what it was doing, passed legislation any part of which (although it did not appear so at first sight) proved to conflict with the Bill of Rights, any citizen would be able to take the matter to the courts. If they held that a part of that legislation was against the Bill of Rights, then the Executive would have to back down. That would not stop any Parliament from altering previous legislation; it would merely mean that Parliaments would have to keep to certain broad rules. I do not see much difficulty about that.
As regards altering the entrenched clauses of a Bill of Rights, special arrangements would have to be made. There are various ways of doing it. I would suggest that it would be possible for alterations to be made simply in times of grave national emergency; but in the ordinary way alteration should be possible only by, say, a majority of two-thirds of each House of Parliament. The important thing is that they could not be altered by a simple majority of the Government of the day. That is the sort of way in which a Bill of Rights would work.
My Lords, I am not going to say more about this subject except that it is a very big one and, I believe, at this particular moment in our history, a very important one. Whatever our views, it is a subject which ought to be thought about: because, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, day by day, it may be merely from oversight, we are having our rights, privileges and freedoms whittled away. We ought to think about this, to seize any system by which we can stop a strong Executive—or, perhaps even more likely, a weak Executive—whittling away these freedoms. For that reason I sincerely welcome this debate.
3.28 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for introducing this Motion this afternoon. I am not saying that because it is a customary thing to say, but as an old civil rights man and believing this to be a very important subject. After all, there are few subjects which could be more important
1040
than the liberties of the individual. We all know what it is that requires eternal vigilance. I must start by taking up the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who said that things got worse under the present Government. That, of course, is a very "old one". I do not wish to stir up any Party controversy unnecessarily; but right back to the period after the First World War, which is as long as I can remember, it has always been standard Conservative Party propaganda that the Labour Party is a Party which believes in nationalisation and in running exerything from the centre in a maze of rules and regulations, regulating everybody's life from the cradle to the grave; whereas the Conservative Party is the Party which believes in freedom, initiative and enterprise.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, those are indeed emotive words. I do not mind saying at once that when in elections after the Great War I was presented with this alternative, I voted Conservative. Then I saw what happens when you get a Government which be-lives in freedom, initiative and enterprise: 20 years with average unemployment of 1½ million, sometimes rising to 3 million. Then, before we finished those twenty years, being a practical sort of man, I joined the Labour Party.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Lord to ask whether by the same token he is going to vote Conservative next time?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am coming on to the record of this Government and I will tell the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, what I propose to do next time.
Take another test. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Wade, will agree, but if you look at the bodies which are really concerned with civil liberties, bodies like the National Council for Civil Liberties, the people who are doing all the work are nearly all Liberal and Labour. You do not find the Conservatives doing the work. I pay tribute to the Bow Group, and there are one or two Conservative societies which are concerned with property interests and people being paid sufficient compensation; but I nearly all the work in civil liberties has

1041
been done by people who are Liberal or Labour. It is not, I think, accidental that to-day, when for the first time for a long time (and probably it will be a long time in the future before we have a similar debate) we have the opportunity to discuss civil liberties, the Motion is moved—and all credit to them!—from the Liberal Benches, and we have three Liberal speakers, one Cross-Bencher and six Labour speakers; and only two Conservatives who are sufficiently interested to speak on the subject.
The truth is, my Lords, that the Labour Party has always been desperately concerned for the individual, and believes in more central planning; but because it realises that that may impinge disadvantageously on some individuals it has always felt that there is an onus on any Labour Government to take specific steps to increase the rights of the individual. During the first twenty years that I was at the Bar, if you were run over by a Post Office van you could sue the driver but you had no legal rights against the Post Office at all, because of the legal maxim, "The Crown can do no wrong". If a company entered into a contract with a Government Department, and the Government Department broke the contract and caused the company damage, the company could not issue a writ. There was an antiquated procedure called a Petition of Right and no remedy at all in tort. Before the war successive Conservative Governments talked a lot about doing something about this but it was the post-war Labour Government which, in the Crown Proceedings Act, gave all of our citizens for the first time substantially the same rights, both in contract and tort, against Government Departments as they had against anybody else.
Then, of course, the Labour Party has always recognised that it is no good people having legal rights if they cannot afford to enforce or defend them. Under the Conservatives the only legal aid system was one by which if you had no more than £2 a week— £2 a week, my Lords!—or in exceptional cases £4 a week, and if you had no more than £50 capital, or in exceptional cases £100 capital, you could bring an action for nothing. If you had a penny more, there was no legal aid or assistance of any kind. It was the post-war Labour Government who introduced the Legal Aid and Advice Act which, as foreign lawyers
1042
are always telling me, is much the best legal aid system in the world.
I would contend that, following the example of the post-war Labour Government, this Government have a very good record of taking specific steps to extend the rights of individuals, particularly against the State. May I mention ten things? First, the Parliamentary Commissioner Act. This had no purpose at all except to extend the rights of the individual against the State. The Conservatives had always opposed an Ombudsman and said that we did not need one at all. Well, my Lords, in the field in which the system has worked, in 1967, the first year, 188 cases were investigated and maladministration found in respect of 19. That is, after all, 10 per cent. Last year, in 1968, there were 378 cases and maladministration was found in 38—again 10 per cent. I will not say whether that shows that the number is larger than we thought it would be, or smaller, in relation to the findings of maladministration, but that was clearly worth doing and I shall hope to say a word later as to whether or not the time has now come when we might usefully extend it.
Secondly, I introduced the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1966. This was for the sole purpose of giving to that admirable body, the Council on Tribunals, an extended jurisdiction over about a hundred different kinds of ministerial inquiry over which they had no jurisdiction before. I know that Members of neither House can find time to read all the annual reports of the different organisations that there are, but I think that anybody who takes the trouble to study the Reports of the Council on Tribunals will see what admirable work that body is doing. As I say, the sole object of that Act was to extend their jurisdiction.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, said something which I thought was not too complimentary about administrative tribunals, but there is more surveillance, in a sense, of tribunals by the Council than there is by anybody of the courts. Take the industrial tribunals which deal with different kinds of cases, one being redundancy payments claims. Two or three months ago I found that they had done their 10,000th redundancy case. There are 10 of these tribunals sitting every day in London and others at regional centres. I have never had

1043
a single complaint from any employer or employee about any decision in any of those 10,000 cases. The tribunals are very businesslike; they tell you on what day, and at what time, your case will be heard; they are informal and they seem to give universal satisfaction. If they did not, I am sure that we should soon hear about it from the Council on Tribunals.
Your Lordships have caught me two or three days early but I am about to present for approval by Affirmative Resolution (I think they are now before a Committee) four or five extensions to the field of legal aid. They are small, but they are matters in which my advisory committee has recommended that there should be extensions; namely, variation of maintenance orders; Section 2 of the Children Act 1948; adoption proceedings in magistrates' courts; proceedings partly in respect of defamation; maintenance payments under Section 23 of the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966. So here is the third thing in which we are extending facilities open to ordinary citizens so as to ensure that their rights will not fail to be enforced because of lack of means. They are not extensive, but they are little pockets which have been left out of legal aid in the past.
Fourthly, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wade, referred to the European Convention on Human Rights. It was, of course, the Labour Government in 1951 who ratified it (I am not sure that this was not the first country to do so) but not at that time the optional clauses; and it is this Government who have accepted the optional clauses allowing individuals here to take the Government of this country before the European Commission. Now, fifth, one of the best ways of controlling a Government is, of course, by Select Committees who have very wide powers and can probe into the affairs of a particular Government Department in a way, it may be, in which the Department would prefer the Committee not to. This Government have appointed Select Committees on agriculture, education and science, race relations and immigration, the Parliamentary Commission, Scottish affairs, science and technology and overseas aid and development—seven Select Committees in three years. This is a much wider application of Select Com-
1044
mittees than any Government have, I think, made before.
Sixthly, we have passed particular Acts designed to protect particular classes of individuals. The first, and perhaps the most obvious, example is that of the Race Relations Act. Seventh—though the Government cannot take credit for this—during the lifetime of the Government the noble and learned Lords of Appeal have decided not to follow their previous rule of practice by which they consider themselves bound by previous decisions, and one of the consequences of that has been to enable them recently to decide the case of Conway v. Rimmer. The effect of the decision in that case is that where a question has to be decided as to whether it is contrary to the public interest to produce a Government document in the classes of case specified in the decision, instead of, as hitherto, the Minister having the last word, in the future the courts will have the last word.
It is not really true that a Labour Government always want to nationalise and centralise everything. When we come to think of it, the degree to which this Government, taking the view that everything is not best run from Whitehall, have hived off and decentralised, is remarkable. One of the first Acts we passed was the Airports Authority Act, transferring to an Authority the management of airports which had previously been managed by civil servants in a Government Department. There was the Transport Bill, the main basis of which, perhaps, was to devolve a great many decisions and controls which had always been exercised by the Ministry of Transport to the elected representatives of the local authorities. Look at the Post Office Bill, to the principles of which everybody agrees. It is a hiving off from the central Government. A good deal of recent planning legislation has been speeded up, and decisions, other than those of great importance, have been shifted from the central Government to the representatives of the local authorities. In fact, when the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, says that there has been a great concentration of power under this Government, that really is not true. There has been a great deal of hiving off and decentralisation.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned

1045
Lord, but he is replying to something I never said. What I said was that the interference with the subject had got worse under this Government, as was to he expected, because it is always going on under all Governments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as I said, with respect, I do not think that that is really so. I cannot say, of course, what the Commission on the Constitution are likely to report, but it may well be that their recommendations will also lead to a greater measure of local self-government.
Another thing which this Government have done is to disclose and distribute Government information to an extent which has never been done before. The recent Financial Statement and Budget Report contained a great deal more economic and financial information than did previous Budgets. We have started publishing Green Papers, saying what the facts are in relation to some subject, what we have in mind and inviting comments. There was the Green Paper on Public Expenditure—A New Presentation and the Green Paper, The Task Ahead.
There are Members of your Lordships' House who know more about the Defence Reviews than I do, but I am under the firm impression that our Defence Reviews have given a great deal more information than the Ministry of Defence have ever given under previous Governments. There is a wealth of economic and financial information put out in other publications, such as Objectives of the Nationalised Industries, Fuel Policy, The Scottish Economy, Wales—The Way Ahead, and in forecasts and statistical information, papers on technology, exhibitions, films and open days. That applies to education, agriculture and other fields. So I would contend that this Government, following the example set by its post-war predecessor, has been in the forefront in taking active steps to increase the rights of the individual. That does not mean at all that the door is closed to any further steps which ought to be taken.
I certainly do not want to be destructive and would rather be constructive, but I must say that I cannot agree that a Bill of Rights is the right way to do this. I have read most of those documents. I would agree that the Universal Declara-
1046
tion of Human Rights, as a goal to which we should all be aiming, is a great document, but we cannot simply turn it into an Act of Parliament. I have read Lord Reading's Rights of the Subject Bill of 1947, Lord Samuel's Liberties of the Subject Bill of 1950, Lord Mancroft's Right of Privacy Bill of 1961 and what I believe was the Bill which Lord Lambton sought leave to introduce on April 23 of this year in another place. I have read the Conservatives' New Charter, Mr. Anthony Lester's pamphlet, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, the one produced by the Society for Individual Freedom and the one in Mr. Macdonald's book, to which the noble Lord also referred. The difficulty I always find about a Bill of Rights is that either it contains something which is already law, in which case all we have is two laws in different language dealing with the same thing, which is not exactly a help, or it is in such general terms that it is impossible to say what effect it would have.
May I take the one from the Liberal stable. Mr. MacDonald says in his Clause 2:
"Every person is entitled to the equal protection of the law. Obligations shall not be imposed and rights shall not be withheld or denied on the basis of race, religion, sex, national or social origin or condition, or adherence or non-adherence to any set of beliefs or principles."
When one tries to think what this would mean in practice, it becomes difficult, though as a matter of fact we are very much helped by the explanatory paragraph in the booklet, which says:
"The scope of this clause is considerable. It ranges from the question of equal pay for men and women to the disestablishment of the Church of England and from property qualifications for jury service to the right of a Roman Catholic to be Lord Chancellor."
Would one ever have thought, when one read Clause 2, that that was what it was all about?
It is all in these general terms. The clause on "Rights of Privacy" says:
"Every person is entitled to protection from arbitrary interference in his personal, family or other private affairs."
Just think of the difficulty of any court in saying what was "arbitrary interference". The clause on the "Right to Leisure" says:
"No person shall be required, as a condition of employment or continued employment or otherwise, to work excessive hours or to do without reasonable rest and leisure time."

1047
Think of the judge's difficulty in saying what "excessive hours" are for every individual. The document goes on all through like that. Under "The Right to a Just Reward for Work" it says:
Every contract of employment shall entitle the employee to a just reward for his labour."
How do we apply a thing like that? I do not think that this is the way forward.
But there are five fields which I think might well merit consideration, and I should he interested to hear what any noble Lord has to say in these five fields. Of course, I am not stating any Government decision at all, because there is not any, but it may be that these are fields to which we ought to be giving thought. First of all, is there, or is there not, a case for extending now the area of operation of the Parliamentary Commissioner? Your Lordships may remember that at the time of his appointment I said that I thought it would be a great mistake to try to start him with too much to do, because there had never been an Ombudsman in any country that had a population of more than 6 million, and much depended on the confidence of the public in the individual. We were starting with a population of 50 million. I remember saying that if he commenced within a reasonably small area, to make sure he was not flooded out to start with, we could always extend it later. There are the National Health Service and the nationalised industries. Not everybody, I think, is too happy about complaints against the police. The 1964 Police Act substantially embodied the recommendations in this field of the Royal Commission of 1962, and I am not suggesting that the Police Force would necessarily be suitable for the Parliamentary Commissioner, though that has been suggested. There are the local authorities—this is perhaps one field for the extension of the activities of the Parliamentary Commissioner we ought to bear in mind.
There is also the legal aid scheme, which is working extremely well, except in three or four respects. The recent report from my Advisory Committee recommended, first of all, that it should be extended to the five cases to which I have already referred, and that I am doing; then that we should try having a lawyer employed with citizens' advice
1048
bureau; and that is being done. Then there are three steps which at the moment our economic condition has not allowed me to implement. One is the raising of the financial limits and allowances for legal advice, which would cost £236,000 a year. The next is raising the free legal aid limit, which has not been raised for about six years and which would cost £170,000. Then I asked the Committee: "Do you think that legal aid ought to apply to any legal tribunals; and, if so, which and in what order?" They have said that legal aid ought to be applied to the Lands Tribunal, and that would cost about £100,000 a year. Legal advice is in a much less satisfactory state. We have had recently suggestions from Conservative and Labour bodies and from the Law Society, and all those proposals in the field of legal advice are now being studied by the Advisory Committee.
Fourthly, there is the recent Report from the Law Commission on administrative law. This I regard as a subject of great importance. They recommend that there should he a Royal Commission, or a body of a similar status, to carry out a comprehensive review of the principles and procedures of administrative law. They recommend that the terms of reference of the body to be appointed should be wide enough to allow inquiry into every aspect of this part of the law where reform may be necessary; that the body itself should be broadly based, and should not be the Law Commission itself, nor indeed any body consisting only of lawyers. That Report has only just been published, and the Government have not yet had an opportunity of considering which course they should take. But the subject is an important one, and I should like to hear any views that noble Lords may have upon that Report.
Lastly, I come to the law of privacy. This is a very delicate and difficult subject. I quote one report.
"Professor Roy Calne",
it says,
"pioneer in liver transplant surgery in Britain, to-day accused a section of the British Press of causing the deaths of patients awaiting transplant operations."
The difficulty of the subject, in the main, is that it requires one to draw a line between the rights of the individual in a free society and the rights of the Press, television and radio in a free society. I

1049
do not suppose that anybody doubts that the notice paid by the Press to the whole question of heart transplants was absolutely right. This is obviously a very difficult field. It is one in which the public must know the facts, and in which the Press have been of great help in seeing that the facts were brought out. But whether they were right in insisting on publishing the names and addresses of the relatives of the donors is, of course, an entirely different question.
Forty years ago a woman was convicted when young of soliciting. For the last 35 years she has been a happily married woman, and her children, of course, are mostly grown up. Ought a newspaper which finds out about this conviction to be able now to publish the thing to the whole world? The position to-day is that it can, and those responsible say: "It is our sacred right to get hold of any bit of dirt we like and publish it to the world." Is that right? Or ought there to be an area within which somebody who is not in public life can say: "This is my private concern, and is not the legitimate concern of the whole public."?
This is, as I say, a difficult question. It is naturally receiving attention everywhere, because all developing nations are in much the same position. Apart from this very delicate balance between the individual and the Press, we now have these telescopic lenses with which they can take a photograph of you in your own home a long way away. It is quite easy to "bug" telephones—"bugs" under the beds (as we have evidence in court nowadays), and a good deal of industrial espionage. I do not know how many of your Lordships may have seen, some two or three months ago, a television programme about this. They had gone to a number of people who advertised as detective agencies. They had asked in the first place: "Can you get a man's police record for us?" About half of them had said: "Yes; there is no difficulty about that."—of course, these agencies are mostly run by ex-police. They were asked: "Doesn't this involve a breach of the Official Secrets Act on the part of the police?" They said: "We are not concerned with that." Then they were asked: "Can you go to a company we will name?"—the people
1050
were acting really for an American company—and told, "What we want is a photograph of the managing director, a record of a telephone call we know he is going to have with New Yolk on Monday, and a copy of a blueprint which we know is in his office." They said: "Yes, £250." They paid the £250. Well, two men arrived saying that they had come from the Post Office to mend the telephone, and everybody as5umed that they had. That enabled them to "bug" the telephone. While somebody was out of the room they found the blueprint and photographed it. Then they came back in the evening and removed the tape recorder from the telephone. It appears that this sort of thing is going on quite a good deal—and, of course, not only here.
In May, 1967, the chief subject of discussion at the annual meeting of the American Law Institute, which is the chief law reporting agency in America, was the law of privacy. By accident, at the same time there was a conference of Nordic lawyers in, I think, Stockholm, where the sole subject of the conference was the law of privacy. I have here the working paper, and it shows what an enormous amount of information there is available in this field as to the laws of different countries, if they have one, and how it works. I heard—though I have been unable to verify to-day whether it is true—that Sweden had appointed a Royal Commission. I have inquired from the Swedish Embassy, and they are not clear whether that is so, and, if it is so, whether they had been able to report.
The Law Commission considered at one time whether they should put this subject into their programme, and they had a weekend conference at All Souls to enable them to decide whether it was a suitable subject for them or not. I found it of great interest, because, apart from the Law Commissioners, there were present the Chairman of the Scottish Law Commission; Professor Smith; Lord Devlin, Chairman of the Press Council; Mr. Justice MacKenna; one of two barristers and solicitors; Lord Goodman; Professor Street; Professor Heuston; Mr. Cecil King; Mr. John Bevan, political editor at the Daily Mirror; Lord Francis-Williams; Mr. Paul Johnson, Editor of

1051
the New Statesman; Mr. Robin Day; Mr. James Yeo, Western representative of the Daily Mail; Mr. Alexander Lyon, whose Right of Privacy Bill we remember being introduced in another place; Mr. Samuel Silkin, Chairman of the Legal Committee of the Council of Europe Consultative Assembly; Dame Joan Vickers; Mr. Smith, the Managing Director of Management Selection, Ltd.; Professor Goodhart and Mr. Isaacs, the technical and documentary producer of Rediffusion.
The sort of thing we were discussing was this. A television company (whether it was B.B.C. or Independent Television I forget) had gone to a number of houses where they knew that a salesman from a particular washing machine company was going to call and "bugged" what happened on the doorstep. The salesman did not know that the call was being "bugged". The justification for this, they said, was that the saleman's methods were not right, and they wanted to expose them. But suppose they had been wrong, and there had not been anything to expose. The company was not there; they had no opportunity of saying anything. When we asked, "Who is it who ought to have the right to decide that somebody else can be 'bugged' without his knowledge?", they said, "Oh, we". We replied, "Might it not be that it ought to be a jury?" So in all this very difficult field I am not suggesting for a moment that it is an easy subject. I am quite sure that it is one that requires considerable consideration.
The other reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, was that if you have an Inland Revenue number, if a person has a National Health Service number and a motor car registration number, would it not be better if everything had the same number? You can see how convenient it would be if you were injured in an accident, and became unconscious. Your entire health record can be obtained at once or in a few seconds from the computer for the benefit of the doctor. But if everything about you—I do not know about your bank account, but perhaps your creditworthiness—is to be on computer, who is to be entitled to see what is there? I hope that nobody will suggest I am saying that the Labour Government would want to put
1052
everybody on computer records—of course I am not saying that. I am only agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and pointing out that this is undoubtedly something to which in the future consideration will have to be given.
My Lords, I have taken a little longer than I intended. May I just summarise what I have said by saying that this Government, like their predecessor Labour Government, have a very good record in this field. They have done nothing of which they should be ashamed. We are as a Party, and always have been, deeply concerned for personal liberties, and while I do not think a Bill of Rights is the right way forward, I have ventured to suggest five fields on each of which I should be very interested to hear what the views of noble Lords are.
4.2 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for initiating this debate, because when it comes to human rights and freedom it is healthy, and even necessary, to encourage each generation to define and re-define the basic values of our society. Especially in an ever-growing democracy this is particularly necessary. This also goes for the concept of freedom and liberty which is so bandied about by all Parties, and particularly by the Conservative Party, which always seems to have cornered the market in freedom and liberty. The Conservative Party always thinks of freedom for a fewer number of people than the Labour Party, which always considers freedoms and liberties for the greater number of people in our society.
Vigilance should be constant, even if we may not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that a Bill of Rights is a matter of urgency at this moment—and here I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The time is certainly not wasted when we come to examine our freedoms to see whether or not they are being eroded. This Government, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has pointed out, can be proud of their record in promoting the rights of the citizen.
Here again I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already listed a great many fields in which the Labour Government have done

1053
well. I will add just a few more. They have introduced, as he said, the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate maladministration in central Government—and here I would agree with the Lord Chancellor that the time has come to extend the field of the Commissioner. We have had the Criminal Justice Act to secure greater individual justice. We have had the Rent Act which was passed to prevent the exploitation of tenants. We have had an Act like the Trade Descriptions Act, which protects the consumer. Theatre censorship has been abolished, thus increasing the freedom of expression. The Government are committed to achieving equal pay for men and women, although we have not got it at this moment. The promised Industrial Relations Bill, despite all the controversy that it has aroused, is legislation designed to guarantee the basic rights for the workers.
It is also to the Government's credit that they have ratified the protocol of the European Human Rights Convention which allows individual petitions against the British Government for alleged breaches of the Convention. Not the least of the Government's efforts in furthering human rights is the setting up of the Race Relations Board—and here again I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, when he says that this is a diminution of individual rights and freedoms. Altogether, it is a very good record, but some people feel—and Lord Wade is obviously one of them—that permanent machinery is necessary which will safeguard these advances against the possible abuse of State power by future Governments. A Bill of Rights is, of course, one way of achieving this. It can perform a useful function in focusing attention, as I believe the noble Lord has said, on the basic values of our society.
Personally, although I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, my experience at the United Nations does not make me feel that a Bill of Rights by itself is any substitute for the spirit of liberty. There are many countries with splendid written Constitutions; witness the Constitution of the Soviet Union, also the Constitutions of many Afro-Asian and South American countries. From them we know that not everything that is enshrined in a written Constitution becomes the law and custom of a country. Where
1054
there is no free Press and a healthy Parliament, public opinion cannot find expression, and the spirit of liberty is ailing or dead.
I was in dreadful trouble at the U.N. on one occasion when we were discussing the Convenants. Hoping to flatter the delegate of the Soviet Union, I quoted a small part of the Soviet Constitution. But I followed it with a very unguarded remark. I added, "Not everything that is enshrined in the Constitution becomes the law and the custom of the land". I have never been subjected to such a strong attack from any delegate in the Human Rights Committee. Perhaps he got the message—I do not know.
I never understand why we are so slow in ratifying the United Nations' Covenants on economic and social rights, and political and civil rights. We have signed them, but we have not ratified them. Many of the rights and freedoms in them already exist here. Many countries have a Bill of Rights, but not all of them are good. I am told that until about thirty or forty years ago the American Bill of Rights was for whites only, and desegregation could not have come about without a Bill of Rights. That is one argument for having such a Bill. A Bill of Rights is what you make it. It must have all-Party support, and must not prevent Parliament from tackling the fundamental injustices in our society, because it will be just a scrap of paper—or it might even be a Bill of Wrongs.
I turn now to the second part of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Wade,
"the threat to personal privacy resulting from technological advance".
In recent debates in this House the sins of technology seemed to have loomed much larger than its blessings. I believe my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder will speak on this subject. He is an expert on it, and when again we were discussing this business of privacy in the United Nations I profited greatly from the brilliant lecture he gave in Canada. There is no doubt that in what my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder calls "this bioengineering age" we can be overheard, overlooked, in fact televised, without our knowledge or awareness by the most sophisticated minuscule electronic devices. When I read of these devices I feel that the war of the future is going to be

1055
fought against an army of hidden persuaders and invisible eavesdroppers—a nightmare of espionage.
The dangers of satellite propaganda are a definite possibility, and the developing countries are really very frightened of its effects. They are very frightened of the intrusion into privacy, which now acquires, or is going to acquire, a completely new dimension. So, finally, my Lords, what is quite certain is that, with an increasing population and the advancement of technological progress, no one should be complacent about our rights and liberties. The Press, public opinion and Parliament are the rightful guardians of freedom in a democracy.
4.12 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for presenting a document which enables us to discuss matters of considerable importance to individuals of all kinds. He turned to me and suggested rather broadly that I might know a little more about sex than he does. That was a rather sweeping assertion, but he then, of course, was referring to Clause 2. If I may say so, I hope that the rather disparaging comment of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chansellor on Clause 2 has not depressed the noble Lord, Lord Wade. I would say that if those parts of Clause 2 which deal with sex discrimination reached the Statute Book, that in itself would justify this Bill. However, as I will explain to the House, many other people in many other ways have tackled this problem, and over the years I have learnt that it is much more difficult to overcome prejudice than to get a Bill on to the Statute Book.
The question of human rights is one which has been raised in the councils of the world ever since man became articulate. It would not be surprising if in some underdeveloped countries there were those who had been denied expression—namely, the women—with the result that their human rights had been overlooked. But Britain is not an underdeveloped country. Its Parliament is called "The Mother of Parliaments"; and women here form half the population and comprise a third of the working force. Most of the married women in
1056
that working force do two jobs. They give the most important service to this country—they produce and rear children. At the same time, they look after the home and look after another worker, their husband.
The injustice which I propose to ventilate to-day is one which I hope this Bill of Rights will try to tackle, but I am a little sceptical, as this subject has been raised again and again in every Parliament but it falls on deaf ears, whatever the political complexion of the Government. I believe that the failure to provide elementary human rights for women in Britain is a blot on our record of social advance. It cannot be said that this is due to ignorance. World attention—I repeat, world attention—is frequently drawn to the omission of Britain to honour her obligations to her women workers. In 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaimed in Article 2:
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion."
Article 23(2) states:
"Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work."
The same principles were enunciated fifty years ago in the Constitution of the I.L.O. Equal pay was embodied in Convention 100, which was adopted in 1951 and ratified by 64 States but not ratified by the United Kingdom. The excuses for not ratifying are wearing thin, for the requirements of Convention 100 are very simple. They are simple, flexible and hardly more than minimal. The Government are not required to enforce equal pay by legislation, since the Convention allows for the principle to be applied by means of the recognised machinery for wage determination and collective agreements between employers and employees. Many countries with an employment structure no less complex than our own have ratified the Convention. Among them are Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Norway and Sweden. If they have been able to ratify it, why does this country, with a Labour Government, find it impossible to do so?
Then, again, there is discrimination against women workers by a failure to provide access to jobs and facilities for

1057
training and opportunities for promotion. This, my Lords, surely is an elementary human right. This failure was condemned by Convention 111, which also Britain has failed to ratify. Let me interpret this in a concrete way which everybody will understand. To-day our country is desperately short of doctors. Yet we still ignore the recommendation of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations to grant women equal educational rights with men. Every teaching hospital in London discriminates against women by allowing only a small percentage of able girls to enter, while we encourage doctors to leave the Commonwealth where the medical need for doctors is far greater than our own. Every now and then these women become resentful and down their tools for a very short period. In the case of our nurses, we have seen something in the last few months which is most unusual in this country. Part of the medical profession, the nurses, have made a protest in the streets. Surely, adequate pay for a dedicated woman like a nurse, who does day and night work, is a human right. But, rather than pay our nurses adequately, we encourage nurses to leave underdeveloped countries and their own sick people, to nurse ours.
And what of the human rights of women in industry? In industry prejudice alone denies intelligent girls apprenticeships and they are wasted in routine jobs on the factory floor. If one goes to a big, congested, industrial town in our country and examines the number who have apprenticeships there one might find three girls among them, and two of their apprenticeships are in hairdressing. My Lords, prejudice is merciless because it is all-pervading. Employers, trade unionists, professional men and the clergy all join in a silent conspiracy to maintain the status quo. Of course, the most admirable sentiments are expressed on all sides in regard to colour and racial discrimination, but there is a significant failure to denounce sex discrimination.
Last Wednesday we had a debate. The word that was on everybody's lips was "cynicism". Why are we surprised? And to-day I see in the paper that the Labour Party feels that the time has come when they must whip up the enthusiasm of the women workers in the country. It must be obvious why the
1058
women workers are cynical. That is a mild description of the attitude of the woman industrial worker towards the pillars of the establishment who permit her gross exploitation. I want to remind noble Lords that this woman, denied equal pay for her work, is subsidising her employer every hour of her working life—and now she knows it. It teems to me that the Government are treading on very dangerous ground if they insist on the penal clauses in the Industrial Relations Bill. I have said before that women workers denied the rate for the job have had a cooling off period for nearly a hundred years. Now their tempers are rising, and if they decide on an unofficial strike against long-standing exploitation no Government would dare to inflict any form of punishment on them. To do so would be a gross betrayal of human rights. The Government should have the common sense to remove grave injustice before they even contemplate penal sanctions.
Again, the position of the working woman with family responsibilities has equally failed to receive adequate attention. The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women recognised that solutions to the problems of these women are essential to the full participation of women in the life of the community. Furthermore, it stated that the family responsibilities of women are often used unfairly to justify cases of discrimination against women. I turn now to the I.L.O., which has been sitting for fifty years and has discussed these matters ad nauseam. The I.L.O. recommends that provision should be made to facilitate the entry or re-entry into employment of women who have been out of the labour force because of family responsibilities, and the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1967 adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. I understand that a fresh excuse has now been found for not paying women in industry the rate for the job; namely, that women do not do night work in industry.
Last week there was published a little pamphlet by Political and Economic Planning entitled Women at Work, and it was written by Pauline Pinder. She states that:
"The T.U.C. dislikes what it calls the hausfrau attitude; that women should be given

1059
particular privileges, both economic and social, just by virtue of the fact that they bear children."
As bearing children is the most important national service, we must ask these gentlemen to try to take over this work. This excuse that because women provide the babies of the country they should not be given any special consideration is hardly believable in 1969, and it cannot be reconciled with the decision of the I.L.O. that women be enabled in every way possible to fulfil their responsibilities at home and at work harmoniously.
Finally, my Lords, I have one other thing to say—and I know that some of you here must be utterly tired of hearing me ask for justice for women. I have come to the conclusion that although pious platitudes about human rights are uttered by people in high places, in the main they seem to be concerned only with the rights of male humans.
4.25 p.m.
TILE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I
shall deal with only one aspect of this Motion, that of intrusion into privacy by the Press. I had frankly expected a full-scale blast against the newspapers this afternoon, and I am glad to see that it has not so far come, although the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had some stern things to say about the publicity given to individuals involved in transplants. I do not suggest that this applies in this case, but with respect may I remind the noble and learned Lord that a lot of personal publicity is often self-sought. Nevertheless, in spite of this lack of a general onslaught I believe that the case for the Press needs to be made, if only briefly and in general terms.
Your Lordships may remember—indeed it has been mentioned—that in 1961 the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft (a Conservative, incidentally), introduced a Bill calling for protection against intrusion into privacy by the Press. On that occasion I did my best to defend the newspapers, though in fact I had no right to do so, representing as I do no one but myself, and never having actually been a reporter. But as your Lordships may remember, largely due to the brilliant speech of the noble Lord—and this is a fact and no compliment; he is perhaps the most brilliant speaker in the country,
1060
inside or outside this House—and as a result of the examples which he cited of intrusion in past years, he got his Second Reading by 74 votes to 21. Admittedly some of the cases of intrusion which he mentioned had occurred some years previously, and I do not think he was quite fair about the gradual change of heart (if I may use that phrase) in the Press in the years before he made his speech.
Since that debate—and I say this firmly and clearly—there has been a further improvement and an increasing consciousness among newspapers of what is or is not acceptable. This, of course, is largely due to the increased respect in which the Press Council is held by editors; to the work of the National Council for the Training of Journalists, and to an increasing awareness among editors as to the strength of public and Parliamentary opinion.
After this ex cathedra statement, I must put forward as straightforward evidence statements in the annual reports of the Press Council itself. We must remember that although the Press Council still has no teeth, it is held in greater respect than it used to be, which is of course largely due to the much respected noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, who acted as Chairman. As the Press Council said:
"Complaints to the Press Council under the heading of intrusion into privacy do not amount to as much as 1 per cent. of the total received".
On one particular case, which involved a libel action by the late Mr. Randolph Churchill and others against the Daily Sketch over an interview with Mrs. Camila Fry, the Press Council Report of 1968 said this:
"The standards of 1964…would appear no longer to apply and it seems very unlikely that this kind of interview would now take place."
I agree. The late Mr. Arthur Christiansen, the very celebrated Editor of the Daily Express for many years, said some 10 or 12 years ago:
"The foot in the door technique is no longer tolerable in Fleet Street".
In fact I think he spoke prematurely, but the trend was already there, and that trend, I believe, has become now a near fact.
That does not mean, of course, that newspapers do not sometimes slip up in

1061
matters of taste. Though this is not a case of intrusion into privacy, speaking purely personally I deplored the immense news coverage given to what is known as the Celentano case, an enticement case which found so much publicity in last weeks' Press, to the infinite boredom, I should have thought, of almost all the readers concerned. I have always said news editors have no news sense, and that they lack the power even to distinguish between the important and the trivial. Moreover, they are tremendous copy-cats. Just because one daily paper has a story, an exclusive, the other papers have to pick it up in their later editions in case they have missed something. That is the reason, for your Lordships' information, that you tend sometimes to get rung up at midnight or later. It is no excuse, but that is the reason why. And of course the gossip columns still offend, though nowhere in the same degree to which they used to; 15 years ago they were a crying scandal.
My Lords, lest you should think me over-smug in this, I do not in saying these things believe that newspapermen have become angels overnight. If there is a change, and I have mentioned several reasons why there has been change, it is basically due to public taste, and this in the last resort is due to the improved education of readers and writers alike. I have said before in your Lordships' House that the country gets the Press as well as the Government it deserves. Well, I think we deserve the Press we have now got, and on the whole I find it a pretty decent Press. I know that a remark like this is liable to promote a growl from your Lordships, and it may be that noble Lords have personal complaints about the way the Press has behaved recently. But I believe it to be none the less true; and while I have always been proud to work for the newspapers I am more proud to-day than ever before. The only thing which makes me sometimes doubt whether we are heading in the right direction is my own weekly column, which on re-reading from time to time seems a little extravagant.
Seriously, I am glad that we have not so far to-day had the onslaught which we had from the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, in 1961. I am glad, too, that my friends at least do not complain to me of odious newspaper practices affecting
1062
them personally. I say once again that the change is due not to the newspapers themselves so much as to the public who read them and who are ultimately responsible for what appears in them. For all that is said to the contrary, I personally believe that we are living in a more civilised and a less ruthless society, and although the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and others have pointed out very forcefully that our freedom may be endangered from other sources, I do not believe that the newspapers of Britain are contributing to this danger to freedom, rather indeed that they are the upholders of it.
4.35 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I want to thank, as we all must, the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for introducing this Motion. I want to thank him also for his reference to myself, because it has given me the cue for what I am going to say. I thank, too, my noble friend Lady Gaitskell for her remarks, and I am in fact going to devote myself to the aspects which they both mentioned.
Any discussion of human rights in 1969 must take serious account of a new threat of tyranny, the tyranny of the machine. This is not a fantasy nightmare of clanking robots striding into your Lordships' House and croaking, "Take me to your leader". This is something much more insidious. We are so fascinated by gadgets that we are becoming hypnotised by them into docile surrender of some of our most valuable human rights. And by "hypnotism" I do not mean just compulsive televiewing, the induced inertia which keeps one from turning the confounded thing off: I mean our childlike delight in novelty without realising that while, item by item, technological innovations are harmless and useful, their combined effect may be the destruction of some of our most cherished values. All the components of George Orwell's 1984 are already here; they are only waiting for Big Brother to assemble them; and in many places this has already happened. Acquiescence in innovation is dangerous because it makes us uncritical and prepared to condone the most outrageous invasions of personal and cultural privacy.
Let us see what kind of things are happening. During the war I was Director

1063
of Plans of Political Warfare in Britain and knew a great deal about the ingenuity which went into our efforts to pry into enemy affairs and to influence the enemy's mind. Sometimes I was at the receiving end of the enemy's techniques. For instance, on missions abroad I was the object of persistent attention from enemy agents, and in that bazaar and mart of war-time intelligence, Lisbon, I found my hotel room "bugged ", as we would say to-day. It was a pretty clumsy affair; the microphone was concealed in a flowerpot, with wires connecting it to a listening post. I may say that I did not remove it; I just ensured that the eavesdropper would get the information I wanted him to get—and very misleading information it was.
To-day, with miniaturisation and solid circuits, things have gone very much further. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has mentioned the kind of things we are now capable of being overtaken by. With tiny match-head transistor transmitters, no wires, the eavesdropping set can be concealed in a cocktail olive (somebody asked me what happens when you swallow the olive) or stuck like chewing gum on the base of a telephone or fitted into the lamp socket of a bedside lamp, or could be as unobstrusive as the button in a car's upholstery. Stethoscope microphones can be stuck by suction on an hotel bedroom wall and pick up a conversation in an adjoining room. I can give your Lordships some good advice in these circumstances: turn up the radio as loud as possible, and then of course your noise will be invading other people's privacy. The other thing, which I mentioned in your Lordships' House recently in connection with the broadcasting debate, is the fact that we now have the means by which we can have receivers in our dentures, or in the stoppings of our natural teeth. Also by the same process you could have transmitters in your mouth.
During the war the famous Danish nuclear physicist, Nils Bohr, was helped to escape from Nazi-occupied Copenhagen. His instructions were conveyed to him in a microdot. This is no larger than a period on a printed page. It was a microphoto—which incidentally was concealed in a key—which could be
1064
enlarged to measurable proportions. We managed to get him out, through Sweden, in the bomb bay of a high-flying Mosquito aircraft, and he joined the Manhattan project which was converting his prodigious work on nuclear physics into the atom bomb. He was so horrified by the prospects of what he saw happening that he insisted that there ought to be international control before the bomb was exploded. Roosevelt was sympathetic, but said that Bohr should go to London and discuss it with Churchill. Bohr arrived in London, heavily burdened by the Allies' greatest secret. Only a handful of people knew about it, and he wondered whom he could consult. He wanted advice about how to go about seeing Churchill. His friend, Sir Henry Dale, the President of the Royal Society, was in the innermost secret. But where could they discuss? They found two metal chairs in the open expanse of Hyde Park where they could be safe from eavesdroppers.
But, my Lords, even the privacy of the wide open space which they were able to secure on those two metal chairs in the middle of Hyde Park cannot be ensured to-day. There are directional microphones like sound telescopes which, from concealment, can pick tip conversations at long range. This is the age of polaroid glass, one-way windows behind which people can sit unseen and watch what is happening in another room—the sophisticated version of the Judas Window. This is the age of the casual camera, photographing people without their knowledge, and of infra-red cameras, photographing in the dark. We have "Peeping Tom" long-range cameras, as the noble and learned Lord has mentioned, which can zoom in on our private lives, just as surveillance planes or observation satellites or U.2s spy on the military installations of other countries.
Lie detectors have become completely commonplace. We tend to think of them just as a useful way of catching out the guilty criminal. But whether we approve of their use by the police—and I, for one, would never accept them for evidence in a court of law—it is difficult to excuse them in human or industrial relationships in which they are now being extensively employed. They are being used in the interviewing of candidates for employment, and I have heard members of

1065
leading companies defend the practice; and of course, if you refuse to submit to the lie detector lie is a presumption that you have something to hide. This is a quite intolerable invasion of privacy because, a long way short of potential dishonesty or of doubtful loyalty to an employer or country, there are whole areas of one's private life, or thoughts, which obviously should never be of any concern to any employer. A perfectly innocent person can have proper hesitation or perplexities if he is being examined by the lie detector. Just a natural hesitation, "Why should he want to know that?", and that hesitation will show up on the polygram as a lie.
We have heard a lot about the "brain washing" of prisoners of war, but there arc similar techniques and subliminal persuasions by which the subconscious of the individual is invaded and his thoughts and his personality are influenced. These influences can be smuggled past the defences of his conscious intelligence. There are methods of which I am aware, including ultra sonic waves. These are inaudible to our conscious range of sound, just as the "silent" dog whistle is inaudible to man. At sonic frequencies just beyond the threshold of normal hearing an insidious and "silent" whisper can get through to the subconscious, like the signal of an unfamiliar radio station impinging on a neighbouring wavelength.
Similarly, subliminal visual messages can be concealed in films or television programmes. Such techniques are banned, in advertising codes, and so on. But anyone sufficiently ingenious, or some central authority seeking to indoctrinate, could certainly succeed in putting over subliminal visual messages. I have seen television commercials in the United States which I strongly suspected of employing subliminal techniques. With what insight I have, and the kind of thing that it could have been, I strongly suspect that they were. But unless one could investigate at the point of preparation it would be difficult to establish such an intrusion because, by definition. "subliminal" means that it is undetectable at the receiving end. One has only to consider the methods properly used in clinical psychiatry to know how these subliminal methods could be unscrupulously adapted to mass-influence; and, if I may say so to your Lordships,
1066
we certainly had such attention during the war.
There is another category of intruders, violators of the identity of the human individual. They are chemical. They are the psycho-chemicals or hallucinogens, the most notorious of which is of course LSD. But I am not here talking about the "hippies", dangerously and stupidly experimenting on themselves; and I am not going to elaborate on the use of hallucinogens in chemical and biological warfare—that is a big and urgent subject which we have at last got on to the agenda of the Disarmament Commission. I am talking about their plausible use by civil authorities or by unauthorised individuals. The hallucinogens are odourless, tasteless and colourless. They can produce a whole range of psychological reactions, from inability to concentrate to trance-like withdrawals. People exposed to them are quite unaware of their abnormal condition but are unable to follow the simplest instructions or to resist the most obvious suggestions. They are called in military circles "off the rocker" gases—a most charming description.
These agents can be dispensed covertly in the air or orally ingested by "spiking" a drink; and they are being promoted as possible agents for dealing with civil disorders, such as for use as police gases.
am not talking now about hallucinogens; I am talking about psycho-chemicals. They are urged as harmless, or as just pacifying! Do not believe it, my Lords. Any psychopathologist can tell you that people, through physiology or temperament, react differently to such agents. Many may suffer permanent mental and even genetic damage, so that their offspring can be afflicted. And as we know from the use of tear gas, the dispersal is indiscriminate, and innocent people are involved. That goes for many protestors, for example, in civil misbehaviour: the protestors are innocent of anything except protesting; but they can suffer. I hope, therefore, that whenever this issue arises, we shall adamantly reject such gases for police duty.
I am not now talking just about their use in civil disorders; I mean use by police as a means of extracting information or reducing someone to complacency. These hallucinogens can be used against us without our knowledge. I heard a distinguished expert recently in America

1067
seriously discussing a James Bond situation in which these gases could be introduced into the air-conditioning system at an international conference so that the delegates could be persuaded. I may say at some conferences I have attended I think perhaps they use it now.
But let us consider something which worries me a great deal. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has touched on this, but I want very much to emphasise it. I have some knowledge of secret dossiers, including my own, and I am intransigently opposed to them, because the person has no means of knowing or rebutting what is in them, in the case of the police "shadow" and the common informer putting on record information which can be definitely misleading. I remember that during the war I discovered in my secret dossier (I will not tell you how) information which had been obtained. It described how I had left a meeting of the Spanish Medical Aid at Trade Union Hall at 10.30 in the evening accompanied by a very beautiful actress who was fund raising, and the information went on: "He went to her apartment, No. so-and-so Guildford Street, and left at 2.30 in the morning." If my wife had been looking for evidence it might have been rather suggestive; but what that piece of information did not add was that I went with twelve other people. I was the suspect and the others were irrelevant. That is the kind of information which can get into this kind of dossier. Indeed, when I read my dossier during the war I thought, "What a sinister, exciting chap this fellow Calder must have been. I wish I had known him."
What worries me, in the technological age, with this new type of dossier, is the dossier writ large in the form of the "Master Memory", the know-all computer. It is all so plausible. Why should we not have a completely integrated system of information, a central registry with a complete dossier on every man, woman and child in the community, and with total recall of every childhood illness, every adolescent indiscretion and every instance of adult non-conformity—a record of every aspect of an individual's life?
There was great enthusiasm a few years ago in some very distinguished quarters
1068
and among British technical experts—indeed, it alarmed me—for an electronic registry, a national data computer. Incidentally, I would remind your Lordships that there was some reflection on this when we were discussing the Post Office Bill the other day. We must ensure that there are safeguards against this kind of national data computer taking us over as the master memory. The United States is considering a national data centre in which the records of twenty or more Government organisations will be amalgamated in one place. It is proposed that records be kept as files of every individual, "so that the information can be as detailed and as useful as possible". My Lords, I ask you, useful to whom?
Imagine what it would be like. In Britain we have a comprehensive National Health Service. One could have a complete health dossier, recording your childhood measles, your incipient tuberculosis at 16, the last filling and the last bridge which the dentist nstalled—and which, incidentally, was very useful for identifying you when they found your corpse—the prescription for your last spectacles, and the breakdown you had when you were jilted. Alongside would be your police record, including your fingerprints, which you gave innocently when you applied for a temporary security job and your motor licence endorsed, for driving up a one-way street yesterday afternoon. In the same comprehensive dossier would of course be the secret dossier which the security officers compiled when you applied for that security job, and when they had checked up on your neighbours and on the girl who jilted you. Included would be your picture, either passport or candid camera, the eavesdropped conversation you had with the friend who you did not know was politically suspect, your employment back records, including the time you had a row with the boss and walked out, your social and financial status, including the mortgage on your house, your bank account, your income tax returns, your clubs, your political affiliations, your educational history and so on.
Any one of those items might separately be quite innocent. As the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said, if you were rushed to a strange hospital, it would be eminently satisfactory if the

1069
doctors could get an instant talk-back of your medical history. Minor overdrafts seem to have figured quite considerably to-day. It might be evidence, not of indebtedness but of credit worthiness, but in other cases (leaving out personal sensitivity) the disclosure of an overdraft might be positively damaging. But taken out of context or in conjunction with dissimilate information, all the items that I am talking about could produce an utterly misleading and dangerously improper "Identikit". It would not resemble you. It would simply be the official version of who you are, what you arc, and what you have done.
I am convinced that, with the best will in the world, there can be no technical assurances that information will not fall into the wrong hands, even with coded telecommunications access—which, I have been assured by technologists, would make this information as secure as in a private box in a bank; only the people who had the key, the code, would be able to get access to it. This is all going to be brought together in a telecommunications system—it will be in the United States, and to some extent here. But there is no guarantee at all—and I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, were here, he would reinforce me in what I say—that the information will not fall into the wrong hands. How many wrong numbers and how many crossed lines have you had on your S.T.D. system lately? Imagine putting through a coded signal to the "Master Memory" to find out my birthday, which would be in the innocent "Who's Who" section, and by technical error hitting the jackpot and getting a total recall of all the indiscretions of Ritchie-Calder!
As you will gather, I am strongly against the "Master Memory", because I am jealous for the rights of privacy of the individual. You may know that the anxieties about technological threats to human rights were discussed at the Teheran Conference on Human Rights and that the United Nations and its Agencies and non-governmental organisations were called upon to examine the situation and suggest safeguards. The dangers that were raised were considered under four heads: one, electronic and other forms of intrusion on the right of privacy; two, implications of computer
1070
based technocracy for democratic Governments; three, protection of traditional cultures against the homogenising influence of a technological civilisation; four, new developments in medicine and biology and their impact on human rights.
I have referred in your Lordships' House on previous occasions to the threat of cultural colonialism, by which a technologically dominant Power could put a broadcasting satellite into orbit and dominate the culture of another country, including our own. I would remind you that a broadcasting satellite—unlike the present communications satellite—does not act just as a reflector of transmissions, from one ground station to be picked up by another ground station, but can beam programmes directly into the home. A broadcasting satellite will be a transmitter in the sky, in space, and it will be programmed directly into the home. I will not elaborate that point further now, but your Lordships will recognise its dangers to cultural privacy—the right of people to have a respect for their awn cultures. We must have a Convention to control the programme content of broadcasting satellites, and we must have it now, because when they get into position it will be too late.
The fourth item—the development in medicine and biology—might very properly, I suggest, provide a subject for a further serious debate in your Lordships' House. We have to consider the profound personality implications of artificial transplants, of personality-changing drugs, and gene manipulation, D.N.A. manipulation, and so forth. We are beginning to move now into a position in which men with no qualifications, except that they are in a position to do it, will be able to take us over and change us into other kinds of people. I am not going to elaborate that matter, beck use it is a very big subject.
In the past, men have conspired to deny others their human rights. To-day these rights are threatened not only by men but by impersonal forces. We are liable to fund ourselves bereft of rights by machines which are not evil or tyrannical in themselves but become so by our default or through unscrupulous men. To me, "human rights" means that every person has a right to his own identity, to

1071
his own personality and to his own cultural values. He is a being; he has a name; he has kinship. He is not just a cipher in a Gallup Poll; he is the person who goes to the booth and actually votes, as "John Smith".
I am more and more alarmed every day at the degree to which we are becoming ciphers. To me, who saw Belsen immediately after the liberation and who also went to Auschwitz, to all the other unspeakable horrors of those places was added the anonymity of imprisonment and death—anonymity, the complete disapearance of the individual; just a tattooed number on the skins of the victims. But to-day, in the same way—less horrifying, but just as reprehensible, in my opinion—we ourselves are liable to become statistics and, from the point of view of authorities, cease to be names and faces. In statistical anonymity we will have no names, no faces, no personalities. We shall just become the code numbers in a computer.
5.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I am inclined to think that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, was right in the impression that he received from his own dossier. At any rate, so far as his knowledge is concerned I think he is a sinister and exciting chap, and I apologise to the noble Lord for missing the first sentence or two of his speech. I assure him that it was inadvertent, because I never miss the beginning of a speech by the noble Lord, for I know from previous knowledge that it is bound to be up to his usual hair-raising standard—I speak figuratively, of course. I cannot—and there are very few who could, or should—venture to follow the noble Lord on his particular subject, for in our midst we have the expert of all experts on this matter. I would simply say that I hope that his speech will be given the greatest possible dissemination to the widest public, because he has described with the greatest possible authority and knowledge what is possibly the most terrifying danger of our times.
To come to the other subjects which have been mentioned in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, we are, I suppose, engaged in the third of a trilogy of debates on what might
1072
be described, more or less loosely, as "the quality of life". First, we had that of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, which dealt with threats to amenity; then last week we had the symposium of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, which dealt with the clash between material objectives and social wellbeing; and now comes the noble Lord, Lord Wade, to initiate what ought, to my way of thinking, to be the most useful and constructive debate of the three—that on threats to freedom. No doubt there are certain areas of overlap between the three, but I do not see that that in any way lessens the value of the service which the noble Lord has performed in introducing this debate.
We like to think, I suppose, that Tennyson was right in proclaiming that this, in his words,
…is the land that freemen till,
That sober-suited Freedom chose;
The land, where girt with friends or foes
A man may speak the thing he will;
A land of settled government,
A land of just and old renown,
Where Freedom slowly broadens down
From precedent to precedent."
Freedom slowly broadens down, indeed, until the Briton, thanks to the Welfare State among other things, enjoys more rights than any other man on earth, and as many material benefits as most. Free to say what he likes about the Government, free to be paid by his compatriots for not working, either for their benefit or even for his own, dwelling in a land flowing with milk and money, he may well be looked on by envious foreigners as one who lives the life of Reilly. He may be, but is he? Or have those foreigners noticed that, for all these rights, there is indeed a bill—to pay?
Three hundred years ago, or thereabouts, at the time of the Declaration of Rights, I suppose life in England was reasonably sane. True it was infinitely more uncomfortable, especially for the poor, but it was, on the whole, rational. The Party system, however controversial, and the social system, however inequitable, were at least comprehensible. They operated in ways that could, by and large, be understood. But now, by contrast, why, we live in a country and in a world that would probably seem to William and Mary to be both inhabited and governed by lunatics—not

1073
merely on the vast and obvious scale of confrontation between super-Powers, but on the more domestic levels as well. For now we have "The Economy", and a planned economy at that.
Our own economy, like any other, is based on many things, including, for example, the motor car. All the resources of our leading industry, backed by the power of the Board of Trade, are geared to the project of churning out more and more motor cars, and exporting most of them. More and more people are killed by them, and a vast treasure is poured into wider, safer and straighter roads—in theory, at any rate. Great acreages of land are lost to agriculture, the bulldozer supplants the plough; houses, villages, whole communities, wide swathes through cities, are destroyed, uprooted, razed and their inhabitants rehoused at the public charge, while England slowly turns into a land of nuts and bolts—particularly nuts.
An unofficial strike of dashboard varnishers in Coventry brings television cameras to Downing Street and Transport House, and sets the Stock Exchange quivering like a blancmange. And all on account of the twin gods, overseas trade and foreign competition, and the motor car their prophet. There is no escape, I quite see that, but I deny that the whole monstrous giddy-go-round makes any kind of sense outside its own lunatic terms. This is the point that we have reached in our progress towards what we are apt to refer to as "civilisation". Progress towards civilisation, I apprehend, is measured not by stages in, say, the evolution of the human spirit, but by the appearance in the shops of the ball-point pen, the tape recorder and the drip-dry shirt. We have come to cherish what G. K. Chesterton called,
"All the shapes in which that immense illusion called materialism can terrify the soul."
Perhaps it is largely our own fault. We started the Industrial Revolution and now we pay the dark satanic bills.
At a very early stage in this civilisation process we appreciated that the bill for progress would have to be paid partly in inroads into our individual freedoms. For whatever else civilisation may mean, it certainly means, by definition, the organisation of citizens living in a community, with all the give and take that that implies. But we also determined that curtailment of our liberties in the
1074
common interest should be imposed by mutual consent, and not from above; hence Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights. We took away authority from our Sovereigns, and entrusted it to Governments of our own appointing.
But, my Lords, observe the inevitable result. Sovereignty passed from Crown to people, as intended. There was nothing to prevent its passing eventually from Parliament to Government, from the Legislature to the Executive—and is this not precisely what has happened? Under a sane and rational system perhaps it would not matter. Government being responsible through Parliament to people, the people remain sovereign. But, as I have tried to hint, a sane and rational system is precisely the thing that we no longer have. Instead we have a situation in which England, the Mother of Parliaments—pace the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill—is bound to look with anxiety on the antics of her eldest child. For the tyranny of kings is in a fair way to being superseded by the tyranny of Governments. The process is not yet complete, but if we take no steps to halt it, it may well become complete. Already it has gone so far that in Scotland and Wales, and even in parts of England, there are to be heard the rumblings of revolt.
May I draw your Lordships' attention to one of the current and all too familiar symptoms of this danger? The operations of the Land Commission—perfectly legal operations—have produced effects which the Government themselves have admitted to be unjust, with the result that amendments have been made to prevent such injustices in the future. But these amendments are not to be retrospective. Injustices already committed are not to be rectified. Why not? Because their rectification is administratively difficult. When a Government admit that they have caused injustice and financial hardship to certain citizens, but refuse to set the matter right because it would be inconvenient to themselves, how brightly, then, does the red light begin to glow? Does not the glow become a glare when the Chairman of the Land Commission himself says that the administrative difficulty is not insuperable, and that the £150 million involved could in fact be paid back immediately if the Government gave the word?

1075
This, I think, is the arrogance of tyranny within the law, and therefore something that no Parliamentary Commissioner can touch—and I wonder whether this might be germane to a consideration of the first of the areas of which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke: the question of whether the Parliamentary Commissioner can in fact act, or should be enabled to act, within the actual framework of the law; that is to say, against legal injustice rather than against misapplications of legislation. This tyranny, as I have been pleased to call it, is one of the causes of the great malaise that was described by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, in the debate on his Motion last week. It recalls to my mind what was surely one of the outstanding features of that debate. I refer to the memorable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who said, among other things, this:
"Anyone who seriously suggests that the Labour Government is the cause of this malaise is lust being false to himself. Anyone who makes out that the cure is simply to turn to a Conservative Government is playing a Party game that is not relevant to our time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11/6/69, col. 656.]
I agree on all counts, and I dare say that the noble Lord will not object to my quoting his words in a context very slightly different from his own. I have quoted a particular case, that of the Land Commission and the betterment levy, because it is topical; just as at another time I might have quoted your Lordships a "Crichel Down". Rights and freedoms are in danger, my Lords, simply because the Parliament that was once the watchdog of the people's liberties against the Crown has taken those liberties ever more and more completely into its own hands, only to allow them to slip out of those hands into the shadowy keeping of Governments. And who, as Juvenal so pithily inquired, is going to keep an eye on the keeper?
I confess that I am alarmed. To quote Chesterton again:
"I tell you naught for your comfort,
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher."
I do not mean by that that I fear the increasing tyranny of the Labour Government—for which, in any case, it seems possible that the sand is sinking in the
1076
glass. What I fear is the collapse—I might also say the death—of the Labour Party as we know it. I am not referring to the likelihood of its defeat at the polls at the hands of the electorate, though even that is something that I confess to contemplating with mixed emotions. Naturally, sitting where I do, I wish to see the Labour Party restored to its time-honoured place, in Opposition. But I want it to be, as I think anybody should, an effective Opposition, for I certainly do not wish to see one-Party government by any Party. That would be bad enough; but when I say "death". I mean death, not collapse.
The end of the Labour Party as we have known it hitherto—I shall not receive universal approval for this remark—is probably inevitable some day in any case, for in the respect that it was formed for a purpose, in that respect it cannot hope to continue, or at any rate not to continue indefinitely, once its purpose is achieved. The demise of the symbolic cloth cap of the worker implies the advent of the equally symbolic bowler hat for the politician who strove for that demise. What we are witnessing now—and by "now". I may say, I mean this afternoon—is not simply a clash between Labour and the unions, I believe: it is the inherently inevitable split between the Labour Movement, on the one hand, and theoretical socialism on the other; and I do not see that both can survive and continue hand in hand.
On the Benches opposite there sit some whom I like to think of as my friends and who I believe will be ready to acquit me of a charge of Party-politicking when I talk like this, for they will already know that I do not want to see this happen. I know perfectly well that the break-up of the Labour Party would be a calamity for Britain. For, quite apart from the prospect of a long period of ineffectual Opposition, what should ge get in its place? A Party of the extreme Left, perhaps, dedicated to all the unreasoning and outmoded dogmas that the sacred Clause 4 could be made to spawn? That is a possibility real enough and dangerous enough, I suspect, to strike terror into the hearts of most of the Party itself. If that should happen, I believe that the freedom of the subject would indeed be in danger, if not doomed.

1077
Whether the danger to individual rights comes from the Right or from the Left, or bubbles up like a volcano under our feet in the Centre, I think that the danger is real and that something ought to be done before it gets worse. But what? The noble Lord, Lord Wade, spoke of the possibility of a Bill of Rights. I had doubted whether such a thing was in fact feasible, and my doubts were strengthened somewhat, not to say considerably, by the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I refer to the noble and learned Lord's eighteen-minute speech on the subject of the Motion, not to his preliminary sixteen-minute speech as public relations officer for the Labour Party. I appreciate that to attempt to safeguard rights in statutory terms would be to set up numerous conflicts with the existing laws. Such a measure is probably, therefore, not what is required.
What is required, I submit, is some kind of a watchdog body not within nor answerable to the Legislature, that will examine the justice of acts of Government, particularly those performed under delegated powers by Ministers of the Crown. Examine, I repeat, the justice of such acts. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, does not agree with this. He thinks, if I understand him correctly, that this would limit the sovereignty of Parliament. That may be an objection; I am not at all sure. I use the word "watchdog" for a particular reason, for a watchdog, if it is of any use at all, is self-actuating. You do not have to tell it when to bark or when to bite the burglar: it operates on its own good judgment.
Where would such a body be and what would be its powers? It would be within the Judiciary, and would function on the principle that what is legal is not necessarily just. If that be accepted as a constitutional principle, then the function of this court—for it would be a court—would be to say to Government, "What you propose is unconstitutional, and will not be done". Not, I suggest, "should not be done", but "will not be done"—that is to say, an absolute veto.
There is nothing startlingly novel in the idea. Most other civilised countries have accepted it. The Supreme Court in the United States, for example, is a reasonably accurate case in point. Some such arrangement here has become, I
1078
believe, imperative, and for a reason that I cannot state better than in some recent words of my right honourable friend Mr. Quintin Hogg. I quote:
"For consider. Parliament has become virtually an elective dictatorship. Its constitutional legislative powers are admittedly unlimited. Its legislation cannot be questioned in any court. Originally conceived as a brake on the Executive, these powers are now controlled by the Executive in the shape of a monolithic Cabinet."
It is not within my powers or province to know how such matters should best be attended to, but I am pretty sure that something of the sort could be done. I believe that it should be done. For that great freedom, the freedom to receive justice as of right, is in peril. Let that at least be safeguarded, for on other fronts enemies of freedom and of human rights are closing in. And I am bound to say that I think that they are more likely to close in under Governments of the Left than of the Right.
A political philosophy that not only believes in public ownership, which is surely acceptable, but also that failures in public ownership are best cured by more public ownership, is potentially dangerous. Rulers who believe that when controls make the situation worse, instead of better, the remedy is stricter and more deadening control are dangerous. For the end is more government, while one of the evils under which we labour is that there is already too much government. The end is more and more powerful public corporations, operating less and less efficiently as competition against them is diminished; it is more bureaucrats, more ministerial patronage, more Orders in Council; more faceless men shielded by, if not hiding behind the myth of ministerial responsibility; more enforcement, more inspectors, more information-collecting services, more planning, less freedom; and much, much less privacy.
5.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for initiating this debate and for his generous references to my late father and to myself. I support a clearer definition of several of the rights of the citizens but not the suggestion that these rights should be listed or included in a single Bill, a Bill of Rights. The name, "Bill of Rights" is taken, I assume, from the

1079
original Bill of Rights of 1689. That was a political measure. It established the rights of the Protestants and limited the rights of the Catholics; it is no precedent for the problems of to-day.
I am opposed to a single Bill for three reasons additional to those suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. First, many rights are already defined in existing Statutes and common law precedents and it is unnecessary to repeal them and to transfer them to a single Bill. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out how complex are some of these rights, how difficult it is to draw the line between liberty and licence. Secondly, the elaborate drafting required means that each is almost enough for a single Bill. Thirdly, I believe that these rights should be dealt with as each comes up.
This gives much greater flexibility and is in line with the British pragmatic approach to problems. There is no written Constitution. Many countries which have one have included a definition of rights in their Constitution. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, mentioned Israel. Israel follows the British practice and has not embarked on a written Constitution. Nor has it gone in for the definition of what are the rights of the citizens, because it was felt that it would take up much too much time. In Britain there is the same attitude, the piecemeal approach. I agree that certain rights need greater definition, some as the result of technological advance—which is included in Lord Wade's Motion.
I should like to make a point which I do not think has been made in this debate until now; that is, that there are two distinct classes of rights. One is the right of the individual against other individuals; the other is the right of all individuals against the Government, in the broadest sense of the term. In the second category I would include wire tapping, in all its forms, which could be Governmental for State security; but there are strict internal limitations. I do not know that a case has been made out for strengthening the limitations, but there is also a problem of individual rights against other individuals—for example, private detectives—which I think need greater definition. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, in what I may say
1080
was a most powerful speech, mentioned all the different types of electronic devices, the "bugged" room, the espionage from a distance. I think that all these forms need definition, stricter control and even outlawry.
Then we come to industrial espionage. Many firms have industrial secrets that cannot be patented. Their rivals are eager to get them. There are three distinct ways of doing so. The first is the stealing of industrial secrets by employees who offer them for sale to rival firms; the second is the luring away of employees of one firm by another firm and their telling what they know of secret processes in their former employment; and the third is the introduction of spies into a firm in order to report. All these involve questions that must be considered: firms to-day need far greater protection than they now have. I would also mention credit rating. What are the rights of an individual whose bank manager tells, in confidence, to some inquirer what his credit rating is? And what of the special credit-rating bureaux that will supply information?
There is a general fear that information that is collected for one purpose may be used for another. In certain respects, the Government have taken definite measures against the misuse of information collected by the Government themselves. For example, census information cannot be used for other purposes, and income tax information is confidential. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, mentioned as a principle. But it does not apply to private information. Many noble Lords who have spoken to-day have expressed their fear of the computer. It is no longer, "Big Brother is watching you"; it is "Big Computer is watching you". I believe that a case has been made out for a much clearer definition of the protections that should be applied against the invasion of privacy.
Then we come to protection against Press, radio and television reporting. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned, as did the noble Earl, Lord Arran, the intrusion on private life. Some people seek publicity but most shun it. Nevertheless, if something scandalous is done it should be reported, and, in my opinion, it is better that there should be too much reporting than too little. But

1081
let us take, for example, the victim of a misfortune. Let us take the widow of some public figure who is killed in an accident. She can be hounded by reporters and cameras. This gives rise to great public as well as private resentment. The Press, of course, exercises considerable tact, but competition does cause lapses by eager reporters. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, referred to the Press Council, which I think has done admirable work. I suggest that the position at the moment is satisfactory and that this is not a subject suitable for legislation as it is impossible to draw hard and fast lines.
Similarly with freedom of thought. Actually "freedom of thought" is a misnomer for freedom of expression. One may think what one likes; there is no machine yet that can read one's thoughts. The Japanese had a law against "dangerous thoughts"—actually they meant against the expression of dangerous thoughts—and it was a machinery for the repression by the Government of thoughts considered dangerous from their point of view. On the whole, freedom from censorship has been gained, but the protection of the expression of opinion by one individual against others is very difficult.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, mentioned, as did the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, John Macdonald's draft Bill. In Clause 4, on the freedom of speech and opinion, Macdonald says:
"Every person is entitled to express his opinion on any thing or matter"—
et cetera
"subject only to the right of any person aggrieved thereby to seek relief at law for injury to reputation."
As a principle, this is very fine, but what about obscenity? What about blasphemy against the Diety? God cannot seek relief in law for an injury to His reputation. People think that we are now in for a completely permissive society or, to use an Americanism, a society where "anything goes". But I submit that this would cause great offence to millions of God-fearing people. No, my Lords, I think that the drafters must think again and realise that it is impossible to provide simple solutions.
The second category I mentioned, the right of the individual against the Gov-
1082
ernment, has concerned many noble Lords this afternoon. Again we should be in difficulty if we tried to draft principles. When he presented a Bill in another place, Lord Lambton included this clause:
"There is no right to enter any premises or properties without a warrant."
That, again, is an excellent principle. An Englishman's home is his castle. But what about hot pursuit by the police? An escaping bandit dashes into a warehouse and the police in a patrol car who are coming after him pull up outside. The policeman says, "Hold on a minute, chum; I must go and get a warrant." Or suppose there is a 999 call, and a woman shrieks, "Help, help, somebody is trying to kill me!" The reply would be, "All right; we will apply for a warrant." Suppose a tire brigade is called to a fire, and a fireman batters down your door. Would you sue the brigade for illegal entry? I am not surprised that the Bill was refused a Second Reading.
My Lords, there are several other respects in which individuals need greater protection against the Government for example, the right of appeal in cases of refusal of citizenship, refusal of a passport or refusal of entry into Britain. These are all administrative decisions and I think it quite wrong that there should be no formal right of appeal to an independent tribunal. It is not enough to have a right of appeal to the Minister. For five years I was a deputy chief immigration officer in a Colonial Government—in Palestine—and I had constantly to review the decisions of immigration officers who were on duty at the ports, airports and land frontiers. Very often they were junior officers, tired, and with a rather dyspeptic view of life. Being exposed to so much trickery they had their doubts, and people were detained and returned to where they came by the next plane, boat or train. I think that everybody who is stopped by executive decision, or refused something which he thinks he has the right to obtain, should be told of his right of appeal and given legal counsel, and his own interpreter, because in a great many cases a language difficulty is involved as well.
I also suggest that there should be an absolute principle that where there is

1083
secret information by security personnel—by the police, or immigration officers, or M.I.5—which might justify somebody's being refused a passport, or refused admission to this country, the information should be submitted to the tribunal. The idea that a counter-espionage officer can say, "We have strong reasons to protest against this permission being given", is not enough. The tribunal would be just as loyal as the intelligence officer and could be trusted with information which would be imparted in confidence. It would then be for the tribunal to make up their mind whether the information was sufficient to support a refusal.
The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, raised the question of a special division of the courts to deal with all questions of administrative law. I support this idea, but I would not suggest anything as complex as the French system, the Conseil d' État, with its own hierarchy. There is now a precedent in New Zealand where the initiative has been taken for an administrative law division of the Judiciary—one more example of pace-setting in the Commonwealth. New Zealand was, after all, the first Commonwealth country to introduce the Parliamentary Commissioner. I think this needs further investigation here. The suggestion of a Royal Commission would seem to me the best method of approach, and I warmly endorse it.
As was said by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Ombudsman, has proved to be a very valuable safeguard against maladministration, and I agree that the present limits are too narrow. As the noble and learned Lord said, they exclude the hospital service, nationalised industries, the police and local government. I think it was wise to start on a small scale and expand, for fear that the Parliamentary Commissioner might be swamped. There is only one field about which I am doubtful, and that is local government. After all, local authorities are not responsible to Parliament. They have their own elected councils, and I would suggest that the solution would be to have a commissioner for each local authority who would be responsible to that authority. One has been introduced in the city of Jerusalem in which I spend most of my year.
1084
Jerusalem has its own Ombudsman, and there have been very effective results. I suggest that that is the right line of advance, rather than giving the Parliamentary Commissioner authority in local government matters in Britain.
But what is the use of rights, my Lords, if people do not know about them? I strongly advocate a greater extension of the citizens' advice bureaux. They were invaluable during the nightmare of World War II, and the jungle of laws and regulations is still a nightmare for many citizens to-day. I think that citizens' advice bureaux should be made compulsory in all local authority areas and their existence should be widely advertised. But even if the citizen knows his rights, what is the good if he cannot fight the Government for the recognition of his rights? Here again, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, a considerable extension and strengthening of legal aid is needed. There is a request for nearly £1 million sterling to pay for this extension in legal aid. The fields in which approval has been given by the Treasury form an exceedingly small fraction of the £1 million. If the Government is really interested in the protection of the rights of the citizens in their perpetual struggle against itself, I would suggest that it should see that the rest of the £1 million is voted without delay. I regard that as just as important as trying to define rights and much more important than trying to draft a single Bill of Rights.
5.41 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, we are reaching the end of a far-reaching and interesting debate, for which we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Wade. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I pick up one or two points made in the debate before going on to the single main point that I wish to make.
First of all, I should like to say how much we on these Benches, like, I am sure, a great many other noble Lords, welcome the hint that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack gave about the possibility of an extension of the law. Of course we are disappointed that he could not be more firm and definite, but we understand, and certainly hope, that there will be progress on this, particularly with regard to the Ombudsman and the

1085
law of privacy. I thought that in his firm rebuttal, and deserved rebuttal, of the Conservative claim to have a monopoly of liberty, the noble and learned Lord was a little unfair about the part taken by a large number of Conservatives in such bodies as the National Council for Civil Liberties. Speaking as one who takes a strong interest in this work, I am always impressed by the tremendous energy of such people as Dame Joan Vickers and the support and sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech.
This particular side of civil liberty, dealing more with rights against the law than with economic rights, is one on which all Parties can get together and can take a strong non-Party line. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord about this blind spot that the Conservative Party appears to have on the subject of economic liberty. Economic liberty is just as important as other kinds of liberty. Liberty is freedom to choose between courses of action, and we can be as crippled in our ability to choose by our economic position, by lack of money or lack of education, as by any laws and regulations put over by Government. On the other hand, I think that the Labour Party is not always alive to the danger of Governmental and bureaucratic control, and if I say that one of the great virtues of the Liberal Party is that it tries to bring these two into balance, it is not because I am a member of the Liberal Party but because one of the reasons which led me to join the Party was that I believe this balance to be important.
I thought that my noble friend Lord Arran, in talking about the liberty of the Press, was quite right when he implied in his speech that the case he was making had already been accepted. I think that this is shown by the fact that, in spite of their being slightly provocative, there was no growl from any noble Lords at the remarks my noble friend made. I think we appreciate very much the improvements that have happened in the Press over the last few years. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said in her speech. It appears to me, if we look at the whole realm of human rights in England to-day and project ourselves 20 or 30 years ahead, that if there is one respect in which we have been seen to have been
1086
prejudiced, powerless, inhuman and thoroughly wasteful, it is in our attitude to women's rights, not necessarily but to a great extent before the law, and certainly in public opinion.
I have been disappointed by the altitude of so many speakers towards the whole idea of a Bill of Rights. Certainly I would take issue with the implications of the remarks of the noble Bareness, Lady Gaitskell, who said (I hope I have it right) that a Bill of Rights is no substitute for the spirit of liberty. I entirely agree with her, of course, as I imagine do most noble Lords, but that is no reason why we should not have strong reinforcing and declaratory legislation as well. Surely this argument against a Bill of Rights is exactly what noble Lords on the Conservative Benches urge against the Race Relations Bill: that it is no substitute for the spirit of fairness; it is enough to have that spirit. We have to reinforce this spirit by legislation. I should have thought that in the field of human rights this is what we want to do.
But I have been more disappointed—and here I come to my main point—that this debate has not thrown up more examination of the whole principle of entrenched legislation and the power of the Government and of a more or less single Chamber of Parliament. Until we had the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, who certainly went into this, and of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who did so to a lesser degree, it did not appear to me that we were in touch with this extremely important point. Because democracy is not just about the imposition of the will of the people. It is surely, at least our form of democracy, about the protection of minorities from the majority, and it is here that there is some danger of to-day.
Rousseau said:
"The people of England are free at a General Election and then they enslave themselves."
Strong words, my Lords, but even Rousseau was speaking before the prerogative of the Crown had completely disappeared and before the powers of your Lordships' House had been reduced to a very minimum. I am glad, on the whole, that these things have happened; but that does not mean we should be complacent about the power that we have

1087
put in a single place. I have been particularly perturbed at the treatment of the Bill for the reform of your Lordships' House, because it seems to me that on all matters of constitutional reform, particularly dealing with Parliament, it is not very sensible to put all the power in the hands of the most interested parties themselves. This is something of which we ought to be aware.
I think that we must devote more time and more trouble to an examination of where the power in a democracy should lie. I believe that we too easily accept that nothing must stand between what another place decides and action. In my view, there must be balances and counterbalances. We do not have them in our unwritten Constitution—we hardly have them at all. It may be that we shall never get them. It is very nice to be able to trust to the good sense of the legislators and of the people of this country. Liberals are often accused of being starry-eyed and idealistic. We are also fairly cynical about power, and have been over a long period of time. The people who say that "It cannot happen now", and that "It cannot happen here", are the people who, in the end, are asking for trouble. We have only once heard the cliché, so perhaps I may repeat it; that "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance". And eternal vigilance can be helped, I think, by strong, declaratory and, if necessary, entrenched legislation of a kind which will have a check on a single all-powerful senate.
I have not had time to go into this matter deeply this evening. I merely wish that your Lordships had tackled this subject at this particular point a little more, because I should have liked to listen to your Lordships' wisdom on what seems to me so much the very central point as to whether a Bill of Rights is or is not the right solution. I, for my part, confess that I still think that it is.
5.51 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two in this debate. I did not put my name on the list, because I had to be away for a substantial part of the afternoon and although I heard the earlier speeches I did not know whether I should be back in time to add
1088
a comment or two at the end. I will make my remarks quite short. I think there is a great deal to be said for the belief that from the point of view of civil liberties a Bill of Rights can be valuable. I have always taken a great interest in the American Constitution, and recently I was in the United States, where, partly through the original Constitution, and partly through the Amendments which were later made to it, they have what constitutes a Bill of Rights. There can be no question that to the American citizen this has been a sheet anchor of liberty time after time. As demonstrated by the Supreme Court in the United States, there can be no questioning the real importance which the Bill of Rights has had in that great country.
To take one instance, to me, who has not been in the United States for some 20 years, the problem of racial discrimination—which is obviously infinitely more difficult there, and which certainly has not been solved there any more than it has yet been solved here—has improved almost out of knowledge during that time. I went back with the experiences of the late 'forties in mind and found the situation radically changed. I should think that to a large extent this has been due not only to actual decisions of the Supreme Court in the United States—decisions given on the American Bill of Rights, and on the American Constitution and the Amendments thereto—but also to the effect that that liberalising influence of the Supreme Court over the last 20 years or so has had on public opinion in America, which is a most important factor in this matter. I should therefore like to support Lord Wade's suggestion that we should seriously consider putting a Bill of Rights on to our own Statute Book. Although it could not become a fundamental law, in the way that it is in the United States, I think that with a guiding legislative code of that kind to help them, it would not only assist our courts, but liberalise public opinion.
That brings me to the other point that I should like to mention (if it has been mentioned earlier, I apologise), and that is the light which the recent case of Sweet v. Parsley, which came before your Lordships' House not long ago, throws on a wide aspect of the English criminal law. From the later years of the last

1089
century, as I am sure your Lordships are all well aware, we introduced a method of establishing criminal offences without any guilty mind on the part of the criminal. Obviously, to a large extent, that type of legislation is very necessary. Unfortunately, the case of Sweet v. Parsley is by no means a unique case. Dozens of other cases of the same kind—although perhaps not so extreme—could be adduced by any person who is familiar with our criminal law. Dozens of other cases show how, as the result of failure on the part of ourselves and those in another place to appreciate what we were doing, we have made all sorts of actions, or lack of actions, criminal in cases where obviously there was not only no guilty mind, but no sort of negligence on the part of the person concerned.
Miss Sweet, as your Lordships will remember, let her cottage in the country to some people who made a wrongful use of drugs—cannabis. She let the house in the ordinary way, and had absolutely no idea of what was going on. Yet because of the way in which the legislative enactment was drafted, she was brought before the magistrates and convicted: and your Lordships' House, the supreme tribunal, eventually ruled that that was wrong. But if it had not been for Miss Sweet's pertinacity and the way she pushed her case, the decision in favour of a conviction would have been a governing authority. There are many other governing authorities of the same kind.
This is a serious matter. Continually in my own experience as a practising lawyer, particularly as a magistrate and at quarter sessions, I have come across this sort of thing. I think it is time that some procedure was initiated in Parliament by which our attention is drawn, as these Bills and Orders in Council go through, to the question of whether something is made an absolute offence without a guilty mind being brought into the matter. We should give proper attention to whether this is the right sort of case to establish this extreme form of criminal responsibility.
I think it would be valuable if this matter could he looked at more in detail, so that if a Bill, an Order in Council, or
1090
any other legislative enactment (and of course they always go through this House in one way or another) contains a clause creating a criminal offence without any criminal responsibility, in the ordinary sense of the expression, on the person who is made guilty by the Bill or Order in Council, that fact should be brought to our attention. We should then give careful consideration to whether this is not a serious infringement of the general liberty of the subject; and if we feel that it is not a proper case for this, we should take the necesary steps to stop it. Those are two points that I think are of some importance, and I appreciate your Lordships' allowing me to intervene in this rather irregular way.
5.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may have leave to speak again I shall not detain your Lordship; for long, because I really said what I wanted to say when I addressed your Lordships before. I do not think I disagree with anything that my noble friend Lady Gaitskell said. My noble friend Lady Summerskill raised the question of equal pay; I rather thought that she might. I think that successive Governments have a bad record on equal pay. It has been said for a long time that we are in favour of it, and it is about time that we carried it out. But I do not think my noble friend is right in saying that we simply ignore it. I was interested to see recently a report of an inter-departmental working Party on the national minimum wage. In paragraph 184 they say:
"The Government are fully committed to the application of the principle of equal pay, and since 1966 have been examining jointly with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. the problems involved in this application. On 26th June 1968 the First Secretary announced that she would he having discussions with both sides of industry with a view to agreeing a timetable for the phased introduction of equal pay over an appropriate period. As a preliminary to further discussions, the tripartite inquiry is at present being conducted by the D.E.P., C.B.I., and T.U.C. into the likely cost of equal pay in different parts of industry. Meanwhile the Government have made it clear that the phasing of a programme for the introduction of equal pay will have to take account of general economic circumstances".
We are pursuing it; we are not being idle about it. I see that this Committee came to the conclusion—and I am not really qualified to say whether the figures

1091
are right or not—that the application of a common minimum of 7s. 6d. an hour to both men and women, with a 50 per cent. premium for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, assuming this was generally applied in industry and that juveniles would receive pro rata increases, would cost an extra £3,800 million a year. That is obviously the reason why this can only be done over a period of years. As the noble Baroness will see, we have committees working on it, and they cannot work too fast so far as I am concerned.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, referred to the Press, and I entirely agree with what he said. I agree there has been a very noticeable improvement in this field in the past fifteen years. He is probably right in suggesting that it is partly due to the Press Council, and partly due to public opinion. Whether the individual ought not to have some legal right may, nevertheless, be open to question. In the case I took, at the moment the private citizen can do nothing, because if it is true it is a complete answer to any action of defamation, so there can be no action of libel. That is not so with criminal libel. Prosecutions for criminal libel are extremely rare. It is perhaps questionable whether the individual ought not to have a legal right of protection from publication of matter which is not really, or ought not to be, of public concern. I appreciate that the line to be drawn is a very difficult one. That is the difficulty.
I noticed that when criticism was made of the newspaper which insisted on publishing the name of the donor, contrary to the request of the doctors, and which led to the doctors saying that this caused a stoppage of donors and so people died, the newspaper at once said that the public had a right to know. That is the question: do the public have a right to know anything and everything which a newspaper may dig out? I was fascinated by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, with his extraordinary knowledge of modern inventions. He made me feel we ought to have had a law of privacy a very long time ago.
We had, if I may say so a very good speech from the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and I would agree with him that there can be such a thing as tyranny
1092
within the law. I sometimes feel that when all legal remedies have been exhausted we ought to have a Court of Last Resort, particularly in criminal cases, which, ignoring matters of law, could look at the thing as disinterested, distinguished citizens might do. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that it is really much better to deal with each subject as it comes up, rather than trying to deal with everything in one vast Bill of Rights. The Macdonald Bill is an example of the actual difficulties of a Bill of Rights. I agree with him that the question of nondisclosure of information is obviously an important one, and that there is more need with local authorities in some sense, so far as the Parliamentary Commissioner is concerned, than in any other field. I would apprehend with him, that one must have a separate person, or separate people, since the Parliamentary Commissioner works because he can report to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, who can take action in relation to both Ministers and civil servants, whereas Parliament has no direct control over local authorities.
I listened with great attention to what both the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Chorley, said about a Bill of Rights. I will promise not to close my mind about a Bill of Rights, but I can only say that I am waiting to see one that would be practicable. All those that I have seen so far either state not very accurately the law as it is now, or are so general and so woolly that it would be absolutely impossible for anybody to know how they could be applied. I am aware of the fairly recent example of the Bill of Rights in Canada; but although that was introduced some years ago, I have not heard that it has had any real, practical effect on any cases which the court has decided. The court, I gather, when it was sought to apply it to some previous Act, said, "Well, they did not repeal the previous Act when they introduced the Bill of Rights, so they cannot have meant it to have any effect on the previous Act". Something of the same sort might happen here.
May I say that I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Chorley for his suggestion about Sweet v. Parsley. I do not think this has strictly to do with a Bill of Rights, but it is more a law reform point. It is quite true to say that in

1093
the old days a criminal offence was something which everybody knew was morally wrong, because criminal offences were limited to that kind of thing. So it was always the law that you could not commit a criminal offence, unless you had a guilty mind. Gradually, as we created absolute offences, and said, "If a man does this it does not matter whether he has a guilty mind or not, he is to be guilty", very often we in the Courts asked ourselves, "In this particular case, as the Act does not say, did Parliament intend this to be an absolute offence, or did it intend, as in the old days, that there must be a guilty mind?" Lawyers are not allowed, in arguing the point, to refer to Hansard, but I have frequently looked at Hansard in such a case, and the answer is that Parliament never intended anything at all, because the point was never raised and never discussed.
It seems to me that there is a good deal to be said for the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Chorley, that it ought to be somebody's business to raise the point. I think I am right in saying that in the Bill of Rights proposed by Lord Lambton this year there was a clause which did not appeal very much to my right honourable friend the Attorney General, that the Attorney General should have to look at every Act and every piece of subordinate legislation to satisfy himself that it complied with the Bill of Rights. There is no reason why on this rather limited point the noble Lord's suggestion should not be adopted. It is primarily a matter for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I will certainly convey that suggestion to him.
My Lords, we have all had a most interesting afternoon, for which we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wade. May I thank him again for having introduced the Motion.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him to repeat the figure which has caused some confusion? Was it £300 million additional cost a year, or £3,000 million?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, £3,800 million. That is on a footing of 7s. 6d. an hour for both men
1094
and women, with a 50 per cent. premium for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Assuming extended repercussions throughout the entire wage and salary structure, it might cost an extra £3,800 million a year. Those figures assume that juveniles would receive pro rata increases.
6.11 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in this extremely interesting debate. I certainly do not wish to spoil a good debate by commenting at length on the speeches we have heard. May I therefore be forgiven if I make only a few brief remarks? I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for his speech and also for filling a gap in mine by his historical review. I am not quite sure whether he is in favour of entrenchment or not. I think not. I understood him to say that he did not think that one Parliament should take away the powers of a future Parliament.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I meant the opposite, whatever I said. What I said was that a Bill of Rights could not stop one Parliament from altering what a previous Parliament had done, sc long as whatever it did was not against the Bill of Rights. Therefore, there should be entrenched clauses in the Bill of Rights.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I think I understand that. But my own view coincides with what is stated on page 14 of Mr. Macdonald's Report. I think it is an excellent Report. A great deal of work must have been put in to it, and the fact that it has aroused so much interest is evidence of this. Of course I did not expect the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to rise and say that he accepted the whole of it straight away, first go. Things do not work out quite like that. But he has certainly dealt with the subject very sympathetically.
May I make these few comments? So far as the Ombudsman is concerned, I hope that his powers will be extended. I might perhaps mention that I introduced a Private Member's Bill on this subject, which unfortunately was defeated. So far as the Report of the Law Commission is concerned, I have been unable

1095
to obtain the Command Paper and have had to rely on Press reports. But I hope that something will be done about that. It seems to indicate that all is not quite well so far as administrative acts are concerned. I would join with my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what he has said. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, in that a Bill of Rights will not suffice by itself; it depends on what is made of it. Nevertheless, perhaps some of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Beaumont were fair.
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, for her support, particularly on Clause 2; I was greatly encouraged by it. As to the speech of my noble friend Lord Arran, we did not attack the Press. I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that there has been improvement. In any case, the noble Earl is a worthy champion of the cause of the Press. But, of course, intrusion into private lives does not apply only to the Press; it goes wider than that. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, speaks with such great expert knowledge that I found his speech fascinating and at the same time disturbing. I do not think the problem to which he referred will be completely solved by legislation at a national level, but that does not absolve us from attempting to try to deal with it, and I urge that we tackle it before it is too late.
I think that one purpose of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, was to point out that Parliament is not sufficiently a watchdog. With that view I agree. On his constitutional proposals, I will read in Hansard what he said. I am not entirely sure that I agree with him so far as entrenchment is concerned. I was greatly interested in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. There is of course a difference between the Bill we are now considering and the original Bill of Rights. However, if the principles are brought together in one Bill it does not follow that the interpretation by the courts would not continue. It is not quite the same thing as a rigid Constitution. I certainly welcome his constructive suggestions.
1096
My noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley made an extremely able speech and made it almost unnecessary for me to reply to this debate. I welcome his point about the protection of minorities. However, on hearing his remarks I felt that we ought to start the debate all over again on this subject of entrenchment, because there are two points: first, should we have a Bill of Rights; secondly, should we have entrenched clauses? But I assure your Lordships that I am not going to start the debate all over again. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and I thank him for his support. I was very happy about the decision in Sweet v. Parsley, but it raises some interesting points of law which perhaps go, as the Lord Chancellor said, a little beyond the terms of this debate. In again thanking everyone who has taken part in the debate, may I, as is customary, ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TANZANIA BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  CHROMIUM ORE IMPORTS
  CHROMIUM ORE IMPORTS